What I Saw In Court Yesterday


Here’s what I saw during the Gilmore v. Jones, et al. hearing on motions to dismiss at the U.S. District Court in Charlottesville, Virginia.

First of all, I saw Judge Moon from up close. At one point in his presentation, Aaron Walker  (representing Lee Stranahan, Jim Hoft, Scott Creighton, Michele Hickford, and Words-N-Ideas) was using a poster to clarify some of the points he was making. Because there wasn’t an easel in the courtroom, he asked me to hold it, and the judge asked me to bring right up to the bench. Judge Moon seemed to be familiar with the material in the written briefings from the Plaintiff and the three groups of defendants, and he engaged counsel from both sides with questions to clarify factual details. He did not ask many questions regarding the legal theories presented.

Andrew Grossman (representing Alex Jones. Lee Ann McAdoo, InfoWars, and Free Speech Systems) spoke first. He first attacked Gilmore’s claim that the court had jurisdiction over the defendants he represented. None are from Virginia. Because the only claims against them are based in state law, the requirements of the Virginia long arm statute must be met, and he noted that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support that assertion. Then he argued that, even if the court had jurisdiction over his clients, the things they were accused of saying or writing were expressions of opinion of the sort protected by the First Amendment and, thus, not actionable.

Aaron Walker went next. He made the same jurisdictional argument for his out-of-state clients. Then, he argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the case against Lee Stranahan. Stranahan and Gilmore are both residents of Virginia, and without a federal issue, a federal court doesn’t have jurisdictions over residents of the same state concerning a state law matter. The poster I held for the judge detailed the evidence for Stranahan’s residency in Virginia (extensive) versus Gilmore’s claim that Stranahan is resident of Texas (essentially non-existent). Initially, Gilmore had claimed that Stranahan had a Texas driver’s license, but his lawyers have backed off that claim when they were informed that Stranahan is legally blind. They now claim that Lee’s Texas voter registration was renewed in late 2017, but Stranahan has submitted two declarations relating to his Virginia residency, stating in one that he did not renew his registration and does not know how or even if it might have been renewed. Walker also argued that the remarks made by his clients concerning Gilmore were protected by the First Amendment and not actionable.

Brandon Bolling spoke for Allen West. He was brief and to the point. At the time the allegedly defamatory comments were published, the websites and social media accounts using West’s name were not under his control, and the Plaintiff has done nothing to show that West was in control of those sites. West had nothing to do with the remarks. If there is a case for defamation, it can’t be against someone who wasn’t involved. West should be dismissed from the case.

Two lawyers spoke on behalf of the Plaintiff. Andrew Mendrala of the Georgetown Law Civil Rights Clinic went first. He spent a good portion of his time on the issue of jurisdiction, and he made the statement that Stranahan had only submitted one declaration with respect his residency and that Stranahan had not dealt with the Plaintiff’s assertion that he was registered to vote in Texas. That was incorrect. During a recess, the error was pointed out to him, and he refused to correct the record.

Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center spoke for Gilmore as well. She asserted that the court did not need to consider the requirements of the Virginia long arm statute but should make a determination of personal jurisdiction based only on the limitations of due process imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The three lawyers for the Defendants then offered their rebuttals. Here are the highlights: Grossman pointed out that the case law in the Fourth Circuit (Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit) required the court to apply the state’s long arm statute. Walker pointed out the misrepresentation by the Plaintiff with respect to the Stranahan declarations and cited their locations in the record. Bolling simply repeated the fact that Allen West didn’t say or publish what Gilmore claimed and that there was no evidence to support Gilmore’s claim.

The judge took the case under advisement, and we’re waiting for a ruling.

Stay tuned.

Gilmore v. Jones, et al. News


A hearing was held this morning before Judge Moon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Western Virginia in Charlottesville on motions to dismiss. The Defendants were represented by three legal teams. One represents Alex Jones. Lee Ann McAdoo, InfoWars, and Free Speech Systems. The Second represents Lee Stranahan, Jim Hoft, Scott Creighton, Michele Hickford, and Words-N-Ideas. The third team represents Allen West.  All three teams stress both the facts and the law related to the case.

The Plaintiff’s attorneys spent most of their time trying explain why the case should be left standing in spite of the facts and law.

The judge did not rule from the bench, so it will be a while before we know whether the case will go forward.

I’m blogging this brief summary from a Taco Bell in Charlottesville. I’ll post a more complete report when I get home.

Meanwhile, my podcasting partner Stacy McCain (who also attended the hearing) will be reporting his observations at The Other McCain.

Stay tuned.

Shoe Leather Journalism


My podcasting partner Stacy McCain and I plan to be in Charlottesville tomorrow to cover the motions hearing in the Gilmore v. Jones, et al. defamation LOLsuit. Brennan Gilmore, the person who made the cell phone video of a car ramming into a crowd and killing a woman during the Charlottesville riot, is suing Alex Jones and a random collection of bloggers, claiming that they are somehow responsible for alleged harassment done by third parties. While the hearing will deal with motions to dismiss, the judge has deferred consideration of the award of costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to any applicable anti-SLAPP statutes and consideration of sanctions for now.

Contributions to our Shoe Leather Journalism Funds via the big yellow DONATE button at The Other McCain or the Tip Jar on the right are always greatly appreciated.

Gilmore v. Jones, et al. News


I have previously reported that several of the defendants in the Gilmore v. Jones, et al. case had filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff and his attorneys for violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the plaintiff and his attorneys had filed a motion seeking to delay consideration of sanctions until after the 13 November hearing on motions to dismiss, and that defendants who file the sanctions motion have opposed any such delay. The court has denied the plaintiff’s motion seeking the delay and has ordered that briefing for the sanctions motion go forward. The motion will be before the court on the 13th.

I plan to be in Charlottesville on the 13th to cover the hearing.

Stay tuned.

Gilmore v. Jones, et al. News


I reported earlier this week that several of the defendants in the Gilmore v. Jones, et al. lawsuit have filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff and his attorneys. Yesterday, Gilmore’s lawyers filed a motion seeking to delay consideration of that motion until after the motions hearing scheduled for 13 November.

Late last night, those defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff’s motion.

I plan to be in Charlottesville on the 13th to cover the hearing which should deal with motions to dismiss and, depending how the judge rules on the plaintiff’s motion, Rule 11 sanctions.

Gilmore v. Jones, et al. News


A group of the defendants in the Gilmore v. Jones, et al. lawsuit has filed a motion seeking sanctions against the plaintiff and his attorneys for violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here is a copy of their brief in support of that motion.

The Gentle Reader should note that this motion and brief were served on the plaintiff and his attorneys over three weeks ago, and they were not filed with the court until the plaintiff refused to correct the deficiencies alleged in the brief.

Gilmore v. Jones, et al. News


The defendants have filed their replies to Gilmore’s opposition to their motions to dismiss. Here is Allen West’s.

Here is the reply from Jones, Infowars, Free Speech Systems, and McAdoo.

Here is the reply from Hoft, Stranahan, Creighton, Wilburn, Hickford, and Words-N-Ideas.

A common theme among the defendants’ replies seems to be “Look, we have made evidence-based attacks on Gilmore’s assertion that the Court has jurisdiction which he did not bother to answer.”

Hoft, Stranahan, Creighton, Wilburn, Hickford, and Words-N-Ideas also filed an opposition to the amicus brief submitted by the First Amendment and Media Law “Scholars.”

The court has scheduled a hearing on the motions to dismiss for 10 am on 13 November.

Stay tuned.