Some More Gilmore v. Jones, et al. News


Brennan Gilmore was present at the Charlottesville riot in 2017. He recorded a car being driven into a crowd that resulted in the death of a women, and he posted that video online. He also made appearance in the news media discussing what he saw. As a result, Gilmore and his video became a topic of controversy, and Gilmore was upset with some of the commentary. He has sued Alex Jones and a host of others for defamation in federal court. When the judge in the case denied most of the motions to dismiss, two separate groups of defendants filed motions for reconsideration or for an interlocutory appeal of the dismissals to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge has granted a motion certifying an interlocutory appeal of the following question:

Where an online journalist or publisher with a national audience purposefully and primarily focuses their coverage underlying the suit-related conduct on forum-state events and persons, is such conduct sufficient for a forum court to assert specific personal jurisdiction over that journalist or publisher?

I found footnote 1 interesting.

However this question is limited, the Fourth Circuit may nevertheless review uncertified issues contained within the Court’s order on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. “[W]e would not necessarily be limited to only those questions expressly or implicitly identified as ‘controlling’ by the district court; under § 1292(b), appeal is from the order certified, not from particular rulings embodied within it.” Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438, 1989 WL 42583, at *3 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished).

IANAL, but seems as if the judge in taking note that the defendants could raise other issues related to the motions to dismiss beside the certified question in their appeals.

This could be interesting.

An Unintended Consequence?


Jemele Hill published a piece over at The Atlantic decrying the sympathy that black men are showing for Brett Kavanaugh.

On Tuesday night, I was in an auditorium with 100 black men in the city of Baltimore, when the subject pivoted to Brett Kavanaugh. I expected to hear frustration that the sexual-assault allegations against him had failed to derail his Supreme Court appointment. Instead, I encountered sympathy. One man stood up and asked, passionately, “What happened to due process?” He was met with a smattering of applause, and an array of head nods.

While she seems to remember enough of the plot of To Kill a Mockingbird to understand why black men have a certain edginess about false rape charges, she believes that they are “failing to see the bigger picture.” David French has a post up at NRO debunking Hill’s argument. He use facts. For example—

At Colgate University, for example, from 2013–2014 black students were 4.2 percent of the population, but “black male students were accused of 50 percent of the sexual violations reported to the university, and they made up 40 percent of the students formally adjudicated.” Across three academic years, “black students were accused of 25 percent of the sexual misconduct reported to the university, and made up 21 percent of the students referred for formal hearings.”

Off course, facts have offered no support to the Progressives in their attempt to derail the Kavanaugh nomination. Indeed, facts can get in the way of a “survivor” expressing her “truth.” French continues,

The bottom line is that opponents of Kavanaugh didn’t just want to stop Kavanaugh, they wanted to create a cultural moment that many black men are very wise to be wary of. “Believe survivors” is a slogan that resonates far beyond one single judicial confirmation. It’s the slogan of campus “justice” that all too often echoes the injustice of America’s racist past.

Perhaps a significant number of black men will take notice of the past month’s events. Perhaps their voting will be guided by their self interest.

That Pesky Bill of Rights


I’m old enough to remember (now, there’s a line that getting a lot of work these days) when folks on the Left were all for the Bill of Rights. The narrative back then was that it was the Right that opposed free speech or due process. Today, many of the generation that marched in the streets in the ’60s have risen to become part of the Establishment. It seems that many a former “revolutionary” no longer want to stick it to the Man now that he has become the Man. So we have recently had a bunch of geezers sitting in the well of the House of Representatives demonstrating in favor of a bill to suppress the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Somehow, they seemed braver when they were sitting at lunch counters five decades ago.

The First, Second, and Fifth Amendments are now under overt attack. The Fourth Amendment is a target as well. Those of us who still think that the Bill of Rights is worth keeping need to keep hitting back. I suggest that we do not limit ourselves to only twice as hard.

One more thing … why are they going on about rifles now? Fifty years ago, it was all about “Saturday Night Specials,” inexpensive handguns that the wrong people could afford for self-protection. Now, it’s rifles: “Military-style” “weapons of war.” It’s almost as if someone is afraid of an armed populace that would be able to resist …