DOCSLIB.ORG

Appellants' Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ACCEPTED 03-19-00811-CV 40040716 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/16/2020 10:03 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK NO. 03-19-00811-CV FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS USTIN EXAS A , T 1/16/2020 10:03:51 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk ALEX E. JONES, INFOWARS, LLC, FREE SPEECH SYSTEMS, LLC, AND OWEN SHROYER, Appellants, v. NEIL HESLIN, Appellee On Appeal from the 53rd District Court, Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-18-001835 APPELLANTS’ BRIEF T. Wade Jefferies David J. Sacks THE LAW FIRM OF T. WADE JEFFERIES SACKS LAW FIRM State Bar No. 00790962 State Bar No. 17505700 401 Congress Ave., Suite 1540 2323 S. Shepherd, Suite 825 Austin, TX 78701 Houston, TX 77019 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: (512) 201-2727 Telephone: (713) 863-8400 Facsimile: (512) 687-3499 Facsimile: (713) 863-0502 Counsel for Appellants Lead Counsel for Appellants ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED NO. 03-19-00811-CV IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 1. Appellants: Counsel for Appellants: Alex E. Jones, David J. Sacks Infowars, LLC, and State Bar No. 17505700 Free Speech Systems, LLC SACKS LAW FIRM Owen Shroyer 2323 S. Shepherd Dr., Suite 825 Houston, Texas 77019 [email protected] T. Wade Jefferies State Bar No. 00790962 THE LAW FIRM OF T. WADE JEFFERIES 401 Congress Ave., Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 [email protected] Trial Court: Michael Burnett State Bar No. 00790399 BURNETT TURNER 6034 W. Courtyard Drive, Suite 140 Austin, Texas 78730 [email protected] Mark C. Enoch State Bar No. 06630360 Mark C. Enoch, PC 14801 Quorum Drive, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75254-1449 [email protected] 2. Appellee: On Appeal: Neil Heslin Mark D. Bankston State Bar No. 24071066 Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball 1010 Lamar, Suite 1600 Houston, Texas 77002 [email protected] APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Page ii NO. 03-19-00811-CV At Trial: Mark D. Bankston State Bar No. 24071066 Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball 1010 Lamar, Suite 1600 Houston, Texas 77002 [email protected] Kyle W. Farrar State Bar No. 24034828 Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball 1010 Lamar, Suite 1600 Houston, Texas 77002 [email protected] William R. Ogden State Bar No. 24073531 Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball 1010 Lamar, Suite 1600 Houston, Texas 77002 [email protected] APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Page iii NO. 03-19-00811-CV TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ........................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................ix STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................. xiii ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................xiv INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 6 A. June 25, 2017 ZeroHedge Publication Titled “Megyn Kelly Fails To Fact Check Sandy Hook Father’s Contradictory Claim in Alex Jones Hit Piece” ............................................................. 8 B. June 25, 2017, Owen Shroyer Broadcast, Commenting on the June 25, 2017, ZeroHedge Publication ......................................... 10 C. July 20, 2017, Alex Jones Broadcast, Commenting on the Censor of the Owen Shroyer, June 25, 2017, Broadcast..................... 13 D. April 16, 2018, Appellee Heslin Filed this Lawsuit ........................... 16 E. April 19, 2018, Appellee Heslin Authorized the Republication of the Allegedly Defamatory Broadcasts Nationally ............................................................................................ 16 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 17 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 19 I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANTS’ TCPA MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE APPELLANTS ESTABLISHED ALL THREE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS MANDATING DISMISSAL ........................................................................ 19 A. The Purpose of TCPA is to Safeguard Constitutional Rights ............. 19 B. The TCPA Procedure and Standard of Review................................... 20 APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Page iv NO. 03-19-00811-CV C. Appellee Heslin’s Entire Lawsuit and Each of his Claims are Based on, Relate to, and are in Response to Appellants’ Exercise of the Right of Free Speech and the Right to Petition ................................................................................................. 22 D. Appellee Heslin Failed to Show, by Clear-and-Specific- Evidence, Each Element of Each of his Defamation Claims Against Each Appellant ....................................................................... 