577 Comments

If you’re hush hushing the settlement, it makes you look like a grifter. Plain and simple. The stated goal wasn’t a settlement.

Expand full comment

the important bit was discovery. you can be absolutely fucking guaranteed that even if some sham 'discovery' will be allowed, it will be an absolute useless whitewash.

i didn't donate, fortunately, but i did see the begging posts only recently. as my father-in-law is a senior lawyer, i can guarantee that these negotiations aren't just spawned in the last second. they take weeks of back-and-from massaging of every word in the eventual agreement. he would have actively worked on the settlement, while begging for money.

absolutely disgusted with him.

Expand full comment

I didn't donate, but agree that those that have should be disgusted.

Expand full comment

Go to sports talk forums to make toddler arguments like, "Nope." Maybe someone will reply to you with a butt-emoji.

Expand full comment

‼️NOPE‼️

Expand full comment

You're another proud r-tard? Ok!

Expand full comment

May 11 Email from Alex: "

In a matter of weeks, Twitter is supposed to hand over ALL the documents it has about me - including its communications with the federal government. I fully expect the little bird to demand a protective order that will hide those emails and texts and Slack chats and everything else from public view.

*********My lawyers and I believe you have the right to find out what I learn, and we will argue against a protective order if Twitter asks for one. *********

I am trying to raise $200,000.

I’ve set up a GoFundMe page here.

I want Twitter to know I have an army on my side that wants the *****truth *****.

Expand full comment

it would be ironic - that Alex would not be reporting on these "unreported truths"

Expand full comment

Money talks..and it silences

Expand full comment

Wouldn't be the first time either. His hypocrisy and and blind ideology are why I quit following him long ago.

Expand full comment

Wouldn't be the first time either.

Expand full comment

Doesn't look good for Alex but I will withhold judgement until the dust settles.

Expand full comment

Yep if he practices what he preached he would turn down the NDA and possible pay day!

Expand full comment

You may want to post this as a separate comment

Expand full comment

Instead of as a reply to another comment, you mean? I thought of that, but the thread was long and replying to someone else's comment at the top of the comments kept it within likelihood of being read.

Expand full comment

I suggested both, reply and post as a separate comment, adjusting if necessary

Expand full comment

Unless someone clicks "New First".

Expand full comment

From the mouth of not-babes.

Expand full comment

That’s not a contract,

Expand full comment

Literally no one said it was. Why bring it up?

Expand full comment

The people in this thread are implying that it is.

Expand full comment

I gave up on alex after he came out against ivermectin with no research or knowledge on it. Dude is a turd.

Expand full comment

So you post on his substack because you gave up on him. Okay...

Expand full comment

it is a very wise habit to keep your enemies in sight....

Expand full comment

I'm just here to see the shitshow now y'all know he duped your asses

Expand full comment

😄👍

Expand full comment

Nobody "begged" for anything and you don't know what the outcome is. It costs nothing to wait and see the result.

Expand full comment

All I want to see is the extent of Government communications, requests, demands, suggestions, inferences, threats, promises, deals or any other type of intertwined strategies between the Feds and Social Media. Public square companies cannot be private and act on behalf of the Feds and remain free to use being private as an excuse to censor people and do the Governments dirty work as a workaround. Settlements are not going to divulge this information.

Expand full comment

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" --mark twain (supposedly)

Expand full comment

I agree with you now please please please by his old books.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jun 30, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Shouldn’t have settled and should have put all that in a book.

Expand full comment

Wow, sounds like some of you on here are just desperate to kick Alex in the bollox. I’ve loved watching this drama unfold from the inside, and to be honest, I would have thought this is a pretty significant admission of guilt on the part of twitter. That’s a big deal, and opens the floodgates for others to start turning on them. I didn’t donate because of the platform that was used, but I don’t think I’d have felt shafted at the outcome of this. ‘Booooo’ to the haters here... !!!

Expand full comment

> this is a pretty significant admission of guilt on the part of twitter. That’s a big deal, and opens the floodgates for others to start turning on them

absolutely smashingly wrong. by settling out of court, with - i can absolutely guarantee - no admission of guilt, there will be no legal precedent, and consequently, the next 'target' will have to start from scratch.

