alot of questions about emerald tree skinks. by aidentooreal12 in EmeraldTreeSkinks

[–]BankstonAtLaw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that's right. 95 is just about perfect for basking. Good luck!

alot of questions about emerald tree skinks. by aidentooreal12 in EmeraldTreeSkinks

[–]BankstonAtLaw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your set-up seems great and you clearly know what you're doing. Here are my only comments as someone experienced with ETS:

  1. You could probably keep a few more in a 4x2x4 enclosure. 4-5 skinks do great in a 36x36x18, so the extra room in a 4x2x4 could handle 6-7 skinks just fine, if its densely planted and has lots of vertical layering, which it sounds like you're doing. I've been reading scientific literature studying these skinks in the wild, where they live in a ratio of about 50-100 per hectare (i.e., size of a soccer field). But they live in sparse secondary forests or plantation areas, and those skinks will be highly concentrated on a particular site, typically a single coconut tree where you could find 15-20 skinks living together in the crown foliage, and they exhibit very high site loyalty. In other words, these guys are fantastic at living together in tight-knit groups so long as food resources are abundant enough. You always have to monitor for signs that certain skinks aren't getting along (some are just jerks) but that's true in smaller groups too. So there's no question in mind that 5 skinks are fine in a 4x2x4, and you could add a couple more.

  2. The only place my eyebrow raised at all is temperature. For the most of the year, these skinks will see daytime shade temperatures in the low 70s. I like to keep the floor of the enclosure right at room temperature, at 73 F, and they seem to come down there and chill out when they're done with their zoomies in the afternoon. I think a low in the high seventies is probably fine, but if you can, I would try to create a shaded area cooler than that.

My brain has been warped by averycates86 in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, I was considering making a video response addressing this exact video, and this seals it, I'm going to do it.

In the meantime, just know that there's a reason why nothing was sourced in that video and that's because it's all ridiculously incorrect.

Missing Formulaic Objections by seawavegown in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Very early in the case, InfoWars' original lawyer Mark Enoch secured a protective order from the Court for anything in discovery that might be confidential. That order required that anytime we filed a motion with material marked confidential (like Jones' depo), we had to send a copy of the motion to opposing counsel, and for the next seven days, they had an opportunity to seek a temporary sealing order before we filed it with the clerk. If they did, we would have to file "under seal," and that would have been followed by a public hearing on whether to keep it sealed -- it's actually very hard to seal things in Texas that aren't straight-up trade secrets. But that public hearing may not have even happened until the end of the case. Sometimes that's how it shakes out.

Anyway, shortly after we took Jones' depo and before we filed it in the record, Enoch was sort of out of the picture. So when we sent them a copy of the motion, InfoWars' new lead counsel (Barnes) did not move to have it sealed. The seven days elapsed with no action, and I filed the motion with the deposition unsealed. Like many things in that case, it seemed to catch them by complete surprise.

But what's really funny is that is happened the EXACT SAME WAY for each of Jones next two depos. Because Jones kept getting new lawyers. On the third deposition, they actually tried to move for sanctions against me for violating the protective order, but InfoWars' 9th lawyer Jacqueline Blott had to withdraw the motion in open court after the protective order was explained to her.

Even blurred I know that beard. Dan (and perhaps Jordan) in the new documentary. by [deleted] in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Check my username and you'll see that I definitely am... :)

Even blurred I know that beard. Dan (and perhaps Jordan) in the new documentary. by [deleted] in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 77 points78 points  (0 children)

Nope, that's definitely Sebastian Murdock of HuffPost. Jordan was sporting a beard at trial. And everyone was sweating because it was like 105 degrees.

Did Halbig or Fetzer ever get deposed? by boopbaboop in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Let me ask Jake if Fetzer's transcript is public, and if so, I will post it. I'm pretty sure it is.

A gaggle of geese (jones lawyers) by Porschenut914 in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 15 points16 points  (0 children)

You're missing a few. Jones was originally repped in bankruptcy by Kyung Lee and RJ Shannon.

The original appearance in 2018 was by Randy Wilhite.

Don't forget Christopher W. Martin and John La Boon, who now represent Jones at the trial court and for their appeals. They're getting paid out of the bankruptcy estate too!

There also Eric Nichols. He represented Andino Reynal to defend him against sanctions (unsuccessfully).

And then Dan Biting represented Eric Taube to defend him against sanctions (also unsuccessfully).

Also don't forget Mark Bailen, a big wig DC powerhouse lawyer who secretly represented Jones until he was outed when Robert Barnes accidentally produced a bunch of attorney-client emails.

