- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
A bankruptcy judge is set to hear arguments Monday in conspiracy theorist Alex Jones ’ effort to stop the satirical news outlet The Onion from buying Infowars and turning it into a parody.
Jones alleges fraud and collusion marred the bankruptcy auction in which The Onion was named the winning bidder on Nov. 14 over a company affiliated with him.
It’s not clear how soon U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston will issue a ruling. He could allow The Onion to move forward with the sale, order a new auction or name the other bidder as the winner. At stake is whether Jones gets to stay at Infowars’ studio in Austin, Texas, under a new owner friendly to him, or whether he gets kicked out by The Onion.
You must log in or register to comment.
Judge is going to void the sale to The Onion and allow Elon/X to purchase for cheap. Elon gives it right back to Jones. BAU.
It has to go to the highest bidder, and the Sandy Hook parents have all the leverage. $1.4B in leverage.
They can forfeit the entire settlement and sell Infowars to The Onion for $1 if they want to, and that would meet 100% of the settlement. Musk would have to bid $1.4B+1 without the Sandy Hook parents forfeiting a dime if he wants to buy Infowars, and then 100% of that cash goes into the pockets of the Sandy Hook parents who can and will sue again if Infowars says anything defamatory about them or their children ever again.
Yeah, I have no faith in the legal system at this point. It’s really clear they’ll sign off on whatever the right wing wants. It’s ridiculous that he’s spent years thumbing his nose at the legal process, and is continued to allow to do so.
This video by legal eagle shows precisely why Jones’ suit should be immediately rejected.
Yea it’s a good explanation, I do feel there is a bit of technically on it, but considering how aj was being obstructive up to this point, this just makes it poetry.
Why does this shithead deserve any consideration? The American justice system is puzzling to say the least. There’s good reason people have lost faith in it.
It’s not puzzling. Do you have money? Yes? Ok you have a different justice system.
Oh your broke? Straight to fuckin jail.
The consideration is to ensure that assets being sold toward the monetary judgement are not sold at an arbitrarily low value. He has the right to have the assets sold at a reasonable value to fulfill the monetary judgement.
Whether the consideration will go beyond that, is a different story. But that’s the reason the system works this way.
If anything though, the court should be throwing the other bid out because it’s affiliated with Jones. And I think that’s what is going to happen honestly.
He has the right to have the assets sold at a reasonable value to fulfill the monetary judgement.
Not according to Legal Eagle. (thanks to justOnePersistentKbinPlease)
The court gave the trustee wide latitude in deciding how the auction ran, what the rules were and who would be chosen to ‘win’.
AND on top of that. Alex Jonse’s own shell company was outbid by the onion. So the onion’s offering was a fair value. Because the onion was willing to pay more than Jones for Jones’s own company.
That’s not quite accurate.
The onion’s bid was technically lower overall, but they made an agreement with some of the victims of Jones’ harassment that would make them better off overall.
Essentially one group is legally owed 97% of the proceeds of the sale while everyone else gets what’s left. The agreement was that instead of a 97:3 split, the smaller group gets a bigger payout and the larger group gets a cut of future ad revenue.
Everybody wins in this arrangement, except Alex Jones. So everyone wins.
Fraud and collusion? Every accusation is a confession. Bitch, there’s no law against “colluding” with the vultures picking your bones clean. You are bankrupt because you spread vicious lies, and now you’re mad that your attempt to reduce your penalties has been rejected. You could keep Infowars if you just paid your debts, but you wanted to delay payments and minimize the cost by colluding with an intermediary and committing fraud in buying your own assets back at a discount. You’re suing because they saw through your bullshit and took a lower payment to avoid enabling your further crimes. That’s perfectly legal.
But it isn’t even a lower payment!
The only reason the business is being auctioned is to pay down his debts to his creditors. The onion bid reduces his debt more because some of the creditors are reducing the IOU they got in addition to the cash from the onion.
The net effect is a greater reduction in the amount Jones owes by taking the onion bid even though there is less cash.
Jones could have avoided such an insane judgment by working in good faith with the courts, but this turd was wildly contemptuous throughout, leading to liability by default in the separate cases.
He also could have avoided it by not being a malicious lying sack of shit.
That’s not possible, though.
He could at least try.
I sincerely doubt he could.
The bankruptcy proceedings lower his overall payment by liquidating his assets and settling for lower amounts. It’s common to see people go through bankruptcy and then try to buy back their auctioned assets through an intermediary using undisclosed or borrowed funds. This is fraud, because if they had the means to acquire such funding, they should have used those funds to pay their debts instead of declaring insolvency. That’s why there is a trustee, to ensure that the bankruptcy auction is at arms length from the person who owes.
He’s trying to buy back his company so he can continue doing his show. The people he owes have an interest in making sure he does not continue to do his show, so they have every right to participate in the evaluation and selection of the bids.
Like, imagine Alex Jones owed $10 million and also owned a Picasso. Jones declares bankruptcy because he can’t afford to pay $10 million, and the painting is the only asset he owns. The painting goes up for sale, and there are two bidders. One is a museum offering $5 million, and the other is Blex Hones, LLC, an anonymous collector offering $6 million, who wants to place the painting in a private collection.
He’s trying to lower the amount he pays by $4 million and keep his Picasso. The people he owes are not fooled, and have an interest in seeing that the museum receives the painting so that it can be shared with the public. It is their decision to accept $5 million instead of $6 million, and they have no obligation to give Blex Hones, LLC another shot at bidding more. It is neither collusion nor fraud to take a lower bid because you prefer that buying receive the asset.
