For Those Who Say Alex Jones Verdict Was Not About Free Speech Think Again.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

It was a Default Judgment. Due to his default.

In failing to comply with the Discovery stage.

IE refusing to disclose his evidence.

Because a judge said so........ No evidence to back it up, no trial.

Even when discovery was met and then some.

/shrug

a reply to: JinMI

Default Judgment. He admitted his lies.

Here:


news.bloomberglaw.com...


Pretty damning:

"While on the stand this week, Jones admitted that the school shooting was “100% real” during his second day providing testimony. He also conceded that it was irresponsible of him to declare that the school shooting was a hoax.

The trial was heated at times, with Judge Maya Guerra Gamble of the 459th District Court in Travis County telling Jones that he couldn’t lie to the jury during his first day of testimony.

“You may not say to the jury that you’ve complied with discovery, that isn’t true,” Gamble told Jones. “You may not tell the jury that you’re bankrupt.”

During cross-examination, plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Bankston said Jones hadn’t complied with discovery. He also noted that Jones’ defense team had accidentally sent him a record of previously requested text messages from the past two years only recently.

“That’s how I know you lied to me,” said Bankston, who said Jones had claimed he had no Sandy Hook texts on his phone."

Oh dear.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

From your source.

The judges quote:

“You may not say to the jury that you’ve complied with discovery, that isn’t true,” Gamble told Jones. “You may not tell the jury that you’re bankrupt.”

Gamble denied the motion—and an accompanying motion for a mistrial—to immediately seal the information “without knowing what’s in it” and offered to give Reynal time to identify specific materials he wanted sealed.

Even ignoring the implicit bias, ignoring the defendants rights and court precedent is obvious.

All proceeding a default/summary judgment which there was no factual burden of proof established.

a reply to: JinMI

Read the above, and weep.

Judges judge. Get over it.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I see you know nothing of this trial outside of the MSM talking points.




Boot lickers gotta bootlick!

a reply to: JinMI

Well, I am a lawyer, not a US one, granted, so what do I know?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Well, I am a lawyer, not a US one, granted, so what do I know?

LoL

Yes, this post I will be saving as I've forgotten in the past.

I really do enjoy appealing to your authority on legal matters where you don't know squat about the topic, proceedings, validation of evidence etc.

Your horrible track record speaks for itself.

a reply to: JinMI

Well, I guess you've given up on any attempt at polite or rational debate so not much point continuing with our discussion.

Love you, too.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Well, I guess you've given up on any attempt at polite or rational debate so not much point continuing with our discussion.

Love you, too.

Same with the Ukraine debates, once you're backed into a corner, you bow out.

Same with all political debates, once you're met with the same condescending verbiage, you bow out.

a reply to: JinMI

Not really.


"Once you're met with the same condescending verbiage, you bow out."


Well, if you insist on such "condescending verbiage" (by your own admission, no less) can you really blame me?

Read the blasted judgment. And weep.

Not bowing out of the thread, just had enough of you.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Not really.

Yes, really, and documented history of such.

"Once you're met with the same condescending verbiage, you bow out."


Well, if you insist on such "condescending verbiage" (by your own admission, no less) can you really blame me?

As the old saying goes, don't start none, wont be none. Or, you can dish it but can't take it. Or any other number of sayings.

Read the blasted judgment. And weep.

I've half assed followed the case, which is miles ahead of you apparently. A summary judgement based on the judges opinion for bar of discovery is nonsense. Then to silence and deny Jones a trial is antithetical to everything we stand for in the states. Given the judges personal beliefs, she should have recused herself. She doesn't have the ability to do her job sans bias. IMO

To back that up, there is ample social media pages to view. Also, clearly applying two standards of proceedings. One where video/audio is allowed, and one where there isn't. One where speech is allowed, and one isn't.

If he were given his trial, even if the judge believed that the discovery wasn't ample, which there is no factual basis for this, then there would be much more clarity.

Not bowing out of the thread, just had enough of you.

And?

a reply to: JinMI

One last time, here:


www.rev.com...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

One last time, here:


www.rev.com...