25 1. Defamation per quod and defamation per se defined ...............26 2. The elements of a defamation claim .........................................26 3. There are no defamatory statements in the two broadcasts from which Appellee complains. ............................27 a. TCPA Evidence standard applied to defamation ..............27 b. There was no “June 26, 2017” broadcast ............................30 c. The June 25, 2017 broadcast is not defamatory ................31 d. The July 20, 2017 broadcast is not defamatory .................35 4. There is no clear-and-specific-evidence Appellants had actual knowledge of falsity or were reckless as to truth. ..........................................................................................37 a. Appellee is a limited purpose public figure ....................37 b. Appellee failed to show clear-and- specific, and clear-and- convincing, evidence of malice -- knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth .............................................................................................. 40 5. Appellee Heslin failed to show any clear-and-specific- evidence that any statement by Appellants proximately caused any damages..............................................42 a. There is no unambiguous, sure, and free-from- doubt evidence of defamation per se ................................... 42 APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Page v NO. 03-19-00811-CV b. There is no unambiguous, sure and free from doubt evidence of defamation per quod damages ...................................................................................... 44 E. Appellants Proved Their Affirmative Defenses, which are Complete Bars to the Defamation Claims ........................................... 46 1. The statute of limitations for defamation claims is one year ............................................................................................47 2. Appellee may not recover exemplary damages as a matter of law because he failed to comply with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem Code §73.055(c) ..........................................48 3. Appellants’ statements are protected expressions of opinion by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution ...................................49 4. InfoWars is not liable based on undisputed facts .....................50 5. Appellee’s defamation claims are barred under the substantial truth doctrine, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §73.005 ............................................................................50 6. Appellee’s defamation claims are barred under the fair comment privilege, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §73.002 ......................................................................................54 II. THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING VIOLATES APPELLANTS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION .......................................................................... 55 III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO SUSTAIN THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS APPELLANTS’ MADE TO APPELLEE HESLIN’S PROFERRED AFFIDAVITS ................................ 59 A. Zipp affidavit (CR:1508-1530, exhibits 1531-1630, Appellants’ objections 1907-1938) .....................................................59 B. Binkowski affidavit (CR:1658-1669, Appellants’ objections 1939-1971) ..........................................................................................61 APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Page vi NO. 03-19-00811-CV C. Heslin affidavit (CR:1693-1697, Appellants’ objections 1971-1974) ..........................................................................................62 D. Carver affidavit (CR:1698-1699; Appellants’ objections CR:1974-1976) ....................................................................................63 E. Lewis affidavit (CR:1702-1704; Appellants’ objections CR:1976-1977) ....................................................................................64 F. Clayton affidavit (CR:1705-1707; Appellants’ objections CR:1977-1979) ....................................................................................65 G. Turnini affidavit (CR:1708-1709 and exhibits CR:1710- 1755, Appellants’ objections CR:1979) ..............................................65 IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO AWARD APPELLANTS’ ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND SANCTIONS AS MANDATED BY THE TCPA. IF ANY OF THE CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST ANY OF THE APPELLANTS ARE DISMISSED, THE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, SANCTIONS AND COSTS IS MANDATORY. ......................................... 66 CONCLUSION AND RELIEF
Recommended publications
  • Chapter 4 the Right-Wing Media Enablers of Anti-Islam Propaganda

