14 ms·

Isn't actually collecting judgements hard? I thought I read, in some article about how Alex Jones hasn't paid any of his judgement, that it's not uncommon to t

Isn't actually collecting judgements hard? I thought I read, in some article about how Alex Jones hasn't paid any of his judgement, that it's not uncommon to take decades before seeing any money. Often people settle for a greatly reduced sum that they can get right now, for that very reason.

sanderjd 2y ago
Is it? Yes. Should it be? No. It's long past time to stop letting rich people manipulate the legal system to get away with their criminality.
- JellyBeanThief 2y ago
  As long as we keep writing discontented comments on the internet, I'm sure we'll get what we want any day now.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > rich people That seems to be the key. If I, as a peon, owed child support or something, the government has many ways to squeeze that pittance out of me, including asset seizure and wage garnishment. But if instead I was a millionaire business owner owing $millions, I can just... not pay it. Have my lawyer whisper some arcane incantation to a judge, and suddenly the government is all "Oh, woe is me! How can we possibly get this money??" Two different systems, folks.
  - Repulsion9513 2y ago
    Depends. Good luck getting a drop out of anyone who's not proper rich in Texas - you can't garnish wages (federal debts & familial support only) and you can't seize the only significant assets many people have (a house and a car).
  - temporarely 2y ago
    It is the same system. It is the system. It is the entire point of the system. Our government prints money as if it is nothing. The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious and start counting pennies. Another manifestation of the system. The system requires an underclass. It is that simple.
    - gumby 2y ago
      > The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious Most of the money "sent overseas" is actually spent locally (US "foreign aid" spent in US; Japanese "foreign aid" spent in Japan, etc). For example, Ukraine is getting shells pulled from inventory (like giving the older, almost expired cans from your pantry to the food kitchen). The "Ukraine" money the WH and Senate want to spend will be spent on replentishment and building up capacity because the US has lost its capacity to rapidly build up production, and is worried about needing to fight another war. A lot of food aid is actually sending surplus overseas to keep agricultural output high. Farm subsidies are a huge welfare plan to wealthy farmers (not poor ones) but the federal government doesn't want to risk a food shortage, so they support overproduction and send some of it overseas because there isn't enough local demand or much less foreign demand from rich trading partners.
      - temporarely 2y ago
        So you are confirming that it is the system. Yes, MIC is getting the war funds and "spending it in US" means MIC gets the money and then they do with it whatever it is they do with their massive pile of monies. I hear they get parked 'overseas'.
      - riehwvfbk 2y ago
        [flagged]
        gumby 2y ago
        I was responding to the GP comment about it being "sums beings sent overseas". I agree with you it's mostly unproductive (TBF you actually want military spending to be "unproductive" -- just enough to keep people from attacking you, plus a bit more in case they actually do, but preferably never used). As well, I strongly agree with what I think you're saying that military spending has gone well beyond that point, and money would be better spent on more common threats that people face like lack of access to health care. But that's only one (huge) problem with the budget; it's not all that singular case, as in the case of agricultural that I mentioned. It's also a job stabilization program, though those are less effective than they were 75 years ago (you can't retool an IBM card punch factory to make machine guns). And using the military as a jobs stabilization program is inefficient.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    Well yeah, there are two systems, and so two paths that get followed. I don't mean legal systems, I mean financial systems. Most people live in a world where they have to own something to have it. They buy a house to live in, a car to drive and so on. The law can decide you owe something so they take an asset that you own. But people with wealth don't generally live like this. They structure their financial lives to separate value from risk. They control wealth, they use wealth, but they don't "own" it. Joe Public and the media are bad at understanding this distinction. They equate wealth with ownership. The law understands it though, so Joe Public doesn't understand the law. The solution here is not to rail against the system. The solution is to understand it, leverage it, educate and be educated. There are legal structures that exist to protect assets. Yes, you need to reach some level of success to make use of them, but lots of people reach that level and don't use them, thus exposing unnecessary risk to those assets. If you "own" a business of any size, you should get educated on this.