• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-14-2022, 09:11 AM
    He acknowledged they were false when he admitted the shooting really happened.
    17 replies | 897 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-14-2022, 09:09 AM
    Witness claimed the warrant was bogus and based on no evidence. How does the witness know there was no supporting evidence? Maybe the witness thinks he can use ESP to divine what the judge who signed the warrant took into consideration, just like Trump can declassify things just by using his mind.
    297 replies | 9532 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-13-2022, 01:23 PM
    In a defamation case a public figure must prove not only that the statement was false but also that the defendant either knew his statement was false or that he made the statement with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Apparently Moore presented enough evidence to convince the jury of either of these elements.
    17 replies | 897 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-13-2022, 01:16 PM
    You've seen the affidavit? By all means, please share it with us. What did it say?
    297 replies | 9532 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-12-2022, 01:25 PM
    I suggest to you that what's partisan and biased is the reaction of the Trump supporters to the execution of the search warrant. None of them knows anything about the underlying reason the warrant was issued, what the FBI was looking for, or what efforts were used to attempt to obtain the material short of getting a warrant, but that doesn't stop their knee-jerk, we're-in-a-police-state complaints that their idol is being persecuted.
    6 replies | 1334 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-12-2022, 01:02 PM
    If it's a kicker, it's wide left. Congress has no authority to add a disqualification to the office of the Presidency, a Senator, or a Representative. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). The qualifications to be President, a Senator, or a Representative are spelled out in the Constitution, and the only areas in which a person can be disqualified from serving in such capacities are in cases of impeachment and insurrection.
    9 replies | 803 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-11-2022, 03:34 PM
    Rand Paul in 2016: In 2002, an investigation of Trump via a court-approved search warrant is "an attack on the rule of law". In 2016 Trump supporters chanted "Lock Her Up!" (I don't claim Paul ever did.) But in 2022 they claim Trump is the victim of a witch hunt. It all depends on whose ox is gored, doesn't it?
    6 replies | 1334 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-11-2022, 02:41 PM
    That's a wonderful goal, but using 18 USC 2071 may not get you there. The statute is probably unconstitutional because it adds a qualification (in a negative sense) to being President in addition to those specified in the Constitution, something Congress has no authority to do.
    9 replies | 803 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-10-2022, 08:08 AM
    Do you know what a constitutional amendment does? It changes something in the original Constitution or adds something that wasn't there before. Didn't you ever have a middle school civics class? Please read Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/32/243 The Court explains why the 5th Amendment in particular and the Bill of Rights in general were intended to apply only to the federal government, not to the States. You may disagree with the decision, but it was the law for almost 100 years. After the 14th Amendment was ratified, States could no longer do certain things they could do before. So in that sense the Constitution was clearly different than it originally was. Beginning in 1925 the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment made certain proviosions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. But the 7th Amendment hasn't been one of them. See generally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
    24 replies | 1114 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-09-2022, 12:02 PM
    The First Amendment permits one to be an idolater or polytheist, both of which violate the first two Commandments. Article VI, which prohibits religious tests for federal offices, hardly enshrines the Bible or Christianity in the Constitution. In the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of the Supreme Court, said: ". . . t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"
    1 replies | 73 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-09-2022, 10:59 AM
    Jones will likely appeal the judgment and claim that the judge abused her discretion in imposing the default judgment sanction. The appellate court will look at all of the facts and make the call. I can tell you that judges don't like to get involved in discovery disputes; they would rather have the parties work thing about between themselves. However, when that doesn't work, one party will ask the court for an order compelling the other side to do something -- produce documents, sit for depositions, answer interrogatories, etc. The judge may then enter an order requiring the recalcitrant party to comply. It's only when the party refuses to do so that the issue of sanctions arises. The nuclear option is to enter a default judgment, something judges rarely do. My take is that Jones must've really abused the discovery process and violated court orders to such an extent that the judge had no alternative but to drop the default-judgment bomb. Keep in mind that this also happened in the Connecticut case in which Jones is involved. It's much more probable that you have one asshole litigant (Jones) rather than two trigger-happy judges.
    24 replies | 1114 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-09-2022, 10:48 AM
    The 7th Amendment applies only to civil cases in federal courts, as it hasn't been incorporated into the 14th Amendment. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916). Jones's case was in a state court. Also note that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are promulgated by the Supreme Court, contain a provision similar to the Texas rule that permit a court to enter a default judgment against a party who disobeys a court order. See FRCP 37.
    24 replies | 1114 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-09-2022, 10:24 AM
    I have no opinion. I haven't followed the Assange saga, although I suspect there's a statute that criminalizes unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
    24 replies | 1114 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-07-2022, 05:22 PM
    A few things the guy didn't mention: 1. Jones was found to be in contempt of court even before the trial started, failing to produce witnesses and materials relevant to the procedures. Consequently, Jones and Infowars were fined a total of $126,000 in October and December 2019. The judge imposing these fines was not the same judge who presided at the hearing on damages. 2. Rule 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 3. The default judgments in the Texas case came only after Jones repeatedly failed to hand over documents and evidence as ordered by the court, which the judge characterized as "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules."
    24 replies | 1114 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-07-2022, 04:57 PM
    The reason he wasn't allowed is because he continued to disobey court orders, after which the judge had no alternative but to use the nuclear option: enter a default judgment, which she is permitted to do under the Teas rules. The same thing happened in Connecticut. The3 moral of the story is that if you want to make a First Amendment claim don't effectively tell the judge to piss up a stump.