Expand full comment

I think this reflects that he got a settlement that EVEN HE was surprised with! Blew him away from his moral focus and put him on an island with a lifetime of massages and mai ti's. I'm just jealous I didn't get the windffall

Expand full comment

A settlement offer is never (usually never) an admission of guilt. In fact, a good attorney will insist on language in the settlement contract that specifies that the settlement does not imply guilt. A settlement is just one party's way of saying, "it's not worth fighting over." Courts encourage parties to settle, if they can. A settlement avoids spending additional time and money, and avoids the uncertainty of going to trial. E-Rozmiarek

Also, confidentiality clauses that amount to gag orders are now routine. Confidentiality clauses do not simply seek to make secret between the parties the amount and other specific provisions of the settlement which is permissible. Instead, they seek to conceal from the public and the press voluntary disclosures of relevant evidence to other litigants and prohibit a settling plaintiff from further disclosure of the allegations in the pleadings filed in public court. J-Strudevant

Expand full comment

I agree! Most Substack-ers are respectful in their comments. If they don’t like the writer, they don’t subscribe. But reading these haters’ comments, I feel like I’m on Twitter again!

Expand full comment

It's not about liking or not liking the writer. It's about being disappointed. It's a legit notion.

Wondering why you used the term "haters". It's very derogatory. Inciting even. Like Twitter.

Expand full comment

Like (sites not letting me do so)

Expand full comment

Yeah, what would be the Twits' interest in settling and yet allowing their company to be publicly embarrassed and possibly subject to further lawsuits?

(Note I assume it embarrassing to work for Twitter already, I guess by publicly embarrassed I just mean having their mendacity revealed.)

Expand full comment

You know nothing,

Expand full comment

That would be an impressive feat. To know knothing. Thanks for the overwhelming input and the spectacular intellectual laurels.

Expand full comment

You know nothing.

Expand full comment

and apparently - we'll have to wait for a new opportunity to learn something.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jun 30, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Berenson should get some amount of credit for allowing this to even be a topic and openly discussed on his substack.

Expand full comment

I agree. He has quite a bit of tolerance for blowback among his own readers.

Expand full comment

Well it might look sorta bad if he didn't. Then again it already looks sorta bad so maybe he should go for it. That sort of tactic works for big tech afterall

Expand full comment

If he got a good settlement, he should refund everyone their donations, since they weren't needed after all.

Expand full comment

I support what Alex is doing. Simple As that

Expand full comment

Exactly. If you solicit or accept donations to help you in your lawsuit, and you settle the case for money without getting a court ruling to vindicate your position and help others, you should return every penny or else you are indeed a grifter.

Expand full comment

Or maybe he could pay it forward. I don’t give the people I don’t know. It’s that simple. If you really felt that he had a point to prove, pray. God will provide what you need

Expand full comment

Or as I thought he didn’t stand a chance even though we all know why he was kicked off. For stating facts that they didn’t want to print. I will not “judge” this situation. I hope that the most ridiculous of the posts are a campaign to make Alex lose his following I can confirm that blue check boy is the one multiple posts are coming from.

Expand full comment

Be a nice gesture and prove that wasn’t his intention if he donated those funds to an active case fighting for freedom and he prior posts did say or at least imply the goal wasn’t to settle but to “shine the light” and so it def off putting

Expand full comment

No, this is who he is. He can’t understand how the rest of us aren’t like him. That’s his problem.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jun 30, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

"we take your money and our experience, and turn that into our money and your experience".

oh wait, that's what they say about goldman sachs.

Expand full comment

Why is he an opportunist?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jun 30, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

You thought you had a stake in his case against Twitter. It doesn’t matter a flying f what his settlement is doofus. You are the one who needs a lesson. People supported him against Twitter to support him. A last bastion of solid investigative reporting truthfully, artfully and with analysis skills that amazed me. I supported him for what Twitter did to him and thus me, trying to silence the facts on Covid and vaccines. Fuck you dumbass. Get off this platform that you don’t subscribe to or even if you do. You embarrass me.

Expand full comment

Take a Motrin it’ll be over in a week

Expand full comment

I like your comment

Expand full comment

It won't let me hit like but I like!

Expand full comment

Whose story is buried by his own agreement. I know of no investigative journalist who would do this voluntarily. So there must be a higher value than exposed truth here. Exposed wallet?

Expand full comment

BF is a twitbot like so many others posting on this topic here. Things must not be looking too good for Twitter.

Does that clown pay you guys?

Expand full comment

I mean, many of his disciples might be clinically retarded. I'd question the ethics surrounding taking advantage of them if it weren't so poetic.

Expand full comment

What is more "retarded" than writing "I mean"?