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      You're brushing off that these structures require an outsized level of wealth to pay the salaries of enough other people to make every legal entity a group project with diffuse responsibility. Without that, most judges are just going to say you're personally responsible for everything regardless of the legal structures you've set up. So no, it's not just a matter of us plebs learning how to use the system - it really is designed to privilege capital over individuals. For example see the blatant dynamic of the "Limited Partnership" predecessor to the LLC.
      - bruce511 2y ago
        The amount of wealth required and the actions of judges will depend greatly on your situation and the local legislation. Consult a good financial advisor for the best solution in your jurisdiction.
        int_19h 2y ago
        That in and of itself is not cheap.
  - 77pt77 2y ago
    > including asset seizure and wage garnishment For child support it's usually contempt of court which implies jail time. That's usually how debts (civil matters) turn into criminal problems.
  - justrealist 2y ago
    It's more about wage garnishment (easy) vs asset seizure (hard).
    - mzi 2y ago
      In Sweden we have "The Enforcement Agency", a government agency that does both with the same process. And it's the same process for both companies and private persons. Credit risk is a lot lower in Sweden for that reason, compared to similar markets such as Denmark.
      - mahkeiro 2y ago
        Just for information this is the same in Switzerland, but please note we are not the same :)
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    It's not so easy to get non-rich people to pay, either. The court can order it, but the court doesn't do enforcement. The party owed the money has to go pay another outfit to do wage garnishment. Of course, the debtor can just quit and go get another job, and that step has to be repeated.
    - Gare 2y ago
      In my country (in Europe) wage garnishment is handled by the government, so once you have the right to collect it is easily enforced.
      - overstay8930 2y ago
        it’s the same in the US but you can’t garnish the wages of a corporate entity
        r00fus 2y ago
        So corporations are people but don’t have to play by the rules. WTF.
    - fasa99 2y ago
      I enthusiastically agree with this. Try having your car/vehicle stolen, the offending party caught and pled guilty, ordered by a judge to pay back the damage they have done ... and do nothing (despite making, technically, massive untaxed sales on untaxed drug income) (the hustle and bustle of big city life!) still waiting, philadelphia
  - jjav 2y ago
    > If I, as a peon, owed child support or something Just here a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39815731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39815731 But if you're very rich and owe tens or hundreds of millions, you can just ignore it and move on.
    - taneq 2y ago
      "The miracle of credit, my dear boy. The more we owe them, the better they treat us!" - 'Dr. Absalom', Westmark (Lloyd Alexander)
thephyber 2y ago
The Alex Jones company bankruptcy is ongoing. Courts take time. The debtors have to agree to what they are willing to accept (and in the case of AJones, he is still defending against other lawsuits that might grow his group of bankruptcy debtors). In regards to collecting, if a business is still open and collecting revenue, it’s a fairly easy target for collecting _something_. Whether a full $40 million judgement on a person/company can be collected is a different beast. There is a tremendous incentive to throw lots of billable hours at lawyers to appeal, or lots of billable hours to financial advisors to hide assets (shell companies, offshore jurisdictions, family members, fake identities, hard currency / commodities, etc). There is some evidence that AJones has done some of this (and that the Trump company at the heart of the NY fraud case has tried to migrate to FL and send assets to other entities).
spdustin 2y ago
If you can social engineer the name of their bank, banks are quite responsive when sent a judgment and a writ of attachment (which courts are usually quick to give when they've entered your judgment).
lazide 2y ago
You can generally get assets seized relatively easily, depending on how things are structured. The challenge is a lot of sketchy folks will ensure they hold very little directly themselves, which complicates things.
elzbardico 2y ago
Please note that this is a specifically American. In most other countries, a judge simply issue an order for the banks most of the time electronically and the funds are automatically collected in a electronic manner.

