Pedo Guy Elon Musk

[Royal24s]

Quote Mark

There was no "prosecution" of course. It was a civil case in which one person claimed damages against another for defamatory remarks which he claimed were outside the protection of the First Amendment.
It's not a crime in itself to say or think stuff in the USA. In fact, such freedoms are protected by the constitution. It's a legal system designed to protect its own citizens rather than please foreign countries, so it's not enthusiastic about extraditing them , particularly to countries which don't have the protections many would regard as standard, such as the right of silence, and particularly when diplomatic immunity was in force.
I'm not sure how or why you conflated the two entirely different cases, or why you mentioned that one of the parties in the first case is rich.
Is this about fair legal process or your personal prejudices ?

[ToRmAtO]

How much did the Jury get for that decision?

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

They got a rocket

[m4rkb]

How much did the Jury get for that decision?

It's a sad fact that the scales of justice now seem to measure the wealth on either side of the scales rather than the justice involved.

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

It's a sad sad situaaaaation

[m4rkb]

It's a sad sad situaaaaation

He could have said sorry but that would have been the hardest word.

[paolo]

Their are stories and rumours about Musk that if there's anything at all to them make this look like a piss in the Pacific.

woomahs, wodney, woomahs

woomahs involve sex, drugs and.....epstein

[mark]

Quote Mark

There was no "prosecution" of course. It was a civil case in which one person claimed damages against another for defamatory remarks which he claimed were outside the protection of the First Amendment.
It's not a crime in itself to say or think stuff in the USA. In fact, such freedoms are protected by the constitution. It's a legal system designed to protect its own citizens rather than please foreign countries, so it's not enthusiastic about extraditing them , particularly to countries which don't have the protections many would regard as standard, such as the right of silence, and particularly when diplomatic immunity was in force.
I'm not sure how or why you conflated the two entirely different cases, or why you mentioned that one of the parties in the first case is rich.
Is this about fair legal process or your personal prejudices ?

Quote Mark etc.....

My personal prejudices? Really?

As for conflating cases, it's probably too complex for a one-dimensional bigot like you to consider.