Portland jury finds Antifa militants not liable in Andy Ngo attack, defense attorney declares ‘I AM ANTIFA’
The defendant’s attorney told the jurors that she "will remember each one of their faces." Photo credit: John Rudoff.
The jury has reached a verdict in the trial of investigative journalist Andy Ngo v. Rose City Antifa and its alleged affiliated members, in which they found both defendants John Colin Hacker and Elizabeth Renee Richter not liable in the civil case brought against them.
Ngo filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon in 2020, claiming assault and other injuries over alleged acts of violence carried out by members of Antifa, which began in 2019. Defandants John Colin Hacker and Elizabeth Renee Richter have been accused by Senior Editor of Post Millennial Andy Ngo of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which was argued before a civil jury for more than a week at the Multnomah County Courthouse.
On Tuesday, the jury found them not liable for all of these claims.
During closing statements, defense lawyer Michelle Burrows told the jurors that not only does she self-identify as both a progressive and an “anti-fascist,” she strongly declared that, "I am Antifa" and insisted upon making herself an “I am Antifa” t-shirt to wear after the trial. Despite their significant recorded history of violence, she told the jury that Antifa's unfavorable reputation is untrue and depicted the organized militant group as activists fighting for social justice and civil rights.
In defense of Antifa, Burrows said, "Resistance in this country has never been peaceful."
However, as she argued before the jurors, Ms. Burrows admitted that the “black clad people” that had physically beaten Ngo were, in fact, “terrorists.”
The defense attorney went on to say that journalist Andy Ngo has dirty hands. She indicated that Ngo is a "doxxer" as well because he uploads publicly available mugshots of Antifa-affiliated individuals that have committed crimes on his Twitter account, which has over one million followers.
In addition, the defense lawyer said that since the US has an “unregulated internet,” Ngo needs to “take responsibility” for the words he says on the internet, and added that his "conduct has not been pristine."
Furthermore, Ngo’s reporting has also allegedly created a “rage machine that has generated so much revenue for Mr. Ngo,” according to Burrows.
Before closing statements, Judge Sinaplasai informed the court that the trial’s jurors have raised concerns about being “doxed,” and claimed that people have been trying to find out their identities.
After announcing her retirement and that this would be her last trial, Burrows told the jurors that she “will remember each one of their faces.” Burrows did not take the time to provide evidence as to why the two defendants should be free from charges, but rather used the time to defend anti-fascism and attack Ngo’s credibility as a journalist.
The attorney for Andy Ngo, Dorothy Yamamoto, had a different approach in her closing statement. Yamamoto went through each charge levied against defendants Hacker and Richter and provided the jury with substantial evidence relating to each charge, and why the defendants should receive each charge pertaining to assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In her rebuttal, the attorney encouraged the jury “to be mindful of what is evidence, and what the attorneys have been saying.”
“I’ve heard allegations and things that have happened that are not evidence. There has been a lot of attacks against my client’s credibility as a journalist. He lies, he misstates. Did the defendants show you his actual posts,” Yamamoto questioned after the defense team failed to provide evidence of Ngo’s alleged inaccurate reporting during the trial, claims that were used to discredit him.
Yamamoto explained to the jury that while Hacker and Richter may or may not have physically beaten Ngo on the night of May 28, 2021, the defendants can still be held liable for battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to state law.
In regard to battery, the defendants would have to be found guilty of intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff, and directly or indirectly caused a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff.
Yamamoto argued that this charge applies to Hacker when the defendant had poured water on Ngo and slapped Ngo’s phone out of his hand on May 7, 2021, which Hacker had admitted during testimony.
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-jury-finds-all-antifa-defendants-not-liable-in-andy-ngo-attack-defense-attorney-declares-i-am-antifa