• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

The Official Alex Jones Thread!

Brainster said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once Jones' current assets are liquidated and the bankruptcy discharged, isn't he basically free to set up a new operation that can't be touched by the Sandy Hook families? It seems to me that's probably why he agreed to the liquidation (well, that, and because he's probably squirreled away tons of assets).
Click to expand...

Yes. The lawyers liquidating now when Alex Jones sells 100k in supplements per day is suspicious, in addition to his other massive income with the show, which he cannot sell, as it is HIM as a personality on air being the absurdly high % of any assets.
The guy in charge was getting 50k a month just for monitoring the settlement. (Sro or rso..something like that)

So what the heck is really going on ?

I wonder what the families were told. ?? They won't be getting as much now, but maybe just more sooner?
 
Sherkeu said:
Yes. The lawyers liquidating now when Alex Jones sells 100k in supplements per day is suspicious, in addition to his other massive income with the show, which he cannot sell, as it is HIM as a personality on air being the absurdly high % of any assets.
The guy in charge was getting 50k a month just for monitoring the settlement. (Sro or rso..something like that)

So what the heck is really going on ?

I wonder what the families were told. ?? They won't be getting as much now, but maybe just more sooner?
Click to expand...

one thing is certain: whatever they were told by Jones was a lie.
 
Norman Alexander said:
I suspect that would still make him a beneficiary. As would receiving "surprise gifts" of bundles of cash in his mailbox.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is to keep assets out of Alex's name so they can't go after them. So say he has to sell his houses, guns, cars and tank. He just has his dad buy a new car and let him use it. Same with the house.

How much this will work is an open question, the courts should be better at fighting this kind of thing than he is at doing it but I am not sure that is the case.

The idea is very clearly Infowars gets sold for scrap and he starts a new show sponsored by his dads supplement company, with the focus on keeping as little as possible in his own name.

Hopefully this will not work but the system is rigged in favor of the rich so I am not at all convinced the court will smack it down like it should.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Hopefully this will not work but the system is rigged in favor of the rich so I am not at all convinced the court will smack it down like it should.
Click to expand...

I'm also a cynic. The system is indeed rigged in favor of the rich. But there's a special irony here. By design, the system is rigged in favor of the debtor. That is, the point of bankruptcy is to give the debtor a modicum of mercy at the expense of creditors, in the hopes that he can find his way back to solvency and productivity. The creditors are presumed to have properly assessed the risk and properly hedged against loss—and this is often the case.

The system doesn't seem to have properly contemplated a douchebag on the scale of Alex Jones: someone who is technically bankrupt because his turpitude has won him punitive debt in the same ballpark as the entire budget for the county I live in (which ironically also includes a ballpark), but who still benefits from resources far in excess of anything most of us could aspire to.

The only shred of hope is that the punitive damages are not dischargeable. Until he can find some douchebag judge, he is on the hook for that debt for the rest of his life.
 
JayUtah said:
I'm also a cynic. The system is indeed rigged in favor of the rich. But there's a special irony here. By design, the system is rigged in favor of the debtor. That is, the point of bankruptcy is to give the debtor a modicum of mercy at the expense of creditors, in the hopes that he can find his way back to solvency and productivity. The creditors are presumed to have properly assessed the risk and properly hedged against loss—and this is often the case.

The system doesn't seem to have properly contemplated a douchebag on the scale of Alex Jones: someone who is technically bankrupt because his turpitude has won him punitive debt in the same ballpark as the entire budget for the county I live in (which ironically also includes a ballpark), but who still benefits from resources far in excess of anything most of us could aspire to.

The only shred of hope is that the punitive damages are not dischargeable. Until he can find some douchebag judge, he is on the hook for that debt for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

THe thing is I am not sure how much they can go after things that he does not technically own, like his parents buy a house for him to live in and so forth but never put it in his name, its just their Nth house.

His dad is much smarter than him, in their respective depositions you have loads of untrue stuff from Alex but you couldn't even figure out what theoretical job his father has at Infowars that nets him a large salary.
 
ponderingturtle said:
THe thing is I am not sure how much they can go after things that he does not technically own, like his parents buy a house for him to live in and so forth but never put it in his name, its just their Nth house.

His dad is much smarter than him, in their respective depositions you have loads of untrue stuff from Alex but you couldn't even figure out what theoretical job his father has at Infowars that nets him a large salary.
Click to expand...

Bankruptcy courts have been doing this a lot longer than Alex Jones. If it can be shown that he transferred assets to family members to avoid forfeiture in bankruptcy then the court has it within it's authority to seize the assets, no matter who currently owns them.
 
