you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fschmidt[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You totally miss the point. I disagree with Alex Jones on most subjects and I am not interested in defending him personally. What interests me is rule of law and free speech. Now for your questions:

  1. Yes, not quite Stalin level since they still had a jury.
  2. I picked that video because the judge is so obviously an insane bitch with no respect for rule of law.
  3. All I know is about this particular case. You seem to have much more interest in Alex Jones than I do. But this case was obviously an abuse of justice.

[–]jingles 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, not quite Stalin level since they still had a jury.

i watched the case on youtube and the judge told the jury that HE IS GUILTY AND THAT ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO WAS TO FIGURE OUT HIS SETTLEMENT AMOUNT or something like that.

that is extremely improper for the judge to TELL the jury that the defendant is GUILTY.

an absolute textbook example of a KANGAROO COURT.

SHE ALSO JUST TOLD HIM THAT HE IS NOT BANKRUPT AND THAT HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT HE IS BANKRUPT.

I BELIEVE THAT HE CAN SAY THAT HE IS THE EASTER BUNNY, IF THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS TO SAY...

THEN IT WOULD BE THEIR JOB TO PROVE THAT HE IS NOT THE EASTER BUNNY.

THIS IS A KANGAROO COURT.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hi Jingles.

First of all, the judge was right to instruct the jury that Alex (free speech systems LLC) was guilty.

This is because after five years of not answering production requests, and providing totally inadequate corporate depositions, Alex (fss LLC) waived their right to defend themselves. If they wanted to put up a defense, they could have done so during the five years in which they were pretending it would all just go away.

THAT ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO WAS TO FIGURE OUT HIS SETTLEMENT AMOUNT

Yup, that was what the jury was in the room for. Travis County was paying them to not attend their normal day jobs, so they could answer, how much damages + punitive Alex/fss owed. So that was a good and correct instruction to give the jury.

NOT BANKRUPT AND THAT HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT HE IS BANKRUPT

Alex is not bankrupt and was not allowed to give false testimony. It's not a rule that's only about Alex - actually nobody is allowed to give false sworn testimony. I think if you consider it for a minute, you'll see, it's a good rule.

THAT HE CAN SAY THAT HE IS THE EASTER BUNNY, IF THAT IS WHAT HE WANTS TO SAY...

Yes! He can! He can say that all day if he wants! Because that's not defamatory and nobody would have legal cause to sue. Once he starts making defamatory statements, he is liable to be hauled before a jury damages trial.

THIS IS A KANGAROO COURT.

I'll tell you what's especially degrading to the legal system - ignoring production for five years, ignoring your lawsuits, hoping it will all go away, and then lying on the stand.

If you want to complain that this trial has been bad for the legal system, it's 100% Alex to blame.

Alex had every chance to produce documents. To prepare a corporate rep for deposition. If he had, the trial would have been about liability, and the jury would have been asked whether or not he's guilty. Instead Alex chose to ignore court orders to produce, and now he faces the consequence for his actions.

[–]jingles 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

i appreciate your taking the time to write that.

thank you.