There was no jury that decided his guilt. A judge did that. No trial, no evidence presented.
The jury in a separate trial decided only "damages," after the judge essentially disallowed Jones from saying anything in his defense, at the threat of imprisonment for a contempt of court charge.
The whole thing was a farce. Viva Frei and Robert Barnes have some good discussion of how it all played out.
I don't think a default final judgement is appealable; there's nothing for the appeals courts to examine. He's already lost a motion to set aside the default.
I wouldn't say it's a first ammendment issue, more of he was denied the right to face his accusers. They found anything to default judgement him on so that he could not defend himself in court.
There was no money shot. The judge claimed he didn't provide evidence he says he provided. The jury awarded a default judgement.
There was no jury that decided his guilt. A judge did that. No trial, no evidence presented.
The jury in a separate trial decided only "damages," after the judge essentially disallowed Jones from saying anything in his defense, at the threat of imprisonment for a contempt of court charge.
The whole thing was a farce. Viva Frei and Robert Barnes have some good discussion of how it all played out.
Yep. The more you look into it the more obvious it is that he got railroaded.
The GOOD news is that his appeal will be so, so easy due to the insanely high damages and there is a case to get that judge removed.
Will that actually happen? Depends on the blowback.
I don't think a default final judgement is appealable; there's nothing for the appeals courts to examine. He's already lost a motion to set aside the default.
Default judgements can be appealed for various causes for up to 180 days, and in the case of 'fraud' there's no time limit.
This probably varies by state, so hit your local law library if it's relevant.
If that's the case, then it sounds like it doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment unless I'm missing something?
I wouldn't say it's a first ammendment issue, more of he was denied the right to face his accusers. They found anything to default judgement him on so that he could not defend himself in court.
It's both. He was sued for defamation. That's the first-amendment issue. The denial of his right to a trial is a whole other issue.
If expressing the wrong opinion is punishable to the tune of a billion fucking dollars, then you don’t have freedom of speech.
This isn’t complicated. That’s how I know you’re being a deliberately obtuse retard.
According to what the person above me said, he didn't lose because of what he said.
Notice how I said, "If that's the case"
Kind of hard to provide evidence when you do not even show up to the trial.
https://archive.ph/4JYHX