CarbShark said:
Bankruptcy courts have been doing this a lot longer than Alex Jones. If it can be shown that he transferred assets to family members to avoid forfeiture in bankruptcy then the court has it within it's authority to seize the assets, no matter who currently owns them.
Click to expand...

But he is transferring sales of product not assets.
 
I suppose it depends on the particulars of the transfer. If Jones transferred a profitable business to his parents, that's an asset that is susceptible to seizure under bankruptcy fraud rules. If they always had the business (or part of it) and they subsidize Jones, that's income that the plaintiffs can garnish. Keep in mind that the Sand Hook judgment debt doesn't go away after this bankruptcy concludes. Since it's non-dischargeable, he is still liable for it.
 
JayUtah said:
I suppose it depends on the particulars of the transfer. If Jones transferred a profitable business to his parents, that's an asset that is susceptible to seizure under bankruptcy fraud rules. If they always had the business (or part of it) and they subsidize Jones, that's income that the plaintiffs can garnish. Keep in mind that the Sand Hook judgment debt doesn't go away after this bankruptcy concludes. Since it's non-dischargeable, he is still liable for it.
Click to expand...

It isn't the transfer of a business but the market, he is directing sales now to his father's "Doctor Jones Natural Remedies" instead of the infowars storefront. Of course then there are the sub businesses like how he initially claimed bankruptcy because he supposedly owed 50 million to his dad's company that was sourcing the supplements. They have a truly absurd number of corporations that they own that don't seem to do anything.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It isn't the transfer of a business but the market, he is directing sales now to his father's "Doctor Jones Natural Remedies" instead of the infowars storefront. Of course then there are the sub businesses like how he initially claimed bankruptcy because he supposedly owed 50 million to his dad's company that was sourcing the supplements. They have a truly absurd number of corporations that they own that don't seem to do anything.
Click to expand...

Yup, and Dr Jones Remedies happen to be a lot of the same products
 
ponderingturtle said:
It isn't the transfer of a business but the market, he is directing sales now to his father's "Doctor Jones Natural Remedies" instead of the infowars storefront.
Click to expand...

Got it, thanks. Does Jones receive any consideration for that?

They have a truly absurd number of corporations that they own that don't seem to do anything.
Click to expand...

This is how you make bankruptcy more difficult for creditors and judges to figure out.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Not yet, but who else is going to sponsor his next show? And it will help his parents buy a house for him to live in.
Click to expand...

Any income he receives is subject to future garnishment. That could be a personal promotional consideration for sending business to any company. That could be commissions on sales. That could be subsidies. If Jones starts another show, any income he makes from that can be garnished.

I'm not sure exactly how it works for living in someone else's house.
 
JayUtah said:
Any income he receives is subject to future garnishment. That could be a personal promotional consideration for sending business to any company. That could be commissions on sales. That could be subsidies. If Jones starts another show, any income he makes from that can be garnished.

I'm not sure exactly how it works for living in someone else's house.
Click to expand...

What about having access to his father's credit card? That way you get rid of all that formal commission or promotional consideration.

The future plan to fight the lawsuit debts that can not be discharged in bankruptcy seems to avoid having him have any formal income or ownership of things. But remember the supreme court has shown you don't need to report gifts of vacations or the like so he should be free and clear.
 
JayUtah said:
Any income he receives is subject to future garnishment. That could be a personal promotional consideration for sending business to any company. That could be commissions on sales. That could be subsidies. If Jones starts another show, any income he makes from that can be garnished.

I'm not sure exactly how it works for living in someone else's house.
Click to expand...


If he's doing any kind of work for his father's company, including hawking supplements, then the use of the house would most likely be considered compensation at fair market rental value. There used to be a lot of schemes where corporations would attempt to disguise executive pay (in order for the executive to avoid income tax) with things like no-interest loans and free use of cars, until the IRS cracked down on such activities and required that they be reported as compensation.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It isn't the transfer of a business but the market, he is directing sales now to his father's "Doctor Jones Natural Remedies" instead of the infowars storefront. Of course then there are the sub businesses like how he initially claimed bankruptcy because he supposedly owed 50 million to his dad's company that was sourcing the supplements. They have a truly absurd number of corporations that they own that don't seem to do anything.
Click to expand...

Alex Jones’ father is a snake oil salesman?

That explains a lot.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It isn't the transfer of a business but the market, he is directing sales now to his father's "Doctor Jones Natural Remedies" instead of the infowars storefront. Of course then there are the sub businesses like how he initially claimed bankruptcy because he supposedly owed 50 million to his dad's company that was sourcing the supplements. They have a truly absurd number of corporations that they own that don't seem to do anything.
Click to expand...

