4 ms·
> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event? Not in any legal sen
by gizmo686 4y ago
> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?
Not in any legal sense.
1) Defamation is already well established in US law; no novel legal questions came up regarding the borders of protected speach in this case.
2) Precedents are never set at trials. In order for anything from this case to become precedent, it would need to be appealed. Even then, the precedent is limited to the jurisdiction of the appellate court. For this to result in a national precedent, it would need to make its way to the Supreme Court.
3) It was already ruled that Jones is liable, this decision is entirely about the amount. The ruling on liability was not based on the merits of the case, but instead on procedural concerns. Specifically, in the words of the court:
> Defendants' dicovery conduct in this case has shown flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilies of discovery under the rules. The Court finds Defendants' conduct is greatly aggravated by the consistent pattern of discovery abuse throughout the other Sandy Hook cases pending before this court. ... In sum, Defendants have been engaged in pervasis and persistent obstruction of the discovery process in general. The Court is also faced with Defendants' refusal to produce critical evidence. Defendants have shown a deliberate, contumacious, and unwarranted disregard for this Court's authority. Based on the record before it, this Court finds that Defendants' egregious discovery abuse justifies a presumption that its defenses lack merit.
If there is any precedent to be set here, it would not be about the merits of the defamation case, but about the due process implications of the default judgement. Having said that, I found that to be an even bigger stretch then a hypothetical challenge on the merits, as Jones was given ample oppurtunity to participate but simply choose not to.
https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-for-Default-Judgement.pdf https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Septe...
- sophacles 4y agoThere may be due process concerns over refusing to follow the due process?
- ncallaway 4y agoJones was afforded due process. Due process requires you to participate in the _process_, which he refused to do repeatedly, for years. He can appeal, but the authority for a trial court to issue a default judgement is not new precedent but rather well established. It’s quite _rare_, but it’s happened before.
- sophacles 4y agoI see now. Thanks
- kolanos 4y ago> He can appeal, but the authority for a trial court to issue a default judgement is not new precedent but rather well established. It’s quite _rare_, but it’s happened before. It should be noted that default judgments rarely stick when appealed.
- ncallaway 4y agoIt should? I went looking for appellate statistics for default judgements in Texas and couldn’t find anything. Do you have a source for the rate of successful appeals against default judgements in Texas (or even more broadly) I’m just not able to find anything on the topic one way or another. Edit to add: Also, are you referring to a Motion to Set Aside made to the original judge, or an appeal made to an appellate court? My understanding is most judges will grant a timely motion to set aside if the default judgement was granted for not showing up because you were unaware of the court proceeding or had extenuating circumstances. This default judgement was granted for misbehavior and refusing to engage with the process over years, so I’d want to look at statistics on successful appeals of a default judgement, and not statistics on successful motions to set aside. Though, again, after a bit of searching I could find neither.
- gizmo686 4y agoIn theory, the challenge to a default judgement would be due process based. In practice, this particular case is practically a textbook example of when due process is appropriate, so I don't see how such a claim could possibly succeed. The point I was making by bringing up a due process claim was that there is no path for this case to become precedent regarding free speech.
- sophacles 4y agoOh I track now, thanks for clarifying.