Expand full comment

These settlements with non-disclosure agreements attached to them actually should be ILLEGAL. This case has a judge assigned to it. It is being adjudicated in a court that is funded by taxpayers, by a judge who is funded by taxpayers. Once this case entered the court system and received a docket number, every aspect of it should have been made public, up to and including any settlement that was reached.

The fact that these non-disclosure agreements are allowed only underscores just how corrupt the U.S. judiciary has become.

The public's interest in this case stems from the fact that many other people use, and have been abused by, Twitter. They have a right to know whether it is worth their time and money to pursue their own lawsuits. By hushing up the settlement, no one is allowed to see whether Berenson recouped much of anything beyond the legal fees. That is precisely what Twitter wants. He is giving them what they want, and so is our corrupt court system.

Expand full comment

Well said Darby Shaw.

Expand full comment

Disagree completely. Confidentiality provisions are entirely necessary in a lot of instances.

Expand full comment

For example? Other than family court cases involving minors, these provisions are generally used mostly to shield corporations for more lawsuits. If people could see that suing them is worth the time and expense, many people with the exact same complaint would do so.

Expand full comment

This may be counterintuitive, but opening the floodgates to litigation is not good for the average person. I am a lawyer in one of the most litigious states in the country and it is a terrible environment for almost everyone except plaintiffs attorneys.

Expand full comment

If everyone could see that it was worth their time and expense to sue Twitter for defamation, Twitter would very quickly stop defaming people. That would be a very good thing for society.

Expand full comment

So litigation should not be for "the average person"? It should only be for the wealthy? Then the wealthy should be required to pay for the courthouse, judge, guards, etc., out of their own pockets.

Expand full comment

Seems like the other influential substackers like Toby and Darby are unanimous in their disapproval and they should be.

Expand full comment

Did you pay to initiate and pursue this lawsuit? Did you lose income by being banned from Twitter? If not, you have no reason to complain.

Expand full comment

I cannot post one word on Twitter. I was never officially banned. But my comments are never seen. I am shadow banned because I speak the truth about the vaccines. Meanwhile those who lie through their teeth are promoted. Twitter being able to conceal the outcome of its court cases only ensures that this behavior will continue.

Expand full comment

One word to explain this. Attorney’s

Expand full comment

Well if they settle without a judge imposing terms why should the details be disclosed? That doesn't make sense.

I'll wait to judge until it's been closed.

Expand full comment

The judge already ruled on discovery. Thus, our tax dollars were already invested in this court case. That is why we have a right to know the terms of any agreement that was reached.

If they want to keep the terms to themselves, they should stay the heck out of the court and just settle the matter privately.

Expand full comment

Your tax dollars? No. You donated and weren't legally promised anything.

Expand full comment

Our tax dollars fund the government, every aspect of it, including the courts. (Of course that's extremely naive. Corporations also massively bribe all the government agencies which regulate everything.)

Expand full comment

What pressure would either party be under to negotiate without the leverage of the legal system?

The judge ruled for discovery. At what point did the parties involved go back to the court and ask the for their case to be removed from the docket, prior or after discovery being part of the court's control. If prior the discovery information is not part of the public's information.

Isn't the idea of settlement to keep the information out of the public sphere? Then a new legal action begins, the contract for settlement. If that contract is broken and the party offended desires to seek a remedy a whole new world of information will come into the public sphere.

Expand full comment

NOTHING done by the courts should be secret. Justice dies in the dark.

Expand full comment

Well, that’s not the way it works re settlement

Expand full comment

Correct. Yet another reason our kangaroo courts have lost legitimacy.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jun 30, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

No reason for this, except corruption in the court system. The two sides went to court. The court is funded by taxpayers. The court created a record. The record is funded by taxpayers. The court will maintain the record, again, at taxpayer expense.

If the two parties wanted to keep their dispute private, they should not have gone to court in the first place. Berenson signaled his intent to sue before he ever actually filed the suit. Twitter could have met privately with him, and they could have settled the matter out of court. Instead, Twitter chose to use the court system to try to fight the complaint. Twitter now has no right to privacy about this case or how it has been settled. The only reason it's being afforded privacy is because the court allows it, and the plaintiff wants to take his money and run.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jun 30, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Yes, such a law is needed.

Twitter will now rely on the court to enforce its non-disclosure agreement with Berenson. So again, this agreement is not truly private. It depends on the public court for enforcement. Otherwise, Twitter could say, okay Alex, we'll give you $2 million if you will not tell anyone how much we're giving you, and Alex could say, sure thing, then go blab the amount to the whole world. The only reason he can't do that is because Twitter could then run back to the public court and sue Berenson for violating their so-called "private" agreement.

