The judge ruled on Monday that because Mr. Jones had refused to turn over documents ordered by the courts, including financial records, he was liable by default. The decision, combined with previous rulings in Texas in late September, means Mr. Jones has lost all the defamation lawsuits filed against him by the families of 10 victims.
Lawyers for Mr. Jones said he would appeal.
Mr. Jones for years spread bogus theories that the shooting that killed
20 first graders and six educators was part of a government-led plot to confiscate Americans? firearms and that the victims? families were ?actors? in the scheme. People who believed those false claims accosted the families on the street and at events honoring their slain loved ones, abused them online, contacted them at their homes and threatened their lives.
The parents of Noah Pozner, the youngest Sandy Hook victim, whose parents were the first to sue Mr. Jones, have moved nearly 10 times since the shooting, and live in hiding.
Now it's on to what the judgment will be. I hope it's so big that it bankrupts him. Even better, I hope he pulls some criminal acts in trying to hide his assets so he can go to jail. I'm sure he's already minimized his exposure. Michael Lindell next. And unlike Jones, Lindell has a huge asset that he can't hide, which makes him a mega dummy.
Can be a fine line. Sure, you want to protect free speech but if it causes injury to another, should it still be protected? Sort of the Fire in a theater catch.
My guess the money will be pissed away on lawyers before anyone can touch a penny and he has already hidden plenty.
The issue is not that it caused injury, but that it was a pack of lies, that even Jones finally admitted to and it caused injury. Even worse, this scum bag did it for PROFIT. Some here seem to never have heard of a defamation case before. If you injured someone by yapping about something that was true, there would be no case. The sad thing is that even after this debacle, Jones still has a large audience of fools.
I think the parents number one aim is to get revenge, even if all of Jones' money went to their attorneys.
Negligent infliction of emotional distress began to develop in the late nineteenth century, but only in a very limited form, in the sense that plaintiffs could recover for consequential emotional distress as a component of damages when a defendant negligently inflicted physical harm upon them. By 1908, most industrial U.S. states had adopted the "physical impact" form of NIED. However, NIED started developing into its more mature and more controversial form in the mid-20th century, as the new machines of the Second Industrial Revolution flooded the legal system with all kinds of previously unimaginable complex factual scenarios....
formatting link
I don't have a date for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it's plainly worse than the negligent version and it's surely quite a bit older.
And add to that that he used lies, I guess that makes it 3 times as bad/
Muller deferred to congress because he could not make any criminal charges that would stick so they made it a political witch hunt, hoping to come away with some process crimes.
They had no problem prosecuting the crimes they found. You folks love that stat. None of them were the collusion they were supposed to be looking for. That speaks for itself.
TRUMP: ?NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION.? ? tweet Wednesday.
BARR: ?The evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous. ...Two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false.? ? Senate hearing Wednesday.
GRAHAM, Republican senator from South Carolina: ?Mr. Mueller and his team concluded there was no collusion.? ? Senate hearing.
THE FACTS: Allegations of ?collusion? were not ?proven false? in the Mueller investigation, nor was the issue of ?collusion? addressed in the report.
The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence ?to establish? or sustain criminal charges.
The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he ?cannot rule out the possibility? that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation?s findings.
The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether ?collusion? occurred because it is not a legal term. The investigation found multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the report said it established that ?the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.?
formatting link
"Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion
The Mueller Report did not find any evidence of collusion, but did find two main efforts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign."
Both of those cites are left leaning, not some right wingers.
You left out the most important part. Most of the crimes they found and prosecuted were for lying and refusing to cooperate, which obstructed the investigation and made it impossible to determine the truth about whether there was collusion or not. And then Trump pardoned them, completing the coverup. Since you claim that Trump and his campaign have been completely vindicated, can you explain for us how it is that Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, gave his associate in Ukraine, who is a Russian intel agent, Trump campaign polling data?
In the American justice system that is "not guilty".
In politics that simply means they need to move the goal posts.
The fact remains the only thing Mueller came up that he could prove was some unrelated fiscal crimes and some process crimes created by the investigation.
This is just how political vendettas work. Bill Clinton was being investigated over misdealings in White Water, they convicted some of his friends, turned up an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate and trapped him in a process crime.
A jury decision of not guilty just means that there was not a sufficient case to prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. Like OJ is not guilty, does that mean that he didn't do it? Plus you keep ignoring that many of the convictions Mueller did get were for lying and participating in a cover-up to hide the truth. That would be like some criminal defendant getting off because witnesses lied, were intimidated, etc.
Mueller uncovered that the Trump campaign was eager and ready to take dirt on Hillary from the Russian lawyer. That was another thing Trump desperately tried to lie about and cover up. And more importantly he uncovered that Manafort passed Trump campaign polling data to a Russian agent in Ukraine. I asked you to give us some innocent explanation for that, why anyone in Ukraine, let alone a Russian agent, would need Trump polling data? And that's why Manafort, Stone and others lied and tried to cover up what they did there, with Wikileaks, etc.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.