They are precisely for this type of situation: bailing out "safely". My understanding is the IRS and appropriate legal authorities will see right through this. They have likely seen a lot more complex arrangements than this in their time. These guys are dumbasses by comparison.
 
Norman Alexander said:
My understanding is the IRS and appropriate legal authorities will see right through this. They have likely seen a lot more complex arrangements than this in their time.
Click to expand...

More importantly, there are many law firms that specialize in debt collection and have considerable expertise at locating improperly hidden assets. This is not to downplay the skill of the IRS or a bankruptcy court. But nothing steels one's resolve better than the prospect of obtaining a private commission on the recovery of a billion-dollar debt.
 
JayUtah said:
More importantly, there are many law firms that specialize in debt collection and have considerable expertise at locating improperly hidden assets. This is not to downplay the skill of the IRS or a bankruptcy court. But nothing steels one's resolve better than the prospect of obtaining a private commission on the recovery of a billion-dollar debt.
Click to expand...

The Jones gang are toast.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The idea is very clearly Infowars gets sold for scrap and he starts a new show sponsored by his dads supplement company, with the focus on keeping as little as possible in his own name.
Click to expand...

The judge says Infowars can cruise on.

https://www.nytimes.com/

That seems to mean whatever junk AJ can come up with on his site, the profits can be garnished by the aggrieved.

We live in an intercoursed-up world.
 
Last edited:
In general, bankruptcy liquidation must preserve certain kinds of things for the petitioner. You are allowed to keep a place to live and a means of transportation, for example. And you are generally allowed to retain tangible assets that contribute to how your earn a living. The point is not to drive you into abject poverty, but rather to get you back on your feet again.

Sadly there is too much legal distance between Jones' behavior on Infowars that earned him the punitive judgment and the value of Infowars in securing him a future way to earn a living for his misuse of Infowars to have much effect on bankruptcy.

But there's still reason to hope.

The billion-dollar debt is not discharged. Jones will be looking over his shoulder at the plaintiffs for the rest of his rage-fueled life. Jones' shares in Free Speech Systems are considered his personal property and must be liquidated; Jones will no longer be a shareholder in the company. Infowars will be partially controlled by a trustee appointed in bankruptcy.
 
There is also the high probability that Jones will say something yet again on Infowars that is highly defamatory of the same plaintiffs who have him on the hook now. That could be a major legal problem for him if he does. I'm not sure how much worse it could get than a $1.5 billion fine. Add a zero to that sum? Pretty pointless. I suspect the actual next step is to jail him for an extended period. Legal opinion, please.
 
He's already saying that there were multiple shooters, and that the families are pawns in a left-wing plot to silence him. Whether these statements are defamatory is questionable, but they probably indicate that, like some other recent prominent losers of defamation suits, Jones hasn't learned the First Rule of Holes.
 
If he says something else false and defamatory, the process starts all over again. Each new claim has to be shown in court to be false and defamatory.

If he says something that was already judged to be false and defamatory, the plaintiffs can do what E. Jean Carroll did with Trump: sue again, but without the burden of having to prove the statements are false and defamatory.

After that comes the possibility to sue for injunctive relief, if Jones continues to say things judged to be false and defamatory: with an injunction in place, a court can punish future statements of the same false claims by a jail term.
 
JayUtah said:
The billion-dollar debt is not discharged. Jones will be looking over his shoulder at the plaintiffs for the rest of his rage-fueled life. Jones' shares in Free Speech Systems are considered his personal property and must be liquidated; Jones will no longer be a shareholder in the company. Infowars will be partially controlled by a trustee appointed in bankruptcy.
Click to expand...


Does that mean that the Sandy Hook parents could end up controlling Infowars?
 
dann said:
Does that mean that the Sandy Hook parents could end up controlling Infowars?
Click to expand...

Interesting question.

If you had a court rule against you, could the other party in the suit get control of this fictional: www.dannsviews.com ??!
... and then fill it up with whatever they want to put there as if it were still your site?
Take all your views and customers?
After all, it is only views and customers that make money.

Perhaps you just want it not to make money and die on the internet vine..then why take control? Just have the judge ban it.


OH! and then you need to find a way to make a person not speak for any money as a guest...or gifts, or accolades or a loan of a house or car.
Between close friends.
How do you ever stop him...really?????!
Perhaps it can be done. Seems weird though.
 
dann said:
Does that mean that the Sandy Hook parents could end up controlling Infowars?
Click to expand...