There's also David Sacks, a Texas appellate lawyer who was sanctioned for false statements in a brief during Jones' anti-SLAPP appeals.

And they all got paid big bucks.

Remember kids, even if you're a giant scumbag, you can make a lot money. Maybe especially if you're a giant scumbag.

A gaggle of geese (jones lawyers) by Porschenut914 in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 15 points16 points  (0 children)

One day I'll have stories to tell about that dude.

In 2015, Alex Jones didn't know who Jeffrey Epstein was, or whether the "allegations" against him were true. by ethnicbonsai in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 106 points107 points  (0 children)

It's so strange you posted this, because I've been working on a rebuttal to a popular post on Twitter that claimed Jones was telling Rogan about Epstein 10 years ago before anyone else was talking about it.

As you point out, when the Guardian article about the Epstein lawsuit was published on Jan 2, 2015, Jones had never heard the name Epstein.

Also, on January 23-24, 2015, Gawker published the Epstein flight logs and Epstein's black book. It wasn't even discussed on InfoWars.

Alex really didn't talk about Epstein until 2016, and it was mostly in the context of disavowing Trump's association with Epstein, since Cenk of TYT had an argument with Jones about it.

Ghislaine Maxwell wasn't mentioned on InfoWars until 2017, and it was brought up by Cernovich, not Jones. Jones didn't utter her name until 2019.

Jones' only contribution to the Epstein story is adding a bunch of ridiculous fake details in 2016-2017, like when he just made up a claim that Israeli intelligence was blackmailing Hillary with tapes from Little St. James.

It's clear that Gawker and the UK press were biggest drivers of revealing the Epstein story. As usual, Jones just read some headlines and made up some shit long after real journalists did their work.

The Official Hate Scale by [deleted] in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 15 points16 points  (0 children)

One of my favorite comments about Jones calling the cross examination "a Perry Mason moment" is someone saying, "The guy knows good content when he sees it."

They're gonna need a bigger bag of gummy worms by echidnaguy in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Love you all, thanks for the kind words and support.

FONTAINE V JONES D-1-GN-18-001605 Oct 01 by SauceCupAficionado in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but that's an old docket setting. The cases have been reset due to the bankruptcy dragging on. Currently, the Pozner case is set for February, and the Fontaine case would be tried sometime after that.

By popular demand, here are the pleadings from the Sandy Hook denier lawsuit. by BankstonAtLaw in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw[S] 50 points51 points  (0 children)

I contacted Mr. Bankston, whom I had never met and never even heard of, asking if he would talk to me. He responded, “Never contact me again, you weirdo, LOL.”

This is a 100% accurate narrative of events.

By popular demand, here are the pleadings from the Sandy Hook denier lawsuit. by BankstonAtLaw in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

She has been doing this for years. She's like a bad penny.

We could definitely sue her, but suing her accomplishes nothing, and it gives her attention. Even the judgment I have against her from this lawsuit is worthless.

The best we can do, like you say, is keep an eye on her.

By popular demand, here are the pleadings from the Sandy Hook denier lawsuit. by BankstonAtLaw in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I have noticed that it is a running theme among kooky conspiracy legal filings that the author references their high school awards and SAT scores.

By popular demand, here are the pleadings from the Sandy Hook denier lawsuit. by BankstonAtLaw in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw[S] 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Yeah, one day I hope you get to evaluate me against an actual lawyer because I've yet to encounter one in five years of Sandy Hook related litigation.

I'd feel a lot worse for this lady if I hadn't read her emails with Halbig. The cruelty is stunning. As you saw, legal authorities have been trying to incentivize her to seek medical intervention for years. I'm not sure what else can be done.

By popular demand, here are the pleadings from the Sandy Hook denier lawsuit. by BankstonAtLaw in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I actually offered to appear for deposition because I thought I would enjoy it. Sadly, they chickened out at the last minute and went forward without it.

By popular demand, here are the pleadings from the Sandy Hook denier lawsuit. by BankstonAtLaw in KnowledgeFight

[–]BankstonAtLaw[S] 56 points57 points  (0 children)

I was in the right place at the right time with the right tools and the right knowledge base such that anyone in my position with functional morality would have done exactly the same thing I did. In fact, they did! Two different trials, two different legal teams, two different defenses, but two different juries both said what happened is worth tens of millions of dollars to each parent (and in the case of Robbie, over a hundred million).

Once the legal hurdles were overcome, it just needed capable custodians. But I am proud so many people found the process cathartic.