Alex E. Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC v. Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Date FiledMay 21, 2026
Docket03-23-00209-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00209-CV
Alex E. Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, Appellants
v.
Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, Appellees
NO. 03-25-00617-CV
NO. 03-25-00906-CV
Free Speech Systems, LLC, Appellant
v.
Neil Heslin, Scarlett Lewis, David Wheeler, Francine Wheeler, Jacqueline Barden, Mark
Barden, Nicole Hockley, Ian Hockley, Jennifer Hensel, Donna Soto, Carlee Soto Parisi,
Carlos M. Soto, Jillian Soto-Marino, William Aldenberg, William Sherlach, Robert Parker,
and Erica Ash, Appellees
FROM THE 261ST & 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-18-001835, THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PER CURIAM
The memorandum opinion and order dated April 29, 2026, addressing the
above-listed appeals arising from the same trial-court cause is supplemented and amended as
follows:
This Court abates the appeal in Cause No. 03-23-00209-CV and remands that
cause to the trial court to take evidence and make findings regarding the supersedeas bond
contest. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4(d). The evidence and findings shall include events occurring
since the trial court’s October 6, 2025 Order on Plaintiffs’ Objection to Net Worth Declaration
and Motion for Sanctions. The trial court shall direct that its order be filed with this Court in a
supplemental clerk’s record by May 29, 2026.
This Court’s August 28, 2025 Order staying the turnover order in Cause No.
03-25-00617-CV remains in effect. This Court temporarily stays the turnover order in Cause No.
03-25-00906-CV pending further order on the Appellant’s Emergency Motion for Immediate
Stay of Void Turnover Order Issued in Violation of the Bankruptcy Automatic Stay. See Tex. R.
App. P. 24.4(c) (“The appellate court may issue any temporary orders necessary to preserve the
parties’ rights.”).
The Appellants in these cases are prohibited from dissipating or transferring
assets to avoid satisfaction of the judgment. This requirement can be enforced by the trial court,
though the trial court cannot make any order that interferes with the appellants’ use, transfer,
conveyance, or dissipation of assets in the normal course of business. See id.; cf R. 24.2(d).
It is ORDERED May 21, 2026.
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Ellis
No. 03-23-00209-CV – Abated and Remanded
No. 03-25-00617-CV – Ordered
No. 03-25-00906-CV – Ordered
Filed: May 21, 2026
2