No. The trustee is appointed by the bankruptcy court. There is a difference between the Sandy Hook parents' role as the winning plaintiffs in a defamation suit, and the Sandy Hook parents as creditors in bankruptcy. The trustee is there to ensure the asset Jones uses to continue to earn a living is being properly administrated. Conceivably that would entail preventing Jones from making additional statements that would incur legal liability, but I don't know if that's actually the case.
 
Sherkeu said:
Interesting question.
Click to expand...

...the answers to which depend on whether we're talking about the losing defendant in a defamation case or a debtor in bankruptcy. Jones is both of those, but they are kept separate for legal purposes as they are two separate legal actions with possibly conflicting goals.

If you had a court rule against you, could the other party in the suit get control of this fictional: www.dannsviews.com ??!
... and then fill it up with whatever they want to put there as if it were still your site?
Take all your views and customers?
After all, it is only views and customers that make money.
Click to expand...

Winning a defamation case does not entitle you to control the means by which you were defamed. Chapter 11 bankruptcy may transfer ownership of an asset, but usually wouldn't. Chapter 7 bankruptcy does not—however, a creditor could possibly buy the site at fire-sale prices. And generally, impersonating the previous site operator might get you in legal trouble yourself.

Perhaps you just want it not to make money and die on the internet vine..then why take control? Just have the judge ban it.
Click to expand...

Judges generally cannot ban a means of speech in a prior-restraint fashion for defamation purposes. Shutting down a site (or TV station, or newspaper) for content-based reasons is legally problematic.

For bankruptcy purposes, the point is usually to get the highest dollar value for something, or as in Jones' case, preserve it as a way for him to continue to make a living and thus satisfy his debts, even if that way of living is despicable. A bankruptcy judge has no basis to question the morality of the assets being reorganized or liquidated. So long as they are not strictly illegal, only their market value matters.
 
Bankruptcy Courts actually do more to protect the little guy (debtors) from the big guys (creditors). But sometimes the wealthy can find ways to manipulate this system too.
 
The question is: what counts as "getting away with it" for Jones?

He will never again be as rich as he was, and the grief he is bringing to his family over this will certainly impact him negatively.
But he might be able to continue selling snake oil and scaring people into commiting acts of violence and hate.
 
Great new video from LegalEagle, "Alex Jones Loses His Personal Fortune In Bankruptcy"


Money quote: "And if this all smells fishy to you, well, yeah, it's basically a giant rotted fish." :D
 
Alex Jones’ court trustee plans to shut down his notorious conspiracy outlet Infowars
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/24/media/alex-jones-infowars-court-trustee/index.html
Earlier this month, a bankruptcy judge ruled that Jones’ personal assets would be liquidated to help pay off the nearly $1.5 billion he owes the families of victims of the Sandy Hook massacre. But at that time, the judge ruled Jones’ media company Free Speech Systems, the parent of Infowars, would not be liquidated partly because the process would be costly and lengthy.

The dismissal of the bankruptcy case against the outlet meant that the families were free to go after Jones’ assets, including Infowars, in state court. Since Jones is the owner of Free Speech Systems, a court appointed trustee was put in charge of the company.

But the trustee said the process was “derailed” when one of the Sandy Hook victim’s parents filed a motion in a Texas District Court to be granted custody of all of Free Speech Systems’ assets, including Infowars.
Click to expand...
 
Another article here.

Christopher Mattei, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families in the Connecticut lawsuit, said they supported the trustee’s new motion. He also said the families were disappointed with the motion filed Friday in the Texas court by Heslin and Lewis, which he said would “undercut” an equitable distribution of Jones’ assets to all the families.

“This is precisely the unfortunate situation that the Connecticut (lawsuit) families hoped to avoid,” Mattei said.

The families in both lawsuits, who have not received anything from Jones yet, appear likely to get only a fraction of what Jones owes them.

Jones has about $9 million in personal assets, according to the most recent financial filings in court. Free Speech Systems has about $6 million in cash on hand and about $1.2 million worth of inventory, according to recent court testimony.
Click to expand...

https://apnews.com/article/e8bf9a3d11b9506abb18c285d3e7b138
 
Well this is interesting.

https://www.rawstory.com/alex-jones-russia/

Russian President Vladimir Putin has seemingly invited conservatives chafing under "neoliberal ideals" in their home countries to move to Russia, where he claimed "traditional values reign supreme," and Alex Jones suggested he might take him up on the offer.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest starting a gofundme for purchasing the one-way ticket, but we all know he'll never follow through with it.

(Slightly) More seriously, is he even allowed to travel with the fact he owes millions still outstanding?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom