The Official Alex Jones Thread!

[mumblethrax]

As I said, I'm talking about "like Bezos" meaning the motivation and net result, not the identical machinations.

I'm guess I'm unclear on what motivation you're talking about, and the net result is clearly different. Hiding assets in other peoples' names would be a huge risk for Bezos, as it could result in him losing control of Amazon. He has good reason not to do that.

Jones' attempts to transfer his wealth to holding companies owned by relatives is also a risk, but he (or more likely his lawyers) know that he's likely to rack up liabilities for the defamatory things he says. It's better than losing everything altogether. He has good reason to do that.

These seem like very different motivations and results to me.

 

[Thermal]

I'm guess I'm unclear on what motivation you're talking about, and the net result is clearly different. Hiding assets in other peoples' names would be a huge risk for Bezos, as it could result in him losing control of Amazon. He has good reason not to do that.

Jones' attempts to transfer his wealth to holding companies owned by relatives is also a risk, but he (or more likely his lawyers) know that he's likely to rack up liabilities for the defamatory things he says. It's better than losing everything altogether. He has good reason to do that.

These seem like very different motivations and results to me.

Motivation: living high on the hog without anyone taking it away from you, even though they should.

Net result: living high on the hog without anyone taking it away from you, even though they should.

 

[mumblethrax]

Motivation: living high on the hog without anyone taking it away from you, even though they should.

Net result: living high on the hog without anyone taking it away from you, even though they should.

Yeah, that clearly applies to Jones, and clearly does not apply to Bezos. So I don't see where "do it like Bezos" enters into it.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, that clearly applies to Jones, and clearly does not apply to Bezos. So I don't see where "do it like Bezos" enters into it.

Bezos wants to live high on the hog without the tax man taking a huge chunk away, even though the tax man should.

Never mind. Withdrawn.

 

[plague311]

I'm sure it's true that the judgement is also against him personally. But he's still allowed to make a living. Like, they are not going to seize every Big Mac out of his mouth at lunch.

I wasn't implying that they'd take every penny, but look at Guilliani. They aren't taking every penny but he has to knock his lifestyle way down. No multiple residences, no lavish watches or cars, and so on.

The trick is to run it like Bezos. No personal income tax because, on paper, no assets personally. The Citizens United protected LLC is actually the moneymaker, not Jones. So he shelters the cash the way corporate goons have been doing it since we had taxes, and continues the lifestyle that he technically doesn't earn the profit from.

I'm fairly positive that his LLC's were all named in the lawsuits. Everything that was tied to him, his show, or his wealth was named in that lawsuit. Perhaps you're right with what you're saying, I don't really know. I don't think it's as easy to skirt these payouts as you're implying though.

 

[mumblethrax]

Bezos wants to live high on the hog without the tax man taking a huge chunk away, even though the tax man should.

Ok, I at least see where you're coming from now. But civil liabilities are very different from tax liabilities, so the strategies involved will look very different, too. Bezos can totally avoid income tax just by not having an income--it's not like he needs one. It's pretty hard for Jones to rebuild a business empire if he can't hold any substantial assets.

 

[Thermal]

Ok, I at least see where you're coming from now. But civil liabilities are very different from tax liabilities, so the strategies involved will look very different, too. Bezos can totally avoid income tax just by not having an income--it's not like he needs one. It's pretty hard for Jones to rebuild a business empire if he can't hold any substantial assets.

That's where a straw LLC comes in. Jones wouldn't be holding any assets beyond his room and board allowances per the court. What has me thinking along these lines are all the convicted felons and otherwise ineligible contractors I work with, who seem to have no problem at all skirting judgements against them with the beauty of the LLC. It's not their car they are driving, it belongs to the company they work for. Same for their house; it's not their name on the deed. One fairly in-your-face hustle I got to dig into was a convicted felon who was operating as a developer, and he had his assets essentially in a trust fund that was owned by his kids. On paper, he was a low paid errand boy. His middlingly substantial wealth was not touchable, according to the presiding judge, because it wasn't his (he was being sued).

After Citizens United, I have pretty much zero faith in people being stopped from manipulating the system. It is literally built to be abused.