    109 replies | 3132 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-06-2022, 01:27 PM
    Yes. Sadly, Texas has a cap on punitive damages, so scum like Jones can simply build that risk into their cost of doing business and continue to spread lies. So long as gullible morons lap up their swill like so much Jim Jones kool aid, they'll still make a profit. The Texas statute limits punitive damages to an amount equal to the greater of: (1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus (B) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or (2) $200,000.
    109 replies | 3132 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-06-2022, 08:59 AM
    When Jones testified that he had complied with pretrial evidence gathering when the record clearly shows he didn't, that's perjury.
    4 replies | 237 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-06-2022, 08:43 AM
    The punitive damages should have been higher.
    109 replies | 3132 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-06-2022, 08:41 AM
    If Jones wanted to raise a First Amendment issue, he could have. Instead, his continual disobedience of court orders resulted in the judge's rendering a default judgment against him, which means he lost any ability to defend the case on the merits. So if you want to blame someone for this case setting a bad precedent, blame Jones. (The case doesn't really set a precedent, except for narcissistic fools who would repeat Jones's obstructive tactics). People who knowingly say things that are false and that result in harm to other people get sued all the time. It's called defamation and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it isn't protected by the First Amendment.
    109 replies | 3132 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-05-2022, 08:07 AM
    I'm reporting what happened in court. The fact is that due to Jones's continually disobeying court orders a default judgment was rendered against him in the Texas case. See the discussion at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?556165-Default-Judgment-Rendered-Against-Alex-Jones&p=7062886&highlight=Jones#post7062886 It's obvious you know nothing about how the discovery process is designed to work. If you are ever involved in a lawsuit in which the opposing party essentially gives you and the judge a massive finger and refuses to adhere to the rules I think you'd have a different perspective and would insist that your opponent be sanctioned. And if your opponent bitched about a kangaroo court after being sanctioned you'd know he was a fool. Incidentally, the same thing happened to Jones in the Connecticut suit -- another default judgment for disobeying coutrt orders in connection with discovery.
    109 replies | 3132 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-04-2022, 04:30 PM
    He lost the case last September, when a default judgment was rendered against him after he repeatedly failed to hand over documents and evidence as ordered by the court, which the judge characterized as "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules." The latest hearing is simply about how much he'll have to pay in compensatory and punitive damages. The jury came back today with a $4.1 million verdict on the compensatory damages, and the hearing will continue tomorrow on the punitive damages issue.
    109 replies | 3132 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-04-2022, 11:16 AM
    It will be interesting to see how Jones's lawyers explain to the judge why they didn't object when this material was used in court yesterday and why their failure to do so doesn't constitute a waiver of any objection. The motion looks like an after-the-fact CYA maneuver. What's notably absent from the motion is a request that the material that was used in court be stricken from the record. In other words, the jury has already been shown evidence that Jones is a chronic liar, and removing the metaphorical skunk that was loosed in the jury box isn't going to matter. EDIT: On further reflection, it may be that Jones's attorneys are concerned that they might have liability exposure to the third parties whose confidential information is contained in the files that were inadvertently sent to the plaintiffs' attorneys. Under such circumstances, they could be justified in making their motion to have the material returned to them and sealed in the court's records. I am not a litigator, so I'm just speculating here. But the motion doesn't have any effect on the fact that it was used to impeach Jones's credibility yesterday.
    109 replies | 3132 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-04-2022, 06:56 AM
    Whatever else he is, you can add serial perjurer to his description. https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook-trial/index.html
    109 replies | 3132 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    08-01-2022, 12:13 PM
    There's nothing in either the 12th Amendment or the Electoral Count Act giving the Vice President or anyone else the authority to do this. See discussion at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?551617-TX-GOP-Lawmaker-seeks-to-give-VP-Pence-%91Exclusive-Authority%92-to-Overturn-FRAUDULENT-Election
    32 replies | 1317 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    07-31-2022, 09:55 AM
    The folks who believe Trump could, via an executive order, have abolished an agency created by Congress are probably the same ones who thought Pence could unilaterally throw out certified electors.
    32 replies | 1317 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    07-31-2022, 09:47 AM
    Well you shouldn't if you disbelieve all the data from hospitals and governmental agencies showing that the vaccine is helpful in preventing serious illness and death (at least with respect to the older variants). I brought him up to show that all Presidents lie, some more than others. The same can be said of 99.99% of politicians. Look, Biden is at an age that carries increased risks regarding Covid, so I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have taken the vaccine, nor is it surprising that he got infected or, since he took paxlovid, that he tested positive again. But to use Biden's example to suggest that the vaccine has no benefit is disingenuous.
    60 replies | 2787 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    07-30-2022, 04:24 PM
    So when did you start believing Biden? Sure, he doesn't lie nearly as much as Trump (hardly anyone does), but to suggest that the vaccine is 100% effective against infection is absurd.
    60 replies | 2787 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    07-30-2022, 02:26 PM
    Without the jabs, he could be dead.
    60 replies | 2787 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    07-17-2022, 08:26 AM
    So on the one hand you complain that the Court has the power of judicial review. Then you complain that it doesn't strike down unconstitutional federal laws but rubber stamps them. Pray tell, without judicial review how could it declare a law unconstitutional?
    32 replies | 2183 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,402
Posts Per Day
0.64
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 03:51 PM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

08-15-2022


08-07-2022


01-26-2021


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 73 1231151 ... LastLast

08-14-2022


08-13-2022


08-12-2022


08-11-2022


08-09-2022


08-08-2022


08-07-2022


08-06-2022



Page 1 of 73 1231151 ... LastLast