A broken link, a fitting end.

a reply to: JinMI

Thanks for arguing this in here, it's some interesting details, of which I was not aware. Haven't read into it much until this.

I agree with you. If he was denied due process, I think that may be grounds for vacation of the sentence in a future appeal. Don't know for sure though, but in my opinion it should be.

I suppose I could go either way if I were on the jury and there were a trial. I'm sure there were other sources of media at the time where other people were saying similar things. I'm also not certain that Jones's actions meet that threshold of liability. Perhaps...He does make some inflammatory claims, there's no denying that. I just think it's a stretch to blame it all on Jones, whatever harassment those parents received.

Lots of people were talking about it at the time. They would have been talking about it more if not for censorship. Jones was not alone in that. He was one of the MOST VISIBLE though.

If it could be shown that he directly made calls to his listeners for them to get personally involved with the SH families and confront them about all of this stuff, then that could make him liable. I doubt he was quite that asinine, but it is Alex Jones we're talking about here so not impossible. Still, I suspect it's unlikely that such evidence exists.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: vNex92

Are outright malicious lies free speech, though?

Yes, and if slander they can be sued.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
ATTENTION PLEASE:

A reminder about ATS policy regarding the Sandy Hook topic and what is not allowed here, ever.

Please review this post.

Zero tolerance on this one. Read the info linked to above and pay attention to it.

Do not reply to this message in any way.

It is too important this time. It is wrapped up in this Alex Jones discussion. We cannot avoid it!!!

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: vNex92

Are outright malicious lies free speech, though?

Yes, and if slander they can be sued.

Isn't that what happened?

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: vNex92

Are outright malicious lies free speech, though?

Yes, and if slander they can be sued.

You've got a point there. That could really be a pretty low threshold at a trial too, really. All that would technically need to be shown is that he got people to believe that those parents were part of the fakery. If he was 'ranting like Alex Jones' on it, then Alex Jones might have actually sold that case enough to his listening public where a jury might decide that he did slander them.

An angry homeless guy on the corner ranting the same rant probably wouldn't reach that threshold due to his small audience. Alex Jones has an internationally syndicated radio show though. His audience is rather large in this context.

I still think there are possible grounds for vacation of sentence, as due process is an inherent right. He has not been tried by a jury.

a reply to: JinMI

I think Jones has had a pretty fair trial.

He exercised his freedom of speech to say what he thought (though it's my personal opinion that what he thought was "oh hey! This is a GREAT topic! It's going to get a lot of people listening which means more money and the more I keep it going the better my income is!")

FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOESN'T MEAN FREEDOM OF CONSEQUENCES.

If you'll recall Alexander Hamilton (great play, I might add) -- in his time people exercised the same freedom of speech and had the same non-freedom of consequences. The difference back then is someone could demand you stop lying and if you persisted, they could call you out for a duel at dawn.

Nowadays they do the duel with lawyers.

Jones could have won his case hands-down if he could show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the kids never existed and the whole thing was staged. It'd be easy to crack because the teachers and kids wouldn't have shown up in government records and so forth. All he has to do is come up with evidence that would, say, convince a cop or a judge that there was this kind of shenanigans going on and if found to be true there would have been arrests and the thing would have been all over the papers (rememeber Jussie Smollett? it's just that easy)

He couldn't.

And when called on it, he persisted for financial gain and this prompted his followers to make life miserable for the already shattered parents (I hope sincerely that you never have to experience the loss of a small child. I have, and it's soul-destroying.)

So he's had his free speech AND his consequences-of-free-lying-speech.

I hold him in very poor regard and look forward to lawsuits from the other parents.

a reply to: Byrd

I think Jones has had a pretty fair trial.

He did not have a trial Byrd.

Jones could have won his case hands-down if he could show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the kids never existed and the whole thing was staged. 

So he had to prove his innocence? Instead i offer how about you show me who exact names he slandered.


I dont want to be here defending AJ. However i also wont fall in line while the dude is getting shafted.

I know youre intelligent so i ask in all sincerety. If lying was against free speech, should we start with Jones??