    Chapter 4 the Right-Wing Media Enablers of Anti-Islam Propaganda

    Chapter 4 The right-wing media enablers of anti-Islam propaganda Spreading anti-Muslim hate in America depends on a well-developed right-wing media echo chamber to amplify a few marginal voices. The think tank misinforma- tion experts and grassroots and religious-right organizations profiled in this report boast a symbiotic relationship with a loosely aligned, ideologically-akin group of right-wing blogs, magazines, radio stations, newspapers, and television news shows to spread their anti-Islam messages and myths. The media outlets, in turn, give members of this network the exposure needed to amplify their message, reach larger audiences, drive fundraising numbers, and grow their membership base. Some well-established conservative media outlets are a key part of this echo cham- ber, mixing coverage of alarmist threats posed by the mere existence of Muslims in America with other news stories. Chief among the media partners are the Fox News empire,1 the influential conservative magazine National Review and its website,2 a host of right-wing radio hosts, The Washington Times newspaper and website,3 and the Christian Broadcasting Network and website.4 They tout Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson, and others as experts, and invite supposedly moderate Muslim and Arabs to endorse bigoted views. In so doing, these media organizations amplify harm- ful, anti-Muslim views to wide audiences. (See box on page 86) In this chapter we profile some of the right-wing media enablers, beginning with the websites, then hate radio, then the television outlets. The websites A network of right-wing websites and blogs are frequently the primary movers of anti-Muslim messages and myths.
  • ASD-Covert-Foreign-Money.Pdf

    ASD-Covert-Foreign-Money.Pdf

    overt C Foreign Covert Money Financial loopholes exploited by AUGUST 2020 authoritarians to fund political interference in democracies AUTHORS: Josh Rudolph and Thomas Morley © 2020 The Alliance for Securing Democracy Please direct inquiries to The Alliance for Securing Democracy at The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1700 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 E [email protected] This publication can be downloaded for free at https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/covert-foreign-money/. The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the authors alone. Cover and map design: Kenny Nguyen Formatting design: Rachael Worthington Alliance for Securing Democracy The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a bipartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, develops comprehensive strategies to deter, defend against, and raise the costs on authoritarian efforts to undermine and interfere in democratic institutions. ASD brings together experts on disinformation, malign finance, emerging technologies, elections integrity, economic coercion, and cybersecurity, as well as regional experts, to collaborate across traditional stovepipes and develop cross-cutting frame- works. Authors Josh Rudolph Fellow for Malign Finance Thomas Morley Research Assistant Contents Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Introduction and Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election

    Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election

    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
  • Slate.Com Table of Contents Faith-Based a Skeptic's Guide to Passover

    Slate.Com Table of Contents Faith-Based a Skeptic's Guide to Passover

    Slate.com Table of Contents faith-based A Skeptic's Guide to Passover fighting words ad report card Telling the Truth About the Armenian Genocide Credit Crunch foreigners Advanced Search Why Israel Will Bomb Iran books foreigners Why Write While Israel Burns? Too Busy To Save Darfur change-o-meter foreigners Supplemental Diet No Nukes? No Thanks. change-o-meter gabfest Unclenched Fists The Velvet Snuggie Gabfest change-o-meter grieving Dogfights Ahead The Long Goodbye change-o-meter human guinea pig Big Crowds, Few Promises Where There's E-Smoke … chatterbox human nature A Beat-Sweetener Sampler Sweet Surrender corrections human nature Corrections Deeper Digital Penetration culture gabfest jurisprudence The Culture Gabfest, Empty Calories Edition Czar Obama dear prudence jurisprudence It's a Jungle Down There Noah Webster Gives His Blessing drink jurisprudence Not Such a G'Day Spain's Most Wanted: Gonzales in the Dock dvd extras moneybox Wauaugh! And It Can't Count on a Bailout explainer movies Getting High by Going Down Observe and Report explainer music box Heated Controversy When Rock Stars Read Edmund Spenser explainer music box Why Is Gmail Still in Beta? Kings of Rock explainer my goodness It's 11:48 a.m. Do You Know Where Your Missile Is? Push a Button, Change the World faith-based other magazines Passionate Plays In Facebook We Trust faith-based poem Why Was Jesus Crucified? "Bombs Rock Cairo" Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC 1/125 politics today's papers U.S. Department of Blogging Daring To Dream It's
  • Congressional Record—Senate S924

