Judge throws out Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against NYT while the jury was deliberating

>Cuckservatives relentlessly suck Jews off and get nothing in return

Attached: 123322212.gif (400x376, 3.37M)

>NYT
>no malice
obvious schizo judge is obvious

Literally, figuratively, and emphatically NOT MY PROBLEM.

NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!
>NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!

The trial is over when the case goes to the jury.

The judge obviously thought there was a good chance the jury would return a verdict in favor of Palin, so he stepped in and declared he was throwing the case out. Then for laughs he said it was because Palin's lawyers failed to make a case (that the jury was deciding).

THERE IS NO LAW. THERE IS NO SOCIAL CONTRACT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST CHARADES TO KEEP YOU IN DELUSION.

There are only liberals that know this and use it to their advantage, and conservatives desperately clinging to their delusions that this is not the case, cooperating as the liberals maliciously use the "law" (or conservatives respect of it) against them.

The world you knew is gone. Murdered in its sleep by liberals like a granny in a nursing home they infected with covid to change election rules. The NEW WORLD ORDER is taking over. You can have your old world back, but only if you're willing to fight, and if you win. Otherwise you can just be a slave.

There is no social contract. THERE IS NO LAW. FREE YOUR MIND. FREE THE MINDS OF THOSE YOU CARE ABOUT.

Attached: motions.png (447x447, 543.88K)

guys.

REALLY think about this one.

do you want the dumb whore to be able to sue anyone that calls her a dumb whore?

oh, say can you see

reddit
go back

She should now do porn

>while the jury was deliberating
This will fall on Any Forums's eternally deaf ears, but:

Juries decide matters of fact. Judges decide matters of law.

The case was dismissed because Palin failed to prove a legal element of the case. Not because of any disputed facts. Nothing to do with disputed evidence or testimony, which a jury would handle. Her claim was simply defective under law. Judges decide that.

don't they have to give a copy to the evidence to the judge before hand?
wouldn't the judge know they had no evidence before even the trial begins or gets to the point of jury deliberation?

She's a family woman and is elected because Alaska understands that if you can't get an effective, intelligent leader then you get the one that can't fuck anything up.
NYT implicated her association in mass murder. That isn't simply "calling her a dumb whore".
She beat Biden in the vice presidential debate by the way.

sounds like they have ears in the jury room to hear how everything was going and it wasn't going well.

There needs to be a judicial equivalent of "I didn't like that jump, I'll be reviewing this run." If it's to the point of involving a jury, the judge is little more than a referee.

Throwing it out after the jury leaves to deliberate is weird though. That should have happened before jury instructions, not after the jury retires to deliberate

Hunter Biden was great in Bangin My Dead Brother’s Underage Daughter.

Attached: 3D60A215-8A63-46D2-A739-DEB778F0F879.jpg (1109x1723, 936.31K)

>wouldn't the judge know they had no evidence before even the trial begins or gets to the point of jury deliberation?
How would the judge know that Plain would fail to prove the legal elements of her claim until after giving them a chance to do so?

>don't they have to give a copy to the evidence to the judge before hand?
What? The purpose of the trial is to establish the admissible evidence. That's literally the purpose of a trial.

I don't get about "it will be used against you!!" meme, this shit is already weaponized against us while we're prevented from winning.

>Throwing it out after the jury leaves to deliberate is weird though
1. No, it's not weird. Post-trial motions are made post-trial. Unless you want the jury to sit idle when the motion to dismiss is briefed and decided, then you proceed simultaneously.

2. The jury will still get to render a verdict. You're all stupid because the article clearly says this also, but you idiots don't read.

You cannot win a court case against globohomo if it's in NY state.

Yeah, but the judge should be defining actual malice in his jury instructions rather than dismissing the case after the jury leaves, I think.

Judge already got reversed by the Liberal 2nd Circuit appeals court. Expect this decision to get reversed as well.

>the judge should be defining actual malice in his jury instructions rather than dismissing the case after the jury leaves
People are capable of doing two things. The Judge did both: gave jury instructions (on the disputed matters of fact) and considered post-trial motions (on matters of law).

Holy shit.
No fan of pin but this is monstrous.
>Jews losing
>Shut it down

Wft is 'actual malice'? Kangaroo court, banana republic.
Oh I cannot wait for the next scotus justice.

It truly is madness. An open and cavalier mafia.
Gobsmacking.

>conservatards be like "Trust the system"

American leftists are tyrants, domestic terrorists, and enemy combatants.