If someone feels slandered/liblled by someone the burdon falls upon them to point out exactly and specificly what was untrue.
In this case, not only are we seeing that the judge exercised bias and behaved in an unconstitutional manner on more than one occasion, there has never been a single finding of what actual statement was slanderous/lible by either the judge or jury.Tell us how the judge was making findings of fact in a jury trial before the jury came back? If he wasn't going to be happy with the jury's verdict he had the power to set the verdict aside...but no...he weighed in before hand...what's he on anyhow...I could use some of that on a stressfull afternoon.
Its obvious that you feel the mega deep pockets of Varian, The State(judge) and other plantiffs have a greater right of infringing on the defendants rights of free speech and a fair, unbiased, open trial, than the defendant has of stating an opinion whether or not that opinion is believable or not.
That is what this case is about...not the cobwebs in your noggin