    Congressional Record—Senate S924

    S924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE March 1, 2021 unanimous consent that the rules of in the subcommittee and shall not be count- IMPEACHMENT procedure of the Committee on Appro- ed for purposes of determining a quorum. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, just priations for the 117th Congress be f barely a year ago, I was here making a printed in the RECORD. similar statement. Impeachment is one There being no objection, the mate- TRIBUTE TO CHRISTINA NOLAN of the most solemn matters to come rial was ordered to be printed in the Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would before the Senate, but I worry that it’s RECORD, as follows: like to pay tribute to a great also becoming a common occurrence. SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Before getting into the merits of this Vermonter, Christina Nolan, a most COMMITTEE RULES—117TH CONGRESS impeachment, it is important to reit- dedicated public servant who has I. MEETINGS erate that January 6 was a sad and served as U.S. attorney for the District tragic day for America. I hope we can The Committee will meet at the call of the of Vermont since November 2017. She Chairman. all agree about that. will be resigning her post at the end of What happened here at the Capitol II. QUORUMS this month, 11 years since she first 1. Reporting a bill. A majority of the mem- was completely inexcusable. It was not joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office, but a demonstration of any of our pro- bers must be present for the reporting of a her work and the strong partnerships bill.
  • COMPLAINT Page 1 of 27 Juan C. Chavez, OSB #136428 Franz Bruggemeier, OSB #163533 Alex Meggitt, OSB #174131 Oregon Justice Resou

    COMPLAINT Page 1 of 27 Juan C. Chavez, OSB #136428 Franz Bruggemeier, OSB #163533 Alex Meggitt, OSB #174131 Oregon Justice Resou

    Case 3:21-cv-00561-YY Document 1 Filed 04/14/21 Page 1 of 27 Juan C. Chavez, OSB #136428 Franz Bruggemeier, OSB #163533 Alex Meggitt, OSB #174131 Oregon Justice Resource Center PO Box 5248 Portland, OR 97208 Telephone: 503-944-2270 Facsimile: 971-275-1839 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION HANNAH AHERN, Case No. 3:21-cv-00561 Plaintiff, v. COMPLAINT ERIK KAMMERER, CITY OF PORTLAND; Civil Rights Action (42 U.S.C. § 1983); False and JOHN DOES 1-5. Arrest and Battery (State Tort) Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Ms. Hannah Ahern, Plaintiff, initiates this suit because Defendants unlawfully detained her at a counter-demonstration against white supremacist groups that were using the City of Portland as a staging ground for recruitment and later attacks on other cities. Detective Erik Kammerer, Defendant, fabricated evidence to effectuate an arrest of Ms. Ahern after she spat in the general direction of an approaching van of riot police. Video evidence shows that Defendant Kammerer knew that he did not have probable cause; he merely wanted to punish Ms. Ahern for showing contempt for the riot police. This is in keeping a pattern and practice of the City of Portland, COMPLAINT Page 1 of 27 Case 3:21-cv-00561-YY Document 1 Filed 04/14/21 Page 2 of 27 Defendant, of punishing groups that express sentiments in support of police accountability or against white supremacy, JURISDICTION 1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
  • 871 References Noted Herein + 354 Christian Scripture & Early Churchmen Quotes, + 59 Hebrew Chapter 1

    871 References Noted Herein + 354 Christian Scripture & Early Churchmen Quotes, + 59 Hebrew Chapter 1

    A 1,284 source quotes (871 references noted herein + 354 Christian scripture & early churchmen quotes, + 59 Hebrew bible/ deuterocanonical references “Ibid.” = in its place in noted section) Chapter 1 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous 2: English poet John Milton in Areopagitica 1644 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor’s_New_Clothes 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell Chapter 2 1: See chapter 1’s reference 2: Relativism: Lecture on CD by Chris Stefanick; ©2013 Lighthouse Catholic Media, NFP 3: https://www.conservapedia.com/Dunning-Kruger_effect OR Why Incompetent People Think They’re Amazing (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLmD_WVY-E 4~ https://listverse.com/2013/06/16/10-reasons-why-democracy-doesnt-work/ 5: Video: Non-college Educated Does Not Mean Dumb https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnDej56K56A&t=3 OR www.freedomain.blogspot.com/2017/03/dont-go-to-college.html 6~Ibid. 7~www.churchofsatan.com 8~ https://www.amazon.com/American-Grace-Religion-Divides-Unites/dp/1416566732 9~ 2011 New York Times Almanac (Penguin Reference) p. 605 10: www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/contrast.htm Chapter 3 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy 2: ‘Decoding the Most Complex Structure in the Universe’: NPR www.npr.org 3: https://www.wired.com/2008/01/mapping-the-most-complex-structure-in-the-universe-your-brain/ 4~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_razor 5: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law 6: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law 7: From Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged; p.
  • In an Academic Voice: Antisemitism and Academy Bias Kenneth Lasson University of Baltimore School of Law, Klasson@Ubalt.Edu

