• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:20 PM
    It would take a massive reduction in federal spending to the point where tariffs could even come close to covering revenue needs. But that ain't gonna happen because the people (and their elected representatives who want to be reelected) wouldn't stand for it.
    39 replies | 1187 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:23 AM
    I was addressing your statement that "Jones' willful disobedience of court orders may justify the making of a default judgement against him, but it doesn't justify the egregious degree of the damages awarded after that default judgement was rendered" and explaining that the punitive damages were based upon Jones's conduct that formed the basis for the the lawsuits in the first place, not his disobedience of court orders. Regarding the plaintiff's alleged desire to shut Jones up (instead of merely seeking to recover that damages imposed), the effect is the same. Once you grant the plaintiffs' right to go after any asset Jones has now or may acquire in the future (subject to any bankruptcy and state exemption laws) you are effectively limiting his ability to start new business ventures, since any profit from a new venture or the ownership of the venture itself would be seized by the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, why would Jones ever start a new venture? I suspect that Jones could easily be hired by someone else to be the mouthpiece for a radio show; it's just that he wouldn't have any ownership interest in the deal, just a salary. Under such circumstances, he'd still be free to spout his B.S., and since he is a Texas resident any wages he receives would be exempt from execution by the plaintiffs. So much for shutting him up. I have no idea whether Jones's social media accounts have any value, and I don't believe the bankruptcy judge has ruled on that matter.
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-18-2024, 11:15 AM
    And scumbags like Jones have no issues with lying about certain families to push certain agendas.
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-17-2024, 01:47 PM
    The unworkability of the "Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment" has been demonstrated earlier. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?516880-President-Trump-gives-up-on-tax-reform-and-embraces-income-tax-manipulation/page2&highlight=johnwk In particular, the Amendment specifically recognizes that there can be a deficit in a particular fiscal year and allows the can to be kicked down the road for an indefinite period -- reread Section 4, which says that the direct tax revenue that is to be used to erase a deficit is to be paid by the States "by a final date set by Congress", which could be years in the future. Moreover, Section 4 doesn't accomplish its purpose. If the direct tax is supposed to erase the deficit and if all of the States pay on time, they still get a 10% discount, which means the deficit won't be erased.
    21 replies | 495 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-17-2024, 09:13 AM
    Possibly, although the line between statements of fact and statements of opinion isn't always clear. Had Jones said something like this he would doubtlessly be grilled in a deposition and asked on what basis he formed these opinions. The "crisis actor" claim is especially problematic, as it suggests that no children were killed and that their parents were simply acting as if they had been. It's hard to imagine any facts that would have supported such an opinion. For a good discussion of this issue see https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-17-2024, 08:03 AM
    Let me explain it so you can understand. In the law of defamation a false statement about a government agent's actions taken in his official capacity is protected in a suit brought by the governmental agent unless it was made with "actual malice", defined as having been made with the knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. In a suit brought by a private party, however, all the plaintiff need show is that the statement was false. Jones's lies about the plaintiffs being "crisis actors" and the whole thing having been staged had nothing to do with governmental action.
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-17-2024, 07:43 AM
    Jones's lies about the families' being "crisis actors" and that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation had nothing to do with the government.
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-17-2024, 07:28 AM
    A yes regarding what? You seem to be suggesting that one shouldn't be naive enough to believe the government wasn't involved, even though there's no proof that it was. Why in the world should anyone believe such a narrative?
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-17-2024, 07:22 AM
    A large chunk of the damages awarded in both the Texas and Connecticut cases were punitive damages, not compensatory damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish the tortfeasor for egregious and malicious conduct and to serve as a deterrent to others. Once again, they can be traced to Jones's own egregious conduct.
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-16-2024, 09:28 AM
    You know, I almost added a postscript saying that this distinction wouldn't satisfy the conspiracy theorists who are convinced beyond doubt that the entire shooting was a ruse and a government plot. I guess I underestimated the extent to which this imbecilic idea has spread.
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-16-2024, 09:16 AM
    The default judgments on liability rendered in Texas and Connecticut resulted from Jones's willfully disobeying court orders, so any egregiousness regarding a finding of liability is entirely his own doing. The plaintiffs have every right to attempt to recover damages from Jones, and given that judgments for willful and malicious conduct aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy they will have the right to do so even after his bankruptcy proceedings are concluded.
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-16-2024, 08:55 AM
    It says that Congress shall make no law abridging the "freedom of speech". That phrase doesn't include the right to defame, unless you think that the drafters of the First Amendment intended to do away with the law of defamation, something that had existed in English law for centuries. It's one thing to say that the Amendment protects speech that makes false claims about the actions of public officials but that aren't made with "actual malice" (see New York Times v. Sulliivan). It's an entirely different matter where a private citizen is defamed about a matter having nothing to do with the government.