Expand full comment

Yeah and you are demonstrating a perfect case of Stockholm Syndrome now by making excuses for an obvious sell out. Alex for Congress, running as a neo- lib Dem. Promise one thing and sellout. Say “well it was everyone else’s fault or responsibility except my own.”

Expand full comment

Will donors who supported his lawsuit get their money back? Doubtful.

Expand full comment

Adults made an informed, grown up decision to contribute to something they wanted to be counted in on. A way to show solidarity. They knew it wasn’t something they’d get back. Geez people, do it because you want to not because you get something out of it. It’s really weird to hear whining. I thought that only came from the crazy ass left.

Expand full comment

Agree 100%. I don't think anyone had a gun to their head to donate. Take responsibility for your decisions and stop whining.

Expand full comment

We don’t want our money back!

Worth every cent!

Expand full comment

They should.

Expand full comment

No they shouldn't -- unless such was stated at the time of the solicitation and contribution. The point was to enable Alex to do righteous damage to Twitter, to fund his suit and to support his work in general. It was a contribution, not a loan!

Expand full comment

Why should they?

Expand full comment

Settlements are ALWAYS confidential & the parties are prohibited from discussing or revealing the agreement

Expand full comment

Precisely. In a situation like this, the only one that wins is Twitter.

Expand full comment

Im a paralegal in a defense law firm. A settlement is win-win for all, if going to trial would have been a potentially worse outcome for 1 party or the other (or both) & thus the motivation to settle. But again, settlement is always confidential & the parties are prohibited from revealing the particulars. That doesn’t preclude a “leak” but that’s unethical & against the law. Not that there’s much “rule of law” anymore, or it is 2-tiered

Expand full comment

more like 3-tiered. depends on how much you 'donated' to the various 'foundations', like the clinton global initiative. the more you 'donate' the better 'justice' you get.

Expand full comment

Agree. Political party &/or criminality have a lot to do w/ it as well.

Expand full comment

It _may_ be win-win for the parties to the case. But it's a huge LOSE for the public, for justice, and for the majesty of the Law.

Expand full comment

He should refund anyone who donated.

Expand full comment

Berenson I’m sure wins too. You can bet he was awarded money

Expand full comment

I sure hope so. Lol

Expand full comment

No, they’re not. You can absolutely negotiate a settlement without a confidentiality provision.

Expand full comment

True. Getting the little bird to settle without NDAs would have taken a year or more and run up 7 figures in plaintiff legal fees.

Expand full comment

Not always, however, in this case yes.

Expand full comment

Have to wait for more information and not rush to judgement.

Expand full comment

"Now, I can’t say anything more until we actually file the settlement and dismiss the case, and even then I won’t be able to say much about the specifics of the settlement, as those are largely confidential."

What are you expecting? This was a direct quote from his post yesterday. It's absurd to expect to learn anything about a settlement with a company like Twitter. They aren't going to allow any discourse of the terms. Ever.

Expand full comment

What if he gets restored to Twitter? What if Twitter changes how they handle factual Covid posts? You don't know what you don't know.

Expand full comment

Let us know Bubba when Alex is back on Twitter.

Expand full comment

Agree. If not ready to provide any detail about why this happened, publishing merely a notice that "this happened" is obviously going to spark backlash, for the same reason that the Experts' dubious decrees about the latest Science always sparked it.

Expand full comment

he should NOT have issued begging letters just weeks ago. that's what makes this look really, really bad in my book.

Expand full comment

Also agree. Crowdfunding makes everything so thorny, even if all is above-board. The slightest misstep or awkward communication is magnified when you've taken monetary support.

Expand full comment

my point is that when you deal with legal, and they work with other reps, merely hammering out an agreement that every party will be happy with takes an astonishing amount of time. even my small company, stitching together 6-digit contracts can easily take weeks. in a bespoke matter like this, they would not have had boilerplate templates, in which they'd merely have to fill in the blanks. the likelihood of alex acting in good faith, asking for money weeks ago, would appear as slim as pfizer's recent trial outcome in the under-5's being wholly above water.

Expand full comment

And let's not forget: the attorneys working on the agreement are billing, billing, billing the whole time.

Expand full comment

Sure, I could believe all of that too. Just saying that even *if* otherwise legit, the mere existence of crowdfunding is nitroglycerin.

Expand full comment