The Official Alex Jones Thread!

[Athyrio]

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.

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.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

 

[Norman Alexander]

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.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

 

[dann]

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.

Does that mean that the Sandy Hook parents could end up controlling Infowars?

 

[Sherkeu]

Does that mean that the Sandy Hook parents could end up controlling Infowars?

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.

 

[JayUtah]

Does that mean that the Sandy Hook parents could end up controlling Infowars?

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.

 

[JayUtah]

Interesting question.

...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.

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.

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.

 

[CarbShark]

It's looking more and more like he's getting away with it.

 

[JayUtah]

It's looking more and more like he's getting away with it.

It's certainly easy to get that impression. We have been telling each other for many years that the American legal system is rigged to protect the wealthy.

 

[Norman Alexander]

It's certainly easy to get that impression. We have been telling each other for many years that the American legal system is rigged to protect the wealthy.

Jones has only the appearance of wealth. He owes a billion, literally.

 

[CarbShark]

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.

 

[gabeygoat]

It's looking more and more like he's getting away with it.

I don't think so. I think they're letting him tie his own noose. The sad part is the victim's wait and wait.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

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.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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."

 

[Ranb]

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.

 

[Orphia Nay]

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.

https://apnews.com/article/e8bf9a3d11b9506abb18c285d3e7b138

 

[ZiprHead]

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

I heard that someone suggested a wealthy Jones supporter could buy Infowars and give Jones a job to continue doing exactly what he has always done.

 

[cow_cat]

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.

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?