Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legal Bombshell: Leftist Judges Rule Alex Jones May Not Discuss 1st Amendment, Say He Is Innocent, or Claim Court Case Rigged
https://summit.news ^ | 21 July, 2022 | Staff

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


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 5g; alexjones; aliens; clownjustice; conspiracynut; freespeech; guerragamble; humblefluffer; humblenutjob; humbletard; kangaroojustice; kingoftheqtards; lizardpeople; qook; traitorjones; twotierjustice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
To: Republican in occupied CA

Maybe you can post the video of Jones saying Sandy Hook never happened, or was a fake. That claim keeps coming up, but there is not video of it. I find that rather odd.
All I have ever seen is discussions about odd things, like a parent laughing before he steps up to the microphone. And I also saw discussions with someone who claimed some of the people in the crowd were at other mass shooting events. Maybe they were or weren’t, but he anomalies and oddities cannot even be discussed?

That is where the 1st amendment comes in and yes, it is part of the trial. The trial that *never happened* because the democrat judges demanded he produce something that does not exist.


41 posted on 07/21/2022 8:55:33 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs are called man's best friend. Moslems hate dogs. Add it up..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Jones defaulted because the court found discovery violations.

He’s already been “found guilty” in that sense. This idiotic blog author doesn’t have a clue about what happened and why and is beating the drum of stupid for the trailer park idiots.


42 posted on 07/21/2022 8:56:42 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Post 37. They provided 100% of their financials. The judge wants a breakdown that simply does not exist.


43 posted on 07/21/2022 8:57:06 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs are called man's best friend. Moslems hate dogs. Add it up..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

It’s all unconstitutional.

They cannot technically order him to do that, although we all know what the left thinks of the Constitution.


44 posted on 07/21/2022 9:18:29 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican in occupied CA
"matters not in the slightest from either of us"

Baloney. As context for what I have to say, my comments are not idle, as if coming from one who's not researched the event. I've studied the evidence from the event more than 99% of the populace have. Yet, what I say is not to affirm Jones' guilt or an attempt to exonerate him.

I'm far more interested in the facts of the event than pretending Jones' involvement and what the jury said about what he did have necessarily determined the facts of the case itself. In like fashion, I feel no obligation to believe what DC judges or juries attempting to determine guilt or innocence of J6 defendants have said. I see the farce of their undue punishment, lies and show trials.

You written justification for violence, real, imputed and ascribed to parents in this case is abhorrent. I will respond no further to the likes of you!

45 posted on 07/21/2022 9:22:18 AM PDT by rx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rx

Enjoy it down the whack-a-doodle rabbit hole!


46 posted on 07/21/2022 9:23:24 AM PDT by Republican in occupied CA (I will not give up on my native State! Here I was born, here I fight and die!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

Tremendous post!


47 posted on 07/21/2022 9:23:50 AM PDT by rx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Bingo. Yet those facts won’t stop the trailer park residents from engaging in their normal stupidity and crying about conspiracies that don’t exist.


48 posted on 07/21/2022 9:23:54 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

That, and other facts, are for the court.

Are the anomalies and oddities related to the facts?

But I expect the whack jobs will blame the judges, as they always do (on both sides of the political spectrum) when they don’t get the decision they want.


49 posted on 07/21/2022 9:26:20 AM PDT by Republican in occupied CA (I will not give up on my native State! Here I was born, here I fight and die!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rx

Violence would be absolutely justified, even if not legal, if someone casted aspersions on me if my kid were killed.

I have no interest to a response from an evil, deluded nutter such as yourself; your definition or ‘research’ is looking for confirmatory evidence on Youtube. But then you probably think there’s a pedophile ring in your local pizza parlor. and no one gives the slightest damn about what you think about what any judge or jury decides, thankfully.


50 posted on 07/21/2022 9:30:37 AM PDT by Republican in occupied CA (I will not give up on my native State! Here I was born, here I fight and die!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

The mass media and .gov create narratives.

Anyone who questions any of those narratives is a “nutter”.

Got it.


51 posted on 07/21/2022 9:36:40 AM PDT by cgbg (A kleptocracy--if they can keep it. Think of it as the Cantillon Effect in action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
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%.

If that's the case, then he's got a good issue for appeal.

52 posted on 07/21/2022 9:50:51 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Bttt.

5.56mm


53 posted on 07/21/2022 9:54:58 AM PDT by M Kehoe (Quid Pro Joe and the Ho got to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican in occupied CA

“Juries determine facts.”

No, they don’t. They make decisions based upon whatever evidence, absence of evidence, or narratives the judge allows them to hear.

Plenty of jury verdicts have been overturned on appeal because the jury based a verdict on biased information.

The Alex Jones verdict is likely going to be tossed on appeal and, oddly, it’s when the case hits the appellate court that we’re more likely to see a fair hearing of the anomalies and stipulated (agreed upon) facts in the case.

That’s assuming the appellate court doesn’t toss the case entirely.


54 posted on 07/21/2022 9:57:04 AM PDT by MercyFlush (☭☭☭ Soviet Russia must be destroyed. ☭☭☭)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: imabadboy99

Alex Jones is also an accomplished singer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5EKuIus-oE


55 posted on 07/21/2022 9:59:22 AM PDT by MercyFlush (☭☭☭ Soviet Russia must be destroyed. ☭☭☭)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

This article is a load of nonsense.

a) It’s standard in defamation cases that you can’t make a 1st Amendment defense UNLESS you prove that the speech was not defamatory. The court has already found that Jones failed to do that.

b) Making arguments that the court was unfair is something you can do on appeal, not at trial. Again, this is standard.

c) The third point has nothing at all to do with “arguing his innocence” as the article claims, but is about arguing his net worth (to mitigate damages he can pay I assume). The judge is ruling since he failed to produce the documents to back up those arguments in discovery, then he can’t make the arguments. Again, that’s a standard ruling. You can’t produce evidence in a trial that you didn’t produce during discovery unless you get special permission from the judge, and usually that is only going to happen if the other side doesn’t object. Otherwise it would probably result in a mistrial, which is probably what Jones’ lawyers were really trying to provoke.


56 posted on 07/21/2022 10:07:44 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican in occupied CA

Yep, glad there’s at least one other person here that has enough brains to read past the bias in the article and see that there’s really nothing here.


57 posted on 07/21/2022 10:08:48 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gitmo

The judge is instructing the jury as to findings of fact in the case, which is the judge’s job.


58 posted on 07/21/2022 10:10:07 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: imabadboy99

He is a nut job.


59 posted on 07/21/2022 10:10:11 AM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
He is a nut job.

So does that mean we should take away his rights?

60 posted on 07/21/2022 10:10:59 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (3,576,552 users on Truth Social)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson