Posted on 07/21/2022 7:54:04 AM PDT by Red Badger
Effectively, the judges have ruled that Alex Jones is guilty before proven guilty and will instruct the jury to determine just how guilty he is.
In an unprecedented assault on due process and the rule of law, both a Texas and Connecticut judge have ruled that Alex Jones may not discuss the First Amendment, defend his innocence, or point out the rigged elements of the upcoming Sandy Hook defamation case against him.
Here is a limited breakdown of some of the most egregious constitutional violations of due process and the First Amendment as explained by a third-party legal adviser:
You have been denied your fundamental, constitutional due process right to present a defense in Texas or Connecticut. Both Judge Guerra Gamble (D) (Texas) and Judge Barbara Bellis have stripped you of your First Amendment rights for allegedly failing to provide enough discovery. Neither judge can deny that you responded to discovery, they just ruled that it was insufficient. The effect of these rulings, incredibly, is that you have been found guilty by two judges who never even held trials or heard any evidence.
Additionally, “since finding you guilty without listening to any evidence, Judge Guerra Gamble has repeatedly sanctioned you monetarily for exactly the same thing she has already sanctioned you for by declaring you guilty,” the adviser stated.
Judge Guerra Gamble has largely agreed that Alex Jones’ lawyers should be gagged during Alex Jones’ trial from:
Invoking the First Amendment in Alex Jones’ defense:
Arguing that the trial is in any way unfair or unjust to Alex Jones:
Arguing his innocence because Jones failed to produce documents that don’t exist:
Alex Jones has also been prohibited from asserting that the plaintiffs have become public figures by appearing on television, testifying before Congress, giving TED talks, and publishing books.
Finally, the Texas judge has determined that the “jury shall be instructed” to find any arguments about Infowars’ journalistic practices to be “established in favor of the Plaintiff.”
“Even the plaintiffs recognized this order was completely illegal and took the unprecedented step of asking the court to rescind it after you filed an appeal,” the legal adviser noted.
Jury selection for the defamation case begins on July, 25th 2022.
In constitutional republics, the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
In tyrannies, the accused are proclaimed guilty until proven guilty.
This is it America; due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, along with the First Amendment are being systematically destroyed by the judiciary to crush the political establishment’s opposition.
Read the ruling below:
SCRIBD VERSION AT LINK.........................
‘War Against The 1st Amendment.’ Alex Jones Appears For Questioning in Sandy Hook Lawsuit
Jones is a public figure. You and I are not. Being on TV a few times does not make one a public figure; by no definition are the parents such.
I've never see a fair exploration of the existing evidence in any MSM outlet.
Using parents' claimed pain to suppress public discussion of the evidence is authoritarian hooey, of just the sort in which The Liars Obama have regularly engaged.
Uh, that's not what thay says. It says he failed to produce documents that do exist. This would happen to any defendant who did that.
I guess some want this guy to be a conservative hero. He just looks like a self-obessesed nut to me with no regard for anyone else.
He said the dead children were ‘crisis actors’, and said those poor children had not died. He called the parents of the dead children liars for saying they had lost sons and daughters. What kind of person would do that?
Sorry, he’s just another publicity seeking scumbag who is now whining about having to face the consequences of his actions.
I don’t need to scrutinize Sandy Hook very much to know that anyone claiming that people who were killed were not killed.
Facts. Juries determine facts. Did Jones claim something untrue, knowing it was untrue, to the injury of someone.
yes= guilty, no=innocent. Opinions about Jones, infowars, conspiracies and such are not the point of a trial.
I’ve been an on and off fan of Alex Jones for many years; mostly off. But I found his whole thing about Sandy Hook incredibly vile....and for no conceivable gain. I never saw what the hell he was getting at; nor how bent out of shape he got over it (easy to say with so many years in hindsight). He went way, way overboard and while I don’t wish him ill in any way, he’s gonna pay a massive price for his hubris. The legal system is gonna chew him up very badly.
Well, that is what the trial is supposed to determine. Did he or didn’t he. “As best I know” matters not the slightest from either of us. Juries determine facts. You have your opinion, I have mine. Some people would *never* consider a ‘fair exploration’ anything other than a report that confirms their views. If my kid were killed and some A-hole said they hadn’t been, I would indeed be in pain and be perfectly justified in destroying the live, economic viability and social standing of that individual, and the only reason I would do all that would be because I probably would not get away with shooting them
Alex. make the judge arrest you on air! It will be prime time video and rebroadcast in 154 languages.
No greater publicity could ever be bought. And then sue him and everyone around him till the lawyers bleed.
I fear you are right. They don’t play by the rules and they’re showing this but they dare us to call them out. If we call them out they simply deny it and say they are acting constitutionally and then laugh behind out backs. We have to act unconstitutionally now in order to save the constitution. That’s my .02 cents worth.
The msm slanders little people all the time with things like “white nationalist”.
If these are not criminal trials, and in fact civil trials, guilt and innocence should not be terms that are in the article.
Yes, civil...................
Yeah.
I mean I’m white
and I’m a ‘Nationalist’ in the sense that any sane American would mean it (I want the government to take care of my interests - and yours- before giving money to anyone anywhere else, and to fix crime and disease here before doing it in other countries, etc, etc). But somehow they put those two together in a way to get the easily manipulated imagining me standing there in a Klan robe in front of a burning cross.
A “white nationalist” is anyone who opposes anti-white racism.
Seems like the alt media is trying to play it up as a J6-type kangaroo court case. But It isn't and it is not helpful to the conservative cause. Contrast: What the DOJ is doing with the J6 prisoners is blatantly unconstitutional.
The article seems to imply that he can’t speak about those issues at all. The excerpts from the ruling indicate he can’t mention those issues before a jury at trial — such limitations are not unusual.
The court wants documentation as to how much money he earned from discussions of Sandy Hook. IE, a breakdown of revenue by the topic being discussed. Jones has no such record, and it would take devising a complex accounting system to even try to apportion income to topics, especially when income is mostly from an online store and not advertisers.
They turned over all their financial records, 100%.
The Left is all out in the open now. The Left thinks it has won, and is merely implementing its historical play book of tyranny. It is like the Supreme Court nominee who refused to define the concept of what a woman is — she was saying: “I’m in, and there is nothing you can do about it, cracker.”
“Alex Jones, we have you trussed up and there is nothing you can do about it.”
Good post.
Sandy Hook was the classic Deep State event.
Several researchers have attempted to look into it—and the Deep State went after them in full force.
Here is a podcast from a Florida professor on the topic:
https://www.unz.com/audio/gunsbutter_sandy-hook-and-the-politics-of-mass-shootings-331/
His university tried to fire him—but tenure and excellent legal counsel let him keep his job. However, he was banned from mentioning any affiliation from the university on his web page or his podcasts.
So just taking it as a normal legal case, those rulings look legitimate. That's what happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.