 

[mumblethrax]

That's where a straw LLC comes in. Jones wouldn't be holding any assets beyond his room and board allowances per the court. What has me thinking along these lines are all the convicted felons and otherwise ineligible contractors I work with, who seem to have no problem at all skirting judgements against them with the beauty of the LLC. It's not their car they are driving, it belongs to the company they work for. Same for their house; it's not their name on the deed. One fairly in-your-face hustle I got to dig into was a convicted felon who was operating as a developer, and he had his assets essentially in a trust fund that was owned by his kids. On paper, he was a low paid errand boy. His middlingly substantial wealth was not touchable, according to the presiding judge, because it wasn't his (he was being sued).

Ok, but that does put you at risk. You'd better be sure you can trust your kids before pulling a move like this, or they can completely screw you over. And Jones is high profile in a way that means he's much more likely to be made an example of, especially if he pisses off a judge (and with a personality like that, how could he not?) The court isn't blind to assets being transferred back and forth.

After Citizens United, I have pretty much zero faith in people being stopped from manipulating the system. It is literally built to be abused.

It's hard not to be pessimistic about this after recent events, but I do think it's harder than people imagine to pull off tricks like this. Particularly when you're an idiot, and so are your lawyers.

 

[Thermal]

Ok, but that does put you at risk. You'd better be sure you can trust your kids before pulling a move like this, or they can completely screw you over. And Jones is high profile in a way that means he's much more likely to be made an example of, especially if he pisses off a judge (and with a personality like that, how could he not?) The court isn't blind to assets being transferred back and forth.


It's hard not to be pessimistic about this after recent events, but I do think it's harder than people imagine to pull off tricks like this. Particularly when you're an idiot, and so are your lawyers.

Fair call that it's easier for some anonymous contractor to pull it off; Jones is a little too out in the open for a cheap trick like that to go unnoticed.

 

[Norman Alexander]

IANAL and don't play one on TV. I recall a discussion here that in these kinds of cases, even transferring assets and wealth to an LLC or a trust is no guarantee of avoidance. The court views that as an attempt to avoid personal liability, to hide income from the court, which is very much frowned on. And thus the court can and has considered all wealth "that you have access to or you use to support yourself", which includes shares, LLCs, family trusts, "gifts", lottery wins, etc., etc. as "assessable income". So if you spend any money on yourself, or money is spent to directly support you, those sources are also assessable. But it might also depend on the leniency of the court...

 

[plague311]

especially if he pisses off a judge (and with a personality like that, how could he not?)

He pissed the judge off in both of his civil trials multiple times. One instance about chewing gum, another when he wouldn't turn over anything related to discovery and a few others as well. That's all he does is piss off lawyers and then when he gets what's coming to him he cries victim.

 

[Thermal]

IANAL and don't play one on TV. I recall a discussion here that in these kinds of cases, even transferring assets and wealth to an LLC or a trust is no guarantee of avoidance. The court views that as an attempt to avoid personal liability, to hide income from the court, which is very much frowned on. And thus the court can and has considered all wealth "that you have access to or you use to support yourself", which includes shares, LLCs, family trusts, "gifts", lottery wins, etc., etc. as "assessable income". So if you spend any money on yourself, or money is spent to directly support you, those sources are also assessable. But it might also depend on the leniency of the court...

I hear this, but the trick is to not transfer your wealth, or take gifts.

Hypothetically structured, very very broad brush: Jones allows another entity to set up InfoWanks. The proceeds of InfoWanks go to a trust fund that his children are majority principals in (his kids have no judgements against them relating to this matter). Jones goes to work for them, netting below the threshold allowed by the court. On paper, he is a low paid employee doing one of the few jobs available to him for one of the few people who would hire him.

As part of his employment package, he gets to live in and drive company owned property. And basically continue the lifestyle (now line itemed as business trips and expenses) that others technically are providing.

In nuts and bolts terms, it wouldn't be that simple. Actual assets would have to be disbursed in a web of straw LLCs, till it wouldn't be tremendously clear who owned what outright, not just straight to a trust in the kids names.

The bottom line would be what they used to call "piercing the corporate veil", and demonstrating that the shell game was exactly that. With someone as high profile as Jones, it would be tough to live under the radar. But he could, for instance, show on taxes that he lives in a cheap one bedroom rented apartment while he is actually living in a kicking crib owned by the LLC. He would just have to not be big and bold about being pictured there.

 

[KDLarsen]

That last sentence is where I can see Jones run into problems though...

 

[dann]

Six months of Ozempic, a facelift and a shave will make him unrecognizable.
Meanwhile, he hires an Alex-Jones-lookalike crisis actor - it's the USA, so they can't be hard to find; it doesn't even have to be a man - to live in the cheap one-bedroom apartment. It's feasible.