sanderjd 2y ago

Is it? Yes. Should it be? No. It's long past time to stop letting rich people manipulate the legal system to get away with their criminality.

JellyBeanThief 2y ago
As long as we keep writing discontented comments on the internet, I'm sure we'll get what we want any day now.
ryandrake 2y ago
> rich people That seems to be the key. If I, as a peon, owed child support or something, the government has many ways to squeeze that pittance out of me, including asset seizure and wage garnishment. But if instead I was a millionaire business owner owing $millions, I can just... not pay it. Have my lawyer whisper some arcane incantation to a judge, and suddenly the government is all "Oh, woe is me! How can we possibly get this money??" Two different systems, folks.
- Repulsion9513 2y ago
  Depends. Good luck getting a drop out of anyone who's not proper rich in Texas - you can't garnish wages (federal debts & familial support only) and you can't seize the only significant assets many people have (a house and a car).
- temporarely 2y ago
  It is the same system. It is the system. It is the entire point of the system. Our government prints money as if it is nothing. The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious and start counting pennies. Another manifestation of the system. The system requires an underclass. It is that simple.
  - gumby 2y ago
    > The stupendous sums beings sent overseas but if it gets to domestic expenditure they ("our representatives") get all contentious Most of the money "sent overseas" is actually spent locally (US "foreign aid" spent in US; Japanese "foreign aid" spent in Japan, etc). For example, Ukraine is getting shells pulled from inventory (like giving the older, almost expired cans from your pantry to the food kitchen). The "Ukraine" money the WH and Senate want to spend will be spent on replentishment and building up capacity because the US has lost its capacity to rapidly build up production, and is worried about needing to fight another war. A lot of food aid is actually sending surplus overseas to keep agricultural output high. Farm subsidies are a huge welfare plan to wealthy farmers (not poor ones) but the federal government doesn't want to risk a food shortage, so they support overproduction and send some of it overseas because there isn't enough local demand or much less foreign demand from rich trading partners.
    - temporarely 2y ago
      So you are confirming that it is the system. Yes, MIC is getting the war funds and "spending it in US" means MIC gets the money and then they do with it whatever it is they do with their massive pile of monies. I hear they get parked 'overseas'.
    - riehwvfbk 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - gumby 2y ago
        I was responding to the GP comment about it being "sums beings sent overseas". I agree with you it's mostly unproductive (TBF you actually want military spending to be "unproductive" -- just enough to keep people from attacking you, plus a bit more in case they actually do, but preferably never used). As well, I strongly agree with what I think you're saying that military spending has gone well beyond that point, and money would be better spent on more common threats that people face like lack of access to health care. But that's only one (huge) problem with the budget; it's not all that singular case, as in the case of agricultural that I mentioned. It's also a job stabilization program, though those are less effective than they were 75 years ago (you can't retool an IBM card punch factory to make machine guns). And using the military as a jobs stabilization program is inefficient.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Well yeah, there are two systems, and so two paths that get followed. I don't mean legal systems, I mean financial systems. Most people live in a world where they have to own something to have it. They buy a house to live in, a car to drive and so on. The law can decide you owe something so they take an asset that you own. But people with wealth don't generally live like this. They structure their financial lives to separate value from risk. They control wealth, they use wealth, but they don't "own" it. Joe Public and the media are bad at understanding this distinction. They equate wealth with ownership. The law understands it though, so Joe Public doesn't understand the law. The solution here is not to rail against the system. The solution is to understand it, leverage it, educate and be educated. There are legal structures that exist to protect assets. Yes, you need to reach some level of success to make use of them, but lots of people reach that level and don't use them, thus exposing unnecessary risk to those assets. If you "own" a business of any size, you should get educated on this.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    You're brushing off that these structures require an outsized level of wealth to pay the salaries of enough other people to make every legal entity a group project with diffuse responsibility. Without that, most judges are just going to say you're personally responsible for everything regardless of the legal structures you've set up. So no, it's not just a matter of us plebs learning how to use the system - it really is designed to privilege capital over individuals. For example see the blatant dynamic of the "Limited Partnership" predecessor to the LLC.
    - bruce511 2y ago
      The amount of wealth required and the actions of judges will depend greatly on your situation and the local legislation. Consult a good financial advisor for the best solution in your jurisdiction.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        That in and of itself is not cheap.
- 77pt77 2y ago
  > including asset seizure and wage garnishment For child support it's usually contempt of court which implies jail time. That's usually how debts (civil matters) turn into criminal problems.
- justrealist 2y ago
  It's more about wage garnishment (easy) vs asset seizure (hard).
  - mzi 2y ago
    In Sweden we have "The Enforcement Agency", a government agency that does both with the same process. And it's the same process for both companies and private persons. Credit risk is a lot lower in Sweden for that reason, compared to similar markets such as Denmark.
    - mahkeiro 2y ago
      Just for information this is the same in Switzerland, but please note we are not the same :)
- WalterBright 2y ago
  It's not so easy to get non-rich people to pay, either. The court can order it, but the court doesn't do enforcement. The party owed the money has to go pay another outfit to do wage garnishment. Of course, the debtor can just quit and go get another job, and that step has to be repeated.
  - Gare 2y ago
    In my country (in Europe) wage garnishment is handled by the government, so once you have the right to collect it is easily enforced.
    - overstay8930 2y ago
      it’s the same in the US but you can’t garnish the wages of a corporate entity
      - r00fus 2y ago
        So corporations are people but don’t have to play by the rules. WTF.
  - fasa99 2y ago
    I enthusiastically agree with this. Try having your car/vehicle stolen, the offending party caught and pled guilty, ordered by a judge to pay back the damage they have done ... and do nothing (despite making, technically, massive untaxed sales on untaxed drug income) (the hustle and bustle of big city life!) still waiting, philadelphia
- jjav 2y ago
  > If I, as a peon, owed child support or something Just here a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39815731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39815731 But if you're very rich and owe tens or hundreds of millions, you can just ignore it and move on.
  - taneq 2y ago
    "The miracle of credit, my dear boy. The more we owe them, the better they treat us!" - 'Dr. Absalom', Westmark (Lloyd Alexander)

thephyber 2y ago

The Alex Jones company bankruptcy is ongoing. Courts take time. The debtors have to agree to what they are willing to accept (and in the case of AJones, he is still defending against other lawsuits that might grow his group of bankruptcy debtors). In regards to collecting, if a business is still open and collecting revenue, it’s a fairly easy target for collecting _something_. Whether a full $40 million judgement on a person/company can be collected is a different beast. There is a tremendous incentive to throw lots of billable hours at lawyers to appeal, or lots of billable hours to financial advisors to hide assets (shell companies, offshore jurisdictions, family members, fake identities, hard currency / commodities, etc). There is some evidence that AJones has done some of this (and that the Trump company at the heart of the NY fraud case has tried to migrate to FL and send assets to other entities).

spdustin 2y ago

If you can social engineer the name of their bank, banks are quite responsive when sent a judgment and a writ of attachment (which courts are usually quick to give when they've entered your judgment).

lazide 2y ago

You can generally get assets seized relatively easily, depending on how things are structured. The challenge is a lot of sketchy folks will ensure they hold very little directly themselves, which complicates things.

elzbardico 2y ago

Please note that this is a specifically American. In most other countries, a judge simply issue an order for the banks most of the time electronically and the funds are automatically collected in a electronic manner.