Kanye W. reportedly sued for $250 Million for questioning OFFICIAL george floyd story

Flash said:
Not true. I never defended it and listed several reasons it was questionable--live plaintiff, public figure, standing to sue.

When a person lists reasons the lawsuit has problems that is not defending it. As I said earlier, you make unfounded assumptions or do not read carefully. You project things on other posters you think they are saying.

Where did I defend it?
Click to expand...

every time I spoke against it and you argued with me.......
 
Flash said:
I don't know what West said. I was referring to Jones who admitted he lied and was found liable in court.
Click to expand...

No - Jones was NOT found liable in court. The judge did not let jones have a trial. The judge said jones was not being cooperative in the discovery process so she directed a verdict for the plaintiff and told the jury all they can do is assess damages.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO..... I guess you missed the rest of the Constitution.
Try reading Art 3 and the 14th amendment for starters.

Then here are the rules of a civil trial that Jones violated and lay out why he lost in a default judgement since he refused to submit to discovery.
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1453689/texas-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf
Click to expand...

Give us the quote from art 3 and the 14A that says jones can be denied a trial.

You claim jones did not submit to discovery but he did. The judge just didn't like his response!!! So she said he had no right to a trial.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
No - Jones was NOT found liable in court. The judge did not let jones have a trial. The judge said jones was not being cooperative in the discovery process so she directed a verdict for the plaintiff and told the jury all they can do is assess damages.
Click to expand...

Of course. If you don't show up with the required documents you default. Happens all the time. He admitted it was 100% real which means he lied about there not being any murdered children.
 
Flash said:
Of course. If you don't show up with the required documents you default. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...

No - it doesn't happen at all. Jones has a right to a jury trial no matter what.

This whole process of discovery needs to end. There are too many loopholes in it. How do you decide what qualifies as full disclosure.?? Neither side should be forced to disclose anything, though they still have a strong incentive to voluntarily tell the other side what they have to avoid the expense of a trial.
 
Flash said:
It is fairly common--about 14% of civil cases. Trials are relatively rare in civil and criminal law. Most criminal convictions are by guilty pleas and most civil cases are out of court settlements.
Click to expand...

Well of course that's true, you nitiwit. The man criminally accused can accept a plea deal or the man being sued can settle out of court. But he has an absolute RIGHT to a jury trial if he insists and no judge can deny that.

The 7A - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Give us the quote from art 3 and the 14A that says jones can be denied a trial.

You claim jones did not submit to discovery but he did. The judge just didn't like his response!!! So she said he had no right to a trial.
Click to expand...

Jones refused to turn over documents and refused to sit for a deposition as ordered by the court. Refusal to do that results in a default judgement against you in a civil case. Jones received the same treatment anyone that refused to do would receive. The Texas procedure for civil suits clearly lays out how and why a default judgement can be handed down. Jones failed to fulfill his requirements under the procedures in Texas law and so the judge did as the law required and he lost by default.

The 7th amendment refers to "any Court of the United States" which would imply it only applies to Federal cases. Article 3 creates the judicial branch as the Court of the United States. Section 2 of Article 3 gives the powers of the judicial branch and no where does it grant the Court of the United States the power to judge civil cases filed in state courts unless under appeal because the case violates the Constitution or Federal law. Finally, the 14th amendment requires the states to grant equal protection to their citizens. There would be no reason to do this if the previous amendments already did that which would mean that the 7th doesn't guarantee a jury trial in state court. This is some simple stuff that a 6th grader would know and be able to understand.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Well of course that's true, you nitiwit. The man criminally accused can accept a plea deal or the man being sued can settle out of court. But he has an absolute RIGHT to a jury trial if he insists and no judge can deny that.

The 7A - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Click to expand...

The state court of Texas is NOT a court of the United States. It is a state court. The state court of Connecticut is NOT a court of the United States. It is a state court. The 7th amendment does not require jury trials in state courts.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Well of course that's true, you nitiwit. The man criminally accused can accept a plea deal or the man being sued can settle out of court. But he has an absolute RIGHT to a jury trial if he insists and no judge can deny that.

The 7A - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Click to expand...

The 7th Amendment applies to federal civil courts. State civil cases are regulated by state law and constitution.

I never said anything about the right to jury trial but that it was not uncommon for a case to be settled by default (14%). You default when you refuse to present required documents for the trial. Otherwise, nobody would ever present required information because they could just avoid the trial and possible punishment.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
you legal moron. You said when someone accepts a plea deal, that is a default!!!
Click to expand...

No, no, no. You cannot read. I said when a person pleads guilty that is a conviction just like being found guilty by a judge or jury is a conviction but using a different process. So, the guy who plead guilty to seditious conspiracy was convicted the same as if he went to trial.

I said it was a default when one party fails to bring required documents to the trial like that idiot Alex Jones. The trial cannot be held if one party is negligent in following procedure.

You are confusing posts made between me and Postmodern Prophet. Go back and reread the posts.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
"

Hey einstein. The 50 states are each part of the United States. It says "any court" not "any federal court". THINK
Click to expand...

It says "any Court of the United States." New York is not the United States. A court of New York is NOT a "Court of the United States" since it has no jurisdiction in any other state.

Article 3 lays out what Court of the United States means. They didn't modify its meaning when writing the 7th amendment.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Click to expand...

In order for your argument to be valid there would have been no courts in any state prior to the Constitution being adopted and this would have established those courts only after Congress passed a law to create them. So much for you being smarter than "einstein."
 
Flash said:
No, no, no. You cannot read. I said when a person pleads guilty that is a conviction just like being found guilty by a judge or jury is a conviction but using a different process. So, the guy who plead guilty to seditious conspiracy was convicted the same as if he went to trial.

I said it was a default when one party fails to bring required documents to the trial like that idiot Alex Jones. The trial cannot be held if one party is negligent in following procedure.

You are confusing posts made between me and Postmodern Prophet. Go back and reread the posts.
Click to expand...

Default judgements can only happen in civil trials.
 
Allow me to exercise my free speech to identify TDAK as the most stupid fuck on this forum.

And to accomplish that on JPP is like winning the Open Championship with Booby Jones, Walter Hagen. Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Tom Watson,
Tiger Woods, and Phil Mickelson, all in their very prime, all playing in the tournament at once.

Congrats, TDAK.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Allow me to exercise my free speech to identify TDAK as the most stupid fuck on this forum.

And to accomplish that on JPP is like winning the Open Championship with Booby Jones, Walter Hagen. Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Tom Watson,
Tiger Woods, and Phil Mickelson, all in their very prime, all playing in the tournament at once.

Congrats, TDAK.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. More namecalling. It's all the left ever has. Now go back to your mud hut in afficuh and eat your fried chimp.
 
6y5bj6-jpg.1112215
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top