 

[plague311]

I was thinking about this while reading the news last night. Elon Musk is now trying to exert ownership over the Twitter account of Alex Jones, or his media empire and is doing so under the premise that Twitter owns the account, and all accounts. I have to believe that this would open Twitter up to lawsuits as well? I was under the impression that the reason social media companies weren't held responsible for what was posted on their platform was because they aren't technically publishers and aren't responsible for what is posted on their platforms (to some degree). If Musk is saying Twitter owns those accounts then he has to be responsible for them.

Anyway, I might be blowing smoke. It was just an interesting thought I had while reading the article.

 

[Thermal]

I was thinking about this while reading the news last night. Elon Musk is now trying to exert ownership over the Twitter account of Alex Jones, or his media empire and is doing so under the premise that Twitter owns the account, and all accounts. I have to believe that this would open Twitter up to lawsuits as well? I was under the impression that the reason social media companies weren't held responsible for what was posted on their platform was because they aren't technically publishers and aren't responsible for what is posted on their platforms (to some degree). If Musk is saying Twitter owns those accounts then he has to be responsible for them.

Anyway, I might be blowing smoke. It was just an interesting thought I had while reading the article.

Owning the account might be legally different from owning the user generated contents? I dunno either, but interesting angle, considering that we could lock Musk up almost immediately for what has been posted in the past, kind of like if you own a house where drugs are dealt, you might have some level of liability.

Eta: buddy of mine owns a section 8 rental where the tenants were into... all kinds of illegal ◊◊◊◊. I recall he had to do some work to demonstrate he had no reason to suspect anything, or he might be culpable for aiding/albeiting.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If Musk insists that Twitter accounts belong to Twitter, he might as well just shut the company down.

 

[plague311]

Owning the account might be legally different from owning the user generated contents? I dunno either, but interesting angle, considering that we could lock Musk up almost immediately for what has been posted in the past, kind of like if you own a house where drugs are dealt, you might have some level of liability.

Eta: buddy of mine owns a section 8 rental where the tenants were into... all kinds of illegal ◊◊◊◊. I recall he had to do some work to demonstrate he had no reason to suspect anything, or he might be culpable for aiding/albeiting.

I have a few anecdotal comparisons. I drove cab for a 2-3 years in Fargo and the company told us to be careful about drugs or weapons falling out of passengers clothes and to check after each ride. If cops found something we couldn't necessarily use the "it's not mine, I drive a cab" excuse. We're responsible for what takes place in that cab.

The second is I used to play Everquest (online role playing game) and when I quit playing for a long time I sold my character but we had to specifically state that we weren't selling the "account" because that belonged to Sony. We were merely selling our time we invested in creating and leveling the character.

Kind of two different ends of the spectrum but that's what made me think it was interesting. I don't think any other social media company has entered a lawsuit to argue on behalf of the defendant to say that the account can't be sold because it's not the property of the individual.

 

[Thermal]

I have a few anecdotal comparisons. I drove cab for a 2-3 years in Fargo and the company told us to be careful about drugs or weapons falling out of passengers clothes and to check after each ride. If cops found something we couldn't necessarily use the "it's not mine, I drive a cab" excuse. We're responsible for what takes place in that cab.

The second is I used to play Everquest (online role playing game) and when I quit playing for a long time I sold my character but we had to specifically state that we weren't selling the "account" because that belonged to Sony. We were merely selling our time we invested in creating and leveling the character.

Kind of two different ends of the spectrum but that's what made me think it was interesting. I don't think any other social media company has entered a lawsuit to argue on behalf of the defendant to say that the account can't be sold because it's not the property of the individual.

What's our arrangement on this site? I seem to recall a notice on the old forum that the actual content of the posts were the IP of the posters themselves, but I don't recall anything about the account itself? Since we can be banned, it would seem like management does ultimately own the account?

 

[plague311]

What's our arrangement on this site? I seem to recall a notice on the old forum that the actual content of the posts were the IP of the posters themselves, but I don't recall anything about the account itself? Since we can be banned, it would seem like management does ultimately own the account?

Kind of? lol. I don't know. We can't sell or transfer our accounts to another person because that would be considered an infringement on the "no sock puppets" rule, I would guess. This isn't really social media in that we don't gain followers here, which is really what's being sold. That's a good question though. I suppose if I wasn't a lazy bitch today I could go read what Twitter's argument is but...meh