Excellent Article and great points. Having some knowledge of the legal system, I would say that Hoffman is correct regarding Naves. Normally a motion to dismiss based on immunity occurs BEFORE a case goes to trial, and if the judge finds that immunity exists, the case is simply dismissed. The fact that Naves applied this "immunity" defense after a jury trial shows a clear bias towards Churchill. The fact that an appeals court agreed with him is nothing short of judicial corruption.
Excellent Article and great points. Having some knowledge of the legal system, I would say that Hoffman is correct regarding Naves. Normally a motion to dismiss based on immunity occurs BEFORE a case goes to trial, and if the judge finds that immunity exists, the case is simply dismissed. The fact that Naves applied this "immunity" defense after a jury trial shows a clear bias towards Churchill. The fact that an appeals court agreed with him is nothing short of judicial corruption.