    In an Academic Voice: Antisemitism and Academy Bias Kenneth Lasson University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected]

    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2011 In an Academic Voice: Antisemitism and Academy Bias Kenneth Lasson University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Kenneth Lasson, In an Academic Voice: Antisemitism and Academy Bias, 3 J. Study of Antisemitism 349 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. In an Academic Voice: Antisemitism and Academy Bias Kenneth Lasson* Current events and the recent literature strongly suggest that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are often conflated and can no longer be viewed as distinct phenomena. The following paper provides an overview of con- temporary media and scholarship concerning antisemitic/anti-Zionist events and rhetoric on college campuses. This analysis leads to the con- clusion that those who are naive about campus antisemitism should exer- cise greater vigilance and be more aggressive in confronting the problem. Key Words: Antisemitism, Higher Education, Israel, American Jews In America, Jews feel very comfortable, but there are islands of anti- Semitism: the American college campus. —Natan Sharansky1 While universities like to nurture the perception that they are protec- tors of reasoned discourse, and indeed often perceive themselves as sacro- sanct places of culture in a chaotic world, the modern campus is, of course, not quite so wonderful.
  • Press Credentials and Hybrid Boundary Zones: the Case of Worldnetdaily and the Standing Committee of Correspondents

    Press Credentials and Hybrid Boundary Zones: the Case of Worldnetdaily and the Standing Committee of Correspondents

    Journalism Practice ISSN: 1751-2786 (Print) 1751-2794 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjop20 Press Credentials and Hybrid Boundary Zones: The Case of WorldNetDaily and the Standing Committee of Correspondents Jordan M. Foley To cite this article: Jordan M. Foley (2019): Press Credentials and Hybrid Boundary Zones: The Case of WorldNetDaily and the Standing Committee of Correspondents, Journalism Practice, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2019.1671214 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1671214 Published online: 30 Sep 2019. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjop20 JOURNALISM PRACTICE https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1671214 Press Credentials and Hybrid Boundary Zones: The Case of WorldNetDaily and the Standing Committee of Correspondents Jordan M. Foley School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Press credentialing practices are a vital, yet understudied site of Boundary work; first scholarly research on journalistic norms and practices. Press amendment; hybrid credentialing not only structures internal professional hierarchies, boundary zone; online/digital but they also signify the boundaries of the journalistic field itself. journalism; press credentials; standing committee of This paper explores the legal and theoretical implications of press correspondents
  • T Mention Terrorism When Claiming DOJ Won&#8217

    T Mention Terrorism When Claiming DOJ Won’

    ALEX JONES USED THE PROMISE OF A PERMIT AND A STAGE TO LURE HUNDREDS TO THE EAST STEPS As I noted in this post, Zach Rehl got me to look closer at BuzzFeed’s story liberating the Capitol Police permits for the events on January 6 (even if, after he discovered my own post, he didn’t give me credit in his follow-up). The most important point in Jason Leopold’s story on the permits is that Ali Alexander’s associates used some front organizations to hide that a series of permits were actually all for the Stop the Steal rally. But Leopold also got one of those people fronting for Alexander, Nathan Martin, to confirm that no one ever used the stage set up in conjunction with the permit. The One Nation Under God demonstration was scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. near Constitution Avenue NE and First Street. A stage, podium, and sound system were set up. But Martin said they were never used. That’s important because of what Alex Jones told a group of more than 50 people (the limit on the permit obtained by a front for Alexander) to get them to go to the East side of the building, while Alexander was standing just a few feet behind him. The idea, per Jones, was that they would all go to the other side of the building where they had a stage and a permit so as to avoid any confrontation with the police. (h/t KarmaOneSixOne for alerting me to this video) Listen to me.
  • AF J NOMINEE REPOR T U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

