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

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

But surely you wouldn't take medical advice from a popularity contest winner?

Chr0, seriously great point.

Now apply to AJ.

Well, I wouldn't buy supplements off him, either!

You dont tell me how things work when you DONT KNOW YOURSELF.

Go ahead act like your an expert in some other lands laws and see how far they will listen to you there.

You are all lovers of the goons who destroy our freedoms and will gladly lose my freedoms with your idiotic concepts of "free speech" being sometimes not free.

Such lunacy from the left is sad. You are all in need of a life that includes loving your neighbor and being fair to others al all times. Sandy Hook parents are able to seek damages, so there is that fairness right there. AJ deserves a fair trial that wasn't what happened.

It cuts both ways.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Justoneman
Free speech is free with the caveat you don't slander.

But he didn't slander the children or their parents.

Correct. However, he did DEFAME them. That's what the whole thing is about.

Whom, did he defame? And what Fame would that be? You can't defame non famous people.

The Sandy Hook parents were shown on news services around the world. There are YouTube video's of them. InfoWars also continued to publish negative stories about them and their plight.

That is not non-famous.

Alex Jones own fame was tied in with their fame, by his defamatory pronouncements against them.

That's how this thing works.

You can tell lies and slander them if you can survive the jury. But this according to this data was not a Trial it was a "ruling" without a trial. Just as is being stated here.

Jones admitted he lied. There was no need for a trial, guilt was already established. All that remained was the 'sentencing' phase where compensation would be awarded. Even in a jury trial, this is normally done solely by the judge.

a reply to: Justoneman

He gave evidence on oath in which he admitted lying and that the shootings were real.

Generally when someone who is being sued for defamation admits the lie it's all over for them and the case moves on to the quantum of damages.

Like it did here.

The right to free speech doesn't trump the right to sue for defamation.

a reply to: Justoneman

I'm a lawyer here in England and I m the first to admit I'm no expert in US law but I know the basics.

A fair trial of what? What issue or issues remain to be decided after he admitted lying and that the shootings were real?

Apart from the level of damages.

Decided under your laws in this case in respect of punitive damages by the jury, I believe, which they did.

And I'm not a leftie.


www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

A fair trial of what? What issue or issues remain to be decided after he admitted lying and that the shootings were real?

A fair trial that Jones was guilty of damages due to a victim who was slandered. Lying is not illegal...yet.

If you want me to respond to you in differing threads, use the reply button instead of trolling other threads like a coward.

a reply to: JinMI

Do grow up.

And look up what defamation means. Defamation is not "illegal" as in criminal.

It is a legal remedy in civil proceedings.

You might want to look up "civil" In the context of civil debate whilst you are at it.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Do grow up.

What does this mean exactly. You keep saying it as though it has some meaning coming from you.

You may want to become more familiar with out laws if you wish to opine on them further.

Seventh Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I've tried civil debate with you MANY times. You like to disparage, and when it's returned, you run off or make silly absurd comments like the above.

originally posted by: Justoneman
You dont tell me how things work when you DONT KNOW YOURSELF.

Go ahead act like your an expert in some other lands laws and see how far they will listen to you there.

Actually, the skill that he has is that he knows how to read legalese. My brother-in-law is not certified to be a lawyer in states other than Texas, but he knows how to look up things and check how they're being interpreted in another jurisdiction.

Plus, he knows which sites are better for finding this kind of information. And yes, as a lawyer (I don't know if he's a barrister or solicitor or something else), lawyers in the US would listen to his points a lot more seriously than they would listen to mine.

Sandy Hook parents are able to seek damages, so there is that fairness right there. AJ deserves a fair trial that wasn't what happened.

In a civil trial (I just read this), "not showing up" counts as "the guy showed up in court and when they asked what defense he had, he said 'no defense.'" It's like when you get a speeding ticket. If you don't show up to defend yourself, the court decides that this is a default "guilty" and you get assessed a fine (non appearance) PLUS the ticket (I know this because I had to pay off some tickets that one of my kids "forgot" to tell me about.)

So just like my kid, Jones had a chance to show up. He has a lot of money, so he had good lawyers and (hopefully) good legal advice. Sitting at your desk and yelling at people on the radio is not the same as a defense in the courtroom.