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-15-2024, 08:53 AM
    There is no First Amendment right to defame.
    57 replies | 1722 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-15-2024, 08:48 AM
    The fact that they can be prosecuted for violating our laws makes it obvious that they are subject to our jurisdiction. They don't need to consent to be subjected. Or do you think that an illegal immigrant who commits a crime has a perfectly good defense: "Hey, I am an invader, so you have no jurisdiction to try me." Get real.
    101 replies | 2306 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-15-2024, 08:41 AM
    Of course they were. Article III of the Constitution delegated the "judicial power of the United States" to the federal courts. It's obvious that "judicial power" includes the power to determine the law that applies to a particular case. If a party claims that a law (statute, regulation, ordinance, common law rule, or any other type of law) violates the Constitution, a court must decide whether it does. The Court just overturned a ban on bump stocks. I guess they didn't get the memo that they were supposed to rubber stamp it. You apparently don't realize that the power to impose a federal income tax (along with other kinds of taxes) comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. It was put there deliberately because the requisition method under the Articles of Confederation was a failure (see Federalist 15). The only reason for the 16th was to overturn an 1895 SCOTUS decision that held that a tax on investment income (but not other kinds of income) was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.
    39 replies | 1187 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-14-2024, 10:59 AM
    The only kind of income tax that was unconstitutional before the 16th was a tax on investment income. The Court went out of its way in the Pollock decision to reaffirm that a tax on other kinds of income such as pay-for-work was valid: Later, the Court explained why the entire act had to be held void: Here's a link to the case upholding the Civil War era income tax against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/102/586/
    39 replies | 1187 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-14-2024, 08:18 AM
    Wrong. The only time a federal income tax was ever held unconstitutional was the tax on investment income addressed in the 1895 Pollock decision. This result was overturned by the 16th Amendment. A tax on personal compensation had previously been upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1881, based on the general taxing power granted to Congress in I.8.1 of the Constitution.
    39 replies | 1187 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-14-2024, 07:54 AM
    Whose definition? Yours? LOL! There's certainly no such legal definition, and that's what counts. In any event, the 14th Amendment makes no exception for invaders, so your argument is still a loser.
    101 replies | 2306 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-13-2024, 10:10 AM
    I agree with you. They seem to think that using such rhetoric helps to shoehorn an exception into the 14th Amendment that isn't there.
    101 replies | 2306 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-13-2024, 09:59 AM
    It sure is. Most if not all states protect a person's right of publicity to prevent the commercial use of his likeness without permission. Some states even extend this protection to the estate of a deceased person (e.g. Elvis). Speaking of Elvis, Tennessee recently enacted the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act, to go into effect July 1. The goal of the act is to protect songwriters, performers, and music industry professionals' voices from unauthorized cloning with AI technology. Previously, Tennessee law did not explicitly include voice as a protected right, along with name, photograph, and likeness. Further, the law only protected such rights from unauthorized use in advertising. This new legislation amends the state's Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984 to add ďvoiceĒ as a protected personal right and expands protection of such personal rights against all unauthorized uses.
    14 replies | 387 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-13-2024, 09:40 AM
    But Trump has said on many occasions (I posted some of them) that Article II allows him to do anything. He's not lying, is he? I'd be shocked, shocked to think that he wasn't telling the truth. SCOTUS disagrees with you, and its rulings, and not your uninformed opinions, are the law. BTW. Trump's proposal would apply to the child of any illegal alien whether part of an invasion or not.
    101 replies | 2306 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-12-2024, 07:07 AM
    Following up on Trump's narcissistic belief that as President he can do anything he wants, today's Wall Street Journal has a column written by William A. Galston that outlines some of Trump's proposed expansions of executive power in the even he's reelected. Among other things, he wants to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. While this may be a laudable goal, it is at odds with the plain language of the 14th Amendment and with Supreme Court precedent. The column concludes: https://ereader.wsj.net?selDate=20240612&goTo=A015&artid=1&editionStart=The%20Wall Street Journal
    101 replies | 2306 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-10-2024, 01:21 PM
    He couldn't. He just thinks he can because Article II of the Constitution somehow gives him the authority to do anything he wants, something that never occurred to every other president in the country's history.
    101 replies | 2306 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    06-05-2024, 03:15 PM
    She's the GOP's version of Maxine Waters.
    29 replies | 1820 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-22-2024, 07:36 PM
    And I see you have yet to respond to the fact that Walter Nixon was first convicted and later impeached,
    22 replies | 795 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    05-20-2024, 07:46 PM
    I would point out that federal judge Walter Nixon was convicted of perjury, and this conviction was.the basis for his subsequent removal from office by the Senate via impeachment.
    22 replies | 795 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
2,807
Posts Per Day
0.63
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 04:09 PM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

06-19-2024


04-16-2024


04-15-2024


06-11-2023


04-26-2023


09-14-2022


08-28-2022


08-22-2022


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 96 1231151 ... LastLast

06-19-2024


06-18-2024


06-17-2024


06-16-2024


06-15-2024


06-14-2024



Page 1 of 96 1231151 ... LastLast