• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Official Alex Jones Thread!

It should be noted that in American law, a court cannot compel payment of damages it has awarded. The judgment creates a debt to the prevailing party, but it's that party's responsibility to collect the debt by its own means. The court can provide limited means to persuade the debtor to disclose his ability to pay. But the judgment provides only the right to collect a debt, not the power. That right includes a reasonable right to seizure of assets, but that is tolled while bankruptcy is in process.
 
JayUtah said:
It should be noted that in American law, a court cannot compel payment of damages it has awarded. The judgment creates a debt to the prevailing party, but it's that party's responsibility to collect the debt by its own means. The court can provide limited means to persuade the debtor to disclose his ability to pay. But the judgment provides only the right to collect a debt, not the power. That right includes a reasonable right to seizure of assets, but that is tolled while bankruptcy is in process.
Click to expand...
Sue him for the debt plus interest per day.

I mean... Isn't the USA the land where you go to prison until you pay for your paltry petty cash parking fines? Oh wait... That's if you're poor or black.
 
JayUtah said:
That's hard to get when the defendant is in bankruptcy proceedings. But then that's why he's in bankruptcy. I wish I could live on $93K a month and also be able to call myself bankrupt.
Click to expand...
Back in the 1700s with the UKian government instituted the concept of bankruptcy, to remediate the problems of debtors prisons, the penalty for mis-stating assets was death.
 
catsmate said:
Back in the 1700s with the UKian government instituted the concept of bankruptcy, to remediate the problems of debtors prisons, the penalty for mis-stating assets was death.
Click to expand...

Bankruptcy fraud is still a chargeable offense in the U.S., although I doubt we still apply the death penalty. Part of my old-book collection includes law reporters from the U.K. from the 1700s. I'll have to look for relevant cases. Lots in there about sheep, strangely.

Sadly there's no general legal basis for applying interest to a court-ordered debt. That would need to be established by statute and awarded by the court.

In general, when cash damages are awarded, the prevailing plaintiff often has no knowledge of the defendant's finances. But in some jurisdictions it's possible for the plaintiff to move for disclosure of assets, which—if granted—then proceeds with the defendant under oath to supply the information. But the actual collection is still the plaintiff's onus.

Ironically declaring bankruptcy as a means of escaping court-ordered debt forces the debtor to publicly list his assets, information that a plaintiff in that other cause wouldn't normally know. It's not always the best ploy for discharging uncomfortable debt.

There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about a state or county jurisdiction in which statute and judicial practice allowed someone awarded damages to seize outright whatever of the defendant's assets satisfy the debt without notice or further process. A guy had been awarded a default judgment in a small-claims case that the defendant never showed up to defend, and the plaintiff presented the order of judgment to the sheriff. The sheriff needed no further justification to enact seizure, so he and the plaintiff marched into the deadbeat defendant's place of business and just started packing stuff up.

Nowadays collecting a court-ordered debt has to follow the same debt-collection measures for due process as for any other debt.
 
JayUtah said:
Bankruptcy fraud is still a chargeable offense in the U.S., although I doubt we still apply the death penalty. Part of my old-book collection includes law reporters from the U.K. from the 1700s. I'll have to look for relevant cases. Lots in there about sheep, strangely.

Sadly there's no general legal basis for applying interest to a court-ordered debt. That would need to be established by statute and awarded by the court.

In general, when cash damages are awarded, the prevailing plaintiff often has no knowledge of the defendant's finances. But in some jurisdictions it's possible for the plaintiff to move for disclosure of assets, which—if granted—then proceeds with the defendant under oath to supply the information. But the actual collection is still the plaintiff's onus.

Ironically declaring bankruptcy as a means of escaping court-ordered debt forces the debtor to publicly list his assets, information that a plaintiff in that other cause wouldn't normally know. It's not always the best ploy for discharging uncomfortable debt.

There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about a state or county jurisdiction in which statute and judicial practice allowed someone awarded damages to seize outright whatever of the defendant's assets satisfy the debt without notice or further process. A guy had been awarded a default judgment in a small-claims case that the defendant never showed up to defend, and the plaintiff presented the order of judgment to the sheriff. The sheriff needed no further justification to enact seizure, so he and the plaintiff marched into the deadbeat defendant's place of business and just started packing stuff up.