To be honest, he's behaving kind of like a spoiled brat and I suspect (because he's gone through 11 lawyers) he's not listening to what the lawyers are telling him because he doesn't like their advice.

a reply to: JinMI

Yep, a little knowledge of the law is a dangerous thing.

As a barrack room lawyer, perhaps you could offer your learned services to AJ?

To be clear, once he admitted that HE HAD LIED as in defamed the Plaintiffs, the only question was how much he had to pay for his defamatory lies.

Got that?

Probably not but do carry on with your lame defence of AJ.

Hey, you couldn't do a worse job than his lawyers?

Second thoughts, maybe not.

Love and kisses.

Mike.

a reply to: Byrd

Indeed. As a Solicitor and Officer of the Court of England and Wales I may not be an expert in US law (OK I have watched LA Law and Suits) but humour me.

As opposed to some angry trollish person on the interweb.

Maybe.

a reply to: JinMI

Noted your 7th amendment post and googled to see if Jones had a trial by jury. The trial just concluded was a jury trial and he was found guilty.

As you can see from this article in the New York Post the day of the jury's verdict, the next step was to protest and attempt to lower the amount to be paid.

Now, I do have a question for you: if his rights were abrogated, why the heck aren't his expensive lawyers shouting all about this and taking action against the courts? Surely his very prominent lawyers would be on top of issues like this. At least, that's what I think -- I think he's got about the best defense his money could buy (far more than I could afford, to be honest.)



Is it your contention that all of his 11 lawyers (revolving door lawyers) don't know anything about the law? Or that Jones doesn't have friends who can help him find the very best lawyers for his defense?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Byrd

Indeed. As a Solicitor and Officer of the Court of England and Wales I may not be an expert in US law (OK I have watched LA Law and Suits) but humour me.

As opposed to some angry trollish person on the interweb.

Maybe.

Heh. And I've watched Silk and Rumpole of the Bailey and a few whose names escape me (we're Britbox and BBC addicts). There was one interesting series that took a look at past judgments in certain court cases (decades after the fact) to see how they arrived at a judgment and was it a correct judgment -- a compelling series and one that lays out rather plainly how the law sets up to try and see that everything is fair.

It was sad for those whose relatives were confirmed guilty and that they'd received a fair trial after all... sad but interesting.

a reply to: Byrd

Silks was very realistic and true as it goes for Barristers.

Traditionally, their Clerks used to rule Chambers as they were on a percentage and their jobs were handed down from father to son. Like in the old Print days.

Rumpole, what a guy. A old hack, but what a guy.

SWAMBO, etc.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

To be clear, once he admitted that HE HAD LIED as in defamed the Plaintiffs, the only question was how much he had to pay for his defamatory lies.

False.

Lying does not equal defamation. If he had a trial, you may be correct as it needs to be proven under the statute.

However, no trial.

Probably not but do carry on with your lame defence of AJ.

And this is where you lose. Its not defending AJ, its defending an American whos civil rights were violated.

Youd see that if you had even a lick of integrity.

a reply to: Byrd

Thanks, this proves you dont actually know about the case specifics.


Looks like I gave you too much credit.

Wont happen again.

So just like my kid, Jones had a chance to show up. He has a lot of money, so he had good lawyers and (hopefully) good legal advice. Sitting at your desk and yelling at people on the radio is not the same as a defense in the courtroom.

a reply to: JinMI

Good grief.

Suggest you sign up as AJ's attorney seeing as you are so learned.

What do i know, what with being an actual lawyer and whatnot.

Still, all due possible respect to m' unlearned friend.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Good grief.

Suggest you sign up as AS's attorney seeing as you are so learned.

What do i know, what with being an actual lawyer and whatnot.

Still, all due possible respect to m' unlearned friend.

I don't know what you know, but based on this thread, you payed way too much for that degree.

Simple facts can't even be agreed on.

a reply to: JinMI

"Paid".

At least I can spell.

Bit more than a degree. Law school, articles and more than 30 years actual practicing


But you know better.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

"Paid".

At least I can spell.

Bit more than a degree. Law school, articles and mote than 30 years actual practicing


But you know better.

Mote....huh?

Now who's being petulant?

a reply to: JinMI

Oh dear.

Wrong again?

So, anything to add to defend your boy?

Like, relevant? M'unlearned friend?