unclevlad Posted September 25, 2021 Report Share Posted September 25, 2021 5 hours ago, Cygnia said: At every step of the way, right-wing media provided the pretext for Trump’s attempted coup SO MUCH of the right-wing media was in lockstep with every piece of the Trump agenda that it was hard to tell them apart. This was pointed out much earlier in his term. And it went both ways...how often did a Fox News "report" turn into a Trump move? On a variety of topics, both foreign and domestic. So this really is "same old, same old." Granted that we need to identify and expose as much of this as we can because what cannot happen is that we forget it, particularly in the face of the blatant attempt to rewrite the coup as just a little harmless get-together. TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 ". . .whatever had happened behind the scenes at InfoWars was so bad that Jones would rather take the worst possible outcome in the defamation suits than release documentation." TrickstaPriest and DShomshak 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickstaPriest Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, wcw43921 said: ". . .whatever had happened behind the scenes at InfoWars was so bad that Jones would rather take the worst possible outcome in the defamation suits than release documentation." “Never before have we seen a defendant so committed to thumbing his nose at the Court. By disrespecting judicial authority, Mr. Jones was playing was with fire, and now he has been burnt,” Bankston added. “In these lawsuits, Mr. Jones refused to comply with discovery orders on five successive occasions, produced child ****ography in discovery, threatened the lives of plaintiffs’ counsel, repeatedly refused to provide testimony, provided false and evasive discovery responses, submitted a fraudulent affidavit, and has continuously introduced chaos and absurdity into the proceedings.” Edited October 2, 2021 by TrickstaPriest censoring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 12 hours ago, wcw43921 said: ". . .whatever had happened behind the scenes at InfoWars was so bad that Jones would rather take the worst possible outcome in the defamation suits than release documentation." And how much do ya wanna bet that his significant assets have been well hidden? Or alternately that he's gotten private word that he'll be taken care of. No mention made of Jones' lawyers, so it's not clear he had any. He wasn't cooperating at all, so it seems possible he didn't bother. And some of these stunts feel like they'd get any associated lawyer disbarred on ethics charges. Some others, maybe the lawyer could throw his client under the bus..."I tried!! but he refused" and the rest is attorney-client privilege. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoloOfEarth Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 2 hours ago, unclevlad said: No mention made of Jones' lawyers, so it's not clear he had any. He wasn't cooperating at all, so it seems possible he didn't bother. Nope. " Jones and InfoWars managed to burn through six separate defense attorneys throughout his legal defense and is now on his seventh, Brad Reeves." Lawnmower Boy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lectryk Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 2 hours ago, unclevlad said: No mention made of Jones' lawyers, so it's not clear he had any. He wasn't cooperating at all, so it seems possible he didn't bother. And some of these stunts feel like they'd get any associated lawyer disbarred on ethics charges. Some others, maybe the lawyer could throw his client under the bus..."I tried!! but he refused" and the rest is attorney-client privilege. 'Jones and InfoWars managed to burn through six separate defense attorneys throughout his legal defense and is now on his seventh, Brad Reeves.' Was the attorney participating in the wrong doing? Is there proof of that participation? Two hurdles to clear first. The attorney isn't being ordered to turn anything over, the attorney isn't disregarding the courts orders, the attorney isn't a named party to the action, why would the attorney be sanctioned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 The attorney is also an officer of the court, so is held to a higher standard. It wouldn't surprise me that the earlier legal teams bailed in part because of the contemptuous attitude of Jones. Were I Mr. Reeves, I'd be going with "it's my client, and all I'm doing is filling out forms." And under the circumstances...I'd accept that. It seems rather clear that Jones isn't listening, because there's no way any lawyer would countenance what he's doing. I don't know if Jones can be held in criminal contempt...I think the type of judgment is as much as can be done...but I think a lawyer who actively approved, participated, or endorsed this, *could* be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt the Bruins Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 Is Texas very different from other states about jailing people over contempt of court in civil cases? I knew of someone who went to jail for not paying his court-mandated child support here in AR, and it seems like this is much more flagrant disrespect toward the judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lectryk Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Matt the Bruins said: Is Texas very different from other states about jailing people over contempt of court in civil cases? I knew of someone who went to jail for not paying his court-mandated child support here in AR, and it seems like this is much more flagrant disrespect toward the judge. The article cites language in several places that shows the court and plantiff's counsel certainly thought it was contemptous. I'm surprised the judge let this drag on as long as it did (5 different orders were disregarded), Jones should have been jugged earlier in the process, but the judge has ultimate discretion over declaring someone in contempt (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.21.htm Sec. 21.002. CONTEMPT OF COURT. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (g), a court may punish for contempt.) Maybe each change of representation caused the presiding judge to change, because of the schedule change? The ruling judge made clear the way Jones' actions hurt him, with a directed judgement, and direct move to the penalty phase. This is more punishment than a simple contempt charge could level at this point - Jones, InfoWars and the parent Free Speech something lost, and will face the penalties assessed by the jury. His actions (refusal to mount a defense is not solid grounds for an appeal) will be weighed in any appeals process he/they try to start. Matt the Bruins and TrickstaPriest 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt the Bruins Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 I wonder if Jones will say anything about the lawsuits on his show and risk the craziest of his followers harassing and stalking a sitting judge... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted October 5, 2021 Report Share Posted October 5, 2021 10 hours ago, Matt the Bruins said: I wonder if Jones will say anything about the lawsuits on his show and risk the craziest of his followers harassing and stalking a sitting judge... Considering his b behavior so far, he might be counting on it. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted October 5, 2021 Report Share Posted October 5, 2021 Jan. 6 rioters exploited little-known Capitol weak spots: A handful of unreinforced windows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickstaPriest Posted October 5, 2021 Report Share Posted October 5, 2021 Best example of the 'texas abortion law' abuse I've seen yet - sure, women can drive, but anyone who sees a women driving a car can just sue the dealership or even auto manufacturer. Now of course they don't even need to see her driving, they can just suspect she's driving, or if that's too much trouble they can just accuse her of driving with no evidence at all. Now, before you get your constitutional britches in a hitch, we aren't saying she can't drive or that a dealership can't sell her a car, we are just saying you aren't legally allowed to say any of those things when someone sues you for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinecone Posted October 5, 2021 Report Share Posted October 5, 2021 Of course you can Be Catholic, it's just if you practice any citizen can sue! ....etc..... This is the most severe violation of the constitution yet tried. The persons responsible should be charged for violation of their oath of office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted October 5, 2021 Report Share Posted October 5, 2021 Read an article about how Texas is changing; the growth rate is seriously high, and this may alter voting patterns. That'll take a while, tho. Some things from recent news: another hospital was sued to try to force treatment with ivermectin. It was denied. But that's at least 2. Then there's the *bizarre* protest in NYC about Australia's very tight restrictions. Part of the protest, I saw, included overturning a mobile Covid testing station...so much for being purely peaceful. In another story, the core was about a 10 year old girl who died 5 days after showing initial symptoms...and while the parents were bedside, grieving, people were at a school board hearing calling for the end of mask mandates because Covid only takes out the old and sick. The degree of active disinformation is perhaps the greatest threat to free speech we've ever seen. It's been weaponized, and with instant communications, it's created its own perpetual motion. It has shown that nearly unbridled free speech may no longer be in society's best interest...which is horrifying. And I'm not saying that there are good solutions here; anything that restricts negative speech can very likely be turned around. But the status quo is broken. That needs to be acknowledged, and a search for potential remedies started. To be sure: there's no real chance that any changes will be made. But I think the debate has to start. Pariah, Joe Walsh and TrickstaPriest 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted October 5, 2021 Report Share Posted October 5, 2021 "Free speech is available to anyone who can afford it" is the description I've heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 Judge orders Texas to suspend new law banning most abortions The bit that really caught my attention is this bit from counsel to the Texas state Attorney General: Quote Other states, mostly in the South, have passed similar laws that ban abortion within the early weeks of pregnancy, all of which judges have blocked. But Texas' version has so far outmaneuvered the courts because it leaves enforcement to private citizens to file suits, not prosecutors, which critics say amounts to a bounty. "This is not some kind of vigilante scheme," said Will Thompson, counsel for the Texas Attorney General's Office, while defending the law to Pitman last week. "This is a scheme that uses the normal, lawful process of justice in Texas." Um, leaving enforcement in the hands of private citizens instead of law enforcement is kind of the definition of a vigilante scheme, isn't it? Grailknight, Matt the Bruins and Hermit 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjalund Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 2 hours ago, Pariah said: Um, leaving enforcement in the hands of private citizens instead of law enforcement is kind of the definition of a vigilante scheme, isn't it? yep, that's how lynchings work Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csyphrett Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 How would a private citizen even know to call? Only in Texas. CES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickstaPriest Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 edit: content warning for understandable reasons Wouldn't mind finding more full takes of these videos >_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickstaPriest Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 nt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranxerox Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 42 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said: edit: content warning for understandable reasons For understandable reason? Perhaps if I watched the video the reasons would be understandable, but that is not how content warnings are suppose to work. The warning is suppose to let you know in advance what sort of trauma you may be letting into your brain if you view or listen to the content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickstaPriest Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 1 minute ago, Ranxerox said: For understandable reason? Perhaps if I watched the video the reasons would be understandable, but that is not how content warnings are suppose to work. The warning is suppose to let you know in advance what sort of trauma you may be letting into your brain if you view or listen to the content. Understood. I'm sorry. Ranxerox 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranxerox Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 6 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said: Understood. I'm sorry. Thank you for the edit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted October 8, 2021 Report Share Posted October 8, 2021 2 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said: Understood. I'm sorry. Just my personal take? If I post video that disturbing, I write a paragraph's worth of warning. Perhaps: WARNING: The video below shows EXTREMELY disturbing footage of police behavior that is...nauseating. It isn't gory or anything...not that I saw, but it's...truly stunningly awful. With video that bad...it's important enough to post, no question...but it's rather hard to overstate the warning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.