Sonny Tufts
Member

Not surprisingly, you missed the point. How does it help the "revolution" to peddle a snake-oil "you-don't-have-to-pay-income-tax" scheme, other than to prey on (and earn a little cash from) gullible suckers who rely on the B.S and end up having to pay back taxes, penalties, and interest? I guess they're just collateral damage, right?

He just didn't encourage people to not file tax returns. He peddled a bogus theory (based o gross misrepresentations of the law) that said most people didn't have to that his marks relied on to their detriment. He's nothing but a con artist who dared the government to prosecute him (not the sharpest pencil in the box, is he?) and when it did he didn't rely on his own theory in his defense because he knew it was total B.S. His hubris brought him a 15 month sentence in the slammer.

Defamation isn't protected speech.

Gee, I wonder if he represents people who have been defamed by loudmouth media whores...

And your source for this claim is what? A YouTube video by two obscure bloggers? Do you have a copy of the order imposing the default judgment that reflects that this was the sole basis for granting a default judgment? If so, please post it. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke.

It wasn't a summary judgment. It was a sanction for refusing to obey a court order. Judges hate getting involved in discovery disputes. They prefer to rely on the parties to work things out. But if that doesn't work then one party will move the court to issue an order requiring the other party to comply with the discovery rules by sitting for a deposition, answering deposition questions that weren't answered, producing documents, or some other discovery matter. But if the other party doesn't comply the party that requested the order can (and probably will) ask the court to impose some sort of sanction. Here are the Connecticut and Texas rules on the available sanctions: . At the hearing on the motion the party asking for the sanctions will have to convince the judge that the other party has, in fact, disobeyed the order. Given that the rendering of a default judgment is the most onerous sanction there is, and given that this sanction was imposed not once but twice in separate state courts, it is inconceivable (except for those who see conspiracies everywhere) that there wasn't sufficient evidence to sustain the sanctions that were imposed. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and Jones will get the default judgments reversed on appeal, assuming that he has the wherewithal to pursue an appeal of either or both cases. But I'm not holding my breath.

Look doofus, you know nothing about trial practice. I can tell you that judges don't resort to the nuclear option (entering a default judgment) unless there's been a clear and continuous violation of court orders. The fact that two judges 2,000 miles apart came to the same conclusion about Jones's disobedience should tell you something, but you're so dense I rather think you're under the delusion the two of them probably conspired over Zoom to plot how they'd screw Jones.

In Jones's case it became much easier when he continued to disobey discovery orders. In both the Texas and Connecticut cases the judges were forced to use the nuclear option -- to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability.

I agree. So you have two biased networks -- ABC and Fox News. What else is new?

Fun fact: you don't need to be in politics to be a chronic and habitual liar. In fact, in the real estate business it can be an asset. And sorry to burst your deluded bubble, but I never watch or listen to MSNBC. You suffer the malady shared by many Trumpers: you think that anyone who dares to criticize him just has to be a MSNBC-loving left-wing nutcase who worships Harris and the other loonies in the Democratic party. In any case, I don't give a damn about your uninformed opinion. I wish Barry Goldwater or someone like him were around (and given the sorry state of the GOP, that ain't gonna happen); he'd tear Trump a new asshole.

You obviously haven't been listening to Trump very much. How can you tell he's lying? His lips are moving.. No, she shouldn't get a pass. Here's a link to today's article by Politifact in which it analyzes the claims of both Trump and Harris during the debate. https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/sep/11/2024-presidential-debate-fact-check-harris-trump/ Yes, they should. But I wonder if one factor was that Trump repeated lies he has spewed in the past and the moderators probably figured he'd do so again so they had the facts at hand, whereas Harris didn't have a long enough lying track record (compared to Trump, no one does) and they weren't sure what she was going to say.