    AF J NOMINEE REPOR T U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

    john AFJ NOMINEE REPORT AFJ k. bush U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit WWW.AFJ.ORG CONTENTS Introduction, 1 Biography, 2 Judicial TEMPERAMENT, 4 legal and other views, 8 Executive Power, 8 Women’s Rights, 9 LGBTQ Rights, 11 First Amendment, 11 Money in Politics, 13 Conclusion, 14 WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 1 paperwork he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bush explained INTRODUCTION that in November 2016, presumably after the presidential election, he met with On February 28, 2017, Judge Danny Boggs took Senator McConnell in Louisville where senior status, and on May 8, 2017, President Bush “expressed [his] interest in serving Trump nominated John K. Bush to fill the vacancy as a federal judge.”1 Bush said that he has on the United States Court of Appeals for the “been in contact with Leader McConnell Sixth Circuit. Alliance for Justice strongly opposes and representatives from his office since Bush’s nomination to the United States Court of that time.”2 Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It’s also notable that President Trump Examined on his own merits, Bush is a deeply nominated Bush only two months after flawed candidate with a history of offensive a vacancy arose on the Sixth Circuit, writings and statements that under ordinary leapfrogging vacancies on other courts that circumstances would quickly disqualify him for have existed for years. When a vacancy a role on the federal bench. Not the least of opened on the Sixth Circuit in 2013, these is a talk he gave to a private Louisville club Senators McConnell and Rand Paul refused in which, stunningly, he chose, according to his to reach an agreement with President written notes, to recite and apparently condone Obama on a nominee.
  • 2021.02.02 22:09:59 -05'00' 'DWH  Judge’S Signature

    2021.02.02 22:09:59 -05'00' 'DWH  Judge’S Signature

    $2 5HY &ULPLQDO &RPSODLQW 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 IRU WKH District of Columbia 8QLWHG 6WDWHV RI $PHULFD Y (7+$1 125'($1 &DVH 1R DOVR NQRZQ DV 5XILR 3DQPDQ Defendant(s) &5,0,1$/ &203/$,17 , WKH FRPSODLQDQW LQ WKLV FDVH VWDWH WKDW WKH IROORZLQJ LV WUXH WR WKH EHVW RI P\ NQRZOHGJH DQG EHOLHI 2Q RU DERXW WKH GDWH V RI -DQXDU\ LQ WKH FRXQW\ RI LQ WKH 'LVWULFW RI &ROXPELD WKH GHIHQGDQW V YLRODWHG Code Section Offense Description 86& DQG $LG DQG $EHW ,QMXU\ RU 'HSUHGDWLRQ $JDLQVW *RYHUQPHQW 3URSHUW\ 86& F 2EVWUXFW RU ,PSHGH DQ 2IILFLDO 3URFHHGLQJ 86& 6HFWLRQ D .QRZLQJO\ (QWHULQJ RU 5HPDLQLQJ LQ 5HVWULFWHG %XLOGLQJ RU *URXQGV 86& H ' DQG * 9LROHQW (QWU\ DQG 'LVRUGHUO\ &RQGXFW RQ &DSLWRO *URXQGV 7KLV FULPLQDO FRPSODLQW LV EDVHG RQ WKHVH IDFWV 6HH WKH DWWDFKHG DIILGDYLW ZKLFK LV LQFRUSRUDWHG KHULQ E\ UHIHUHQFH u &RQWLQXHG RQ WKH DWWDFKHG VKHHW Printed name and title 6ZRUQ WR EHIRUH PH DQG VLJQHG LQ P\ SUHVHQFH 2021.02.02 22:09:59 -05'00' 'DWH Judge’s signature &LW\ DQG VWDWH :DVKLQJWRQ '& =LD 0 )DUXTXL 86 0DJLVWUDWH -XGJH Printed name and title AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT I, , being first duly sworn, hereby depose and state as follows: PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT 1. This Affidavit is submitted in support of a Criminal Complaint charging Ethan Nordean (“NORDEAN”), also known as “Rufio Panman,” with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2, 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a), and 40 U.S.C. §§ 5104(e)(2)(D) and (G), in connection with his actions at and inside the U.S.