Nowadays collecting a court-ordered debt has to follow the same debt-collection measures for due process as for any other debt.
Click to expand...
I don't have the name in my notes, but there was a person in England sentenced to death in October 1761 for concealing some £2,100 in assets during bankruptcy.

And sheep were important! Enclosures, the wool trade and mechanisation....

My sister hired bailiffs for a SCC debt; arrived at their place of (retail) business on a busy Saturday afternoon to distrain goods and chattals.
 
Fine. Put a lien on all his assets in lieu of payment. Stop his credit cards, freeze his bank accounts, have is car(s) towed, seize his property. Etc, etc. Do what the big debt-collection companies do - be absolute heartless bastards. He deserves no less.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Fine. Put a lien on all his assets in lieu of payment. Stop his credit cards, freeze his bank accounts, have is car(s) towed, seize his property. Etc, etc. Do what the big debt-collection companies do - be absolute heartless bastards. He deserves no less.
Click to expand...


Sadly, most of the things you mention would only possible in the case where the creditor had some sort of contract with Jones; for example, only the credit card company could cancel his credit cards.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Sadly, most of the things you mention would only possible in the case where the creditor had some sort of contract with Jones; for example, only the credit card company could cancel his credit cards.
Click to expand...
Whatever. The guy owes a huge debt and is not servicing it. And yet he continues to live large. Imagine if that was a divorced dad spending the family money. I'm sure any judge would have no trouble slapping some sort of financial penalty or face jail time. Same for Jones. Just because he is "famous" does not make him bulletproof.
 
Infowars has filed for bankruptcy. Jones has separately filed for personal bankruptcy. This effectively stops any debt collection (aggressive or mild) in either case. He isn't required to service any debt while the court reorganizes the debt.

Here's how bankruptcy is different for rich people than it is for the rest of us. If you or I declare bankruptcy in the United States, we must seek relief under Chapter 7. Rich people and corporations can file under Chapter 11, which provides terms much more favorable to the debtor. Chapter 11 is meant for businesses, where the need to protect more assets and maintain a certain degree of cash flow is allegedly tied to larger economic factors like the welfare of employees and the amount of debt.

Infowars has properly filed under Chapter 11. Jones' personal filing also under Chapter 11 is an example of what a lot of us find unfair and aggravating. Another teeth-grinding aspect of Chapter 11 is that punitive damages may be dischargeable under Chapter 11, and creditors get far less say over the debt restructuring. Under Chapter 7, punitive damages are presumed non-dischargeable and creditors can submit a competing debt restructuring plan to the court.

I assume I don't have to belabor just how unfair the U.S. legal system has become. Even when you win, you can still lose.
 
Nothing in statute prevents an individual from filing under Chapter 11. It's just far more costly to litigate, which is why it's available only to rich people and corporations. They're the only ones who can afford the documentation burden. For the rest of us, the debt load is small enough that it literally costs more to file under Chapter 11 than just to service the debt. $50,000 in legal and accounting fees to fight a $35,000 debt makes no sense. $50,000 to protect assets worth millions does, and especially if paying extra can get you a way to discharge $1.5 billion in pending liability.
 
JayUtah said:
Nothing in statute prevents an individual from filing under Chapter 11. It's just far more costly to litigate, which is why it's available only to rich people and corporations. They're the only ones who can afford the documentation burden. For the rest of us, the debt load is small enough that it literally costs more to file under Chapter 11 than just to service the debt. $50,000 in legal and accounting fees to fight a $35,000 debt makes no sense. $50,000 to protect assets worth millions does, and especially if paying extra can get you a way to discharge $1.5 billion in pending liability.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for your explanations - cogent and lucid as always.

The situation I'm referring to is this, from Cornell Law School:
If the judgment debtor fails to pay the judgment debt, the judgment creditor can contact an enforcement officer of the court to enforce the judgment. Usually, this officer will be a county sheriff. After obtaining an order from the court, the sheriff can take money or property from the judgment debtor to pay for the debt. For example, the sheriff can have the debtor’s bank account, vehicle, or even wage be garnished.
Click to expand...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judgment_debt

I imagine if Jones has $93,000 to splash about per month, it would be no problem to garnish, say, $92,000 of that per month towards his $1.5 billion black hole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom