13 ms·

It is clear that Jones and his relatives have moved money and assets around in order to shield them from the verdict. Now, money that should have been already g

It is clear that Jones and his relatives have moved money and assets around in order to shield them from the verdict. Now, money that should have been already given to the victims is being used to steal back the megaphone that caused harmed in the first place. The end effect will probably be even more subscribers and money for Jones which he will use with even less restraint since he knows there are no consequences. There are no words for the evil going on here. What recourse is left when the legal system is this broken?

Vampiero 2y ago
[flagged]
wakawaka28 2y ago
[flagged]
- ternnoburn 2y ago
  Taking the man's source of income is absolutely a way to get paid. He can work a day job like anyone else.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    No, it's not. He will not be paying that. He might have paid a smaller yet still large amount, but he's certainly not going to work in McDonalds to pay off $1 billion dollars. He has the same legal rights as anyone else to not be a debt slave.
    - ternnoburn 2y ago
      [dead]
    - Muromec 2y ago
      Taking away some amount of wages is very much a thing, as everyone who ever divorced can tell you. You better not ask how math works there, because it’s not fun.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        As I said to someone else, taking some feasible payment from income is different from rendering someone unemployed. If you took a construction worker's tools, a taxi drivers car, or anything like that, then you put them out of business and render them incapable of paying. As far as divorce or child support, the same principle applies (or ought to). If the worker cannot sustain himself and his necessary expenses, he will become unemployed and incapable of paying.
        Muromec 2y ago
        Well, the catch is, you may not like what the judge decides is feasible. At least in the divorce cases the interests of the parties have to be balanced, here they don't have to be.
        ternnoburn 2y ago
        This happens all the time. It's super super common, not even accounting for pre trial detention leading to job loss for innocent people. We should fix that system, but like, why is Alex Jones the one to get hung up on?
    - wat10000 2y ago
      I don’t think they’ll throw him in jail if he sells off all his assets, pays everything he can, but refuses to work a job so he can pay more. Being liable for an amount more than you have means the people you owe won’t be able to get the full amount, but it doesn’t mean you get to keep all your stuff and pay them nothing.
    - mportela 2y ago
      It's called garnishment [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnishment
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        Garnishment is taking a portion of income, not taking the actual source of it. No business means no income, no income means no garnishment. I love how you cite Wikipedia as if grown adults here have never heard of garnishment. Then again education really is going downhill these days I guess.
- cess11 2y ago
  He can't pay his debts. What alternative to bankruptcy do you propose?
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    I'm not arguing against bankruptcy. I'm saying that bankruptcy is a structured process that is supposed to generate monetary outcomes for everyone. Selling off assets in a non-competitive process is basically a criminal move, especially if you collude with one of the bidders who is also a creditor. Bankruptcy itself aside, the judgement against Alex Jones here is huge. I haven't looked it up but I'm sure it broke records. The plaintiffs' initial demands of trillions of dollars were absolutely insane. They could have actually gotten more money with a lower judgement that allowed him to pay over time. But clearly restitution is not the objective.
    - cess11 2y ago
      No, it's a process that takes also other interests into account.
    - piva00 2y ago
      > But clearly restitution is not the objective. It's not the only objective, punishment is also an objective. If not you get settlements like Purdue Pharma's one which even after paying billions in damages still had made more money than that, you don't want an incentive to break the law like that, it becomes just another cost for the business and not really a punishment for it.
    - avianlyric 2y ago
      > Selling off assets in a non-competitive process is basically a criminal move, especially if you collude with one of the bidders who is also a creditor. Not sure why the bankruptcy trustee working with the companies largest creditors, so large, that a simple proportionate would result in them claiming pretty much the entire possible payout, can be considered collusion. The only people who can possibly be harmed are the creditors themselves. If they want to strike a deal that results in more equitable outcome, but with less total cash, that’s their business. Remember Alex Jones is on the hook for close to a billon dollars, and that sum has already been through various appeals and due process already, it’s no longer up for debate. The only question left is how Jones is gonna pay it. Unless someone creditably believes someone is going to hand over close to a billion dollars to purchase InfoWars, it seems silly to reject an offer that the creditors themselves believe is fair and reasonable.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > mere defamation I think what Alex Jones did is more than mere defamation. Repeatedly lying about the reality of a school mass shooting, over years, in such a way that he caused threats to be made against the families of victims? Incitement to credible threats of violence, and especially continuing to do so even after you're aware that's what your listeners are doing, deserves severe consequences.
  - logicchains 2y ago
    >Incitement to credible threats of violence Incitement means means explicitly encouraging. Just because someone people made threats of violence to the families because they believed what Alex Jones said about the shootings, doesn't mean that saying "The shootings were faked" is incitement. If Jones had explicitly said "the families deserve to suffer violent consequences for helping fake the shootings", that would be incitement. That's why he wasn't convicted of incitement, he was convicted of defamation.
    - hobs 2y ago
      Anyone defending Alex Jones in this case is either ignorant, a fool, or an absolute garbage human being. I am going to pick ignorant in this case. > “Folks, we got to get private investigators up to Sandy Hook right now. Because I’m telling you this — this stinks to highest heaven.” > “Why did Hitler blow up the Reichstag — to get control! Why do governments stage these things — to get our guns! Why can’t people get that through their head?”
      - marcusverus 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        Blanket statements like this are worse than useless. It's a nuanced discussion of damages, not a conversation of whether Alex Jones was right or wrong.
    - tmpz22 2y ago
- jasonjayr 2y ago
  What he did was beyond mere defamation. It was heinous, it was blatant and deliberate dishonesty, and targeted vulnerable victims. Repeating the verifiable lie that the Sandy Hook incident did not happen, and promoting violence against the surviving families, despite repeated opportunities to stop without penalty, is beyond forgivable. And this penalty is because he declined to defend this behavior. Remember, it's a default judgement. The conditioning to the public is that this behavior is not tolerated in a civil society, no matter what your political leanings. Him losing his "intellectual property", but not his voice, is getting off lightly.
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    Calling what Alex Jones has done (repeatedly, for quite a while) “dishonesty” is a bit like calling the Ukrainian war “special operation”. Targeted harassment, defamation, libel, intimidation? Sure. Dishonesty, however, doesn’t seem to even remotely cut it.
  - Thinkx220 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - JacobThreeThree 2y ago
      I've also never seen video of him inciting people. But supposedly he did? Does someone have the actual evidence?
      - petsfed 2y ago
        For one, he specifically gave financial and logistical support to Wolfgang Halbig so that he could harass the families of the victims.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
    - 2y ago
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  "steal someone's stuff through improper processes" How is a bankruptcy case "stealing stuff through improper process"?
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    The trustee here did not follow acceptable processes. Sorry I thought that was clear from the article.
    - OvidNaso 2y ago
      In the article they quote the judge saying "nobody did anything wrong". And the judgemental was to get more money from the sale. Absolutely 0 about Jones keeping anything.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        OK if nobody did anything wrong then why is the sale cancelled? Obviously something stinks here. I also never said AJ would keep anything. The property has to be disposed of correctly according to established procedures put in place to protect everyone.
- munk-a 2y ago
  Let's not discuss "proper processes" when Jones illegally hid evidence and refused to participate in our legal system to the point of getting a default judgement against him. Everything he was accused of he did - he refused the right to participate in our justice system and accepted full liability for his actions. On the point of "any award in the billions (much less trillions, as they initially demanded) is exorbitant for mere defamation" this is a pretty clear misunderstanding of our legal system as it is today. Initial claims are a mere formality that do nothing but potentially limit damages - the judgements rendered against Jones were 965M in the Connecticut case and 50M in the Texas case - no other numbers are relevant. Finally, referring to 1.015B as "Billions" feels rather dishonest - the total award is technically above a billion but the families will see nothing near that amount in the final resolution.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - munk-a 2y ago
      It's perfectly fair to stop but I did want to highlight one thing: > It's not a mere technical distinction. The fact that the number is so high essentially guarantees that AJ cannot pay it. A lower amount might have actually been paid. What can we make of this? The intent was not to get restitution, but rather to destroy the business. That seems unethical. There is actually an important reason to secure an absurdly high judgement - some of the creditors involved in this situation are Jones parents (and I believe some affiliate companies also hold some of the debt). The judgement will be divided proportionally by debt so the size of the judgement will impact how much money from the bankruptcy sale Jones' parents will receive. I also think it's fair to view this case through the lens of ongoing damages - Jones has received C&Ds about Sandyhook and ignored them - even during the trial he continued to cause additional damages. There was every indication (to me at least) that if the business survived the damages would continue and the only way to reasonably make the other parties whole was to destroy the business. I understand this may feel like unnecessary censorship but the path to this point was AJ repeatedly ignoring the justice system saying "Stop doing that" and his response to the process up to this point hasn't been to act in good faith.
- wat10000 2y ago
  The only thing improper about the process was that Jones tried to screw around with it instead of actually cooperating with the legal system. The judge rightfully came down on him like a ton of bricks for his behavior. Follow court orders and provide evidence when it’s required. If you don’t, you’re going to lose your case.
- bigtex88 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
    This comment flagrantly violates the HN guidelines.
akira2501 2y ago
[flagged]
- cess11 2y ago
  Bankruptcy is not a punishment, neither is having to pay damages. His business wasn't about the exercise of first amendment rights, it was about selling supplements and whatnot.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    It's a pretty large punishment.
    - cess11 2y ago
      Is this some kind of joke I'm not getting? Prison and fines are punishments, having to pay damages is not. When you can't afford to pay your debts, bankruptcy is not a punishment, it's a process to clear out the debts so both debtor and creditors can move on. Punishment regulates the relation between a person and the state and is a part of criminal law, paying damages is part of civil law.
      - ada1981 2y ago
        I’d agree re bankruptcy but can you discern between your use of damages (which you say is not a punishment) and fines (which you say are a punishment?
        cess11 2y ago
        One is payed to the state, the other to another person, as in one regulates the relation to the state, the other the relation to another person.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        What's your view on statutory damages for copyright infringement? "Wilful infringement" has statutory damages up to $150k per work. This is similar. Like this it's a punishment imposed by the state, through the medium of inflated damages.
iwartz 2y ago
[flagged]
btbuildem 2y ago
[flagged]
braincat31415 2y ago
[flagged]
- pineaux 2y ago
  This is a lie. Hiding assets is trivially easy. You just shouldn't hide them by literally hiding them or not telling about them. Selling the assets for almost free to a different organisation just before you go get your bankrupty is the way to go.
  - braincat31415 2y ago
    If it is legal and done in plain sight, then it is not "hiding" by definition. If it were illegal, the court and the lawyers representing parents would have done something about the fact of the sale. Hide: "put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others." The fact is that most of complainers here would be laughed out of the bancruptcy court, yourself included. Selling assets for nothing before bancruptcy is legal, but will almost certainly be scrutinized by the court. The court has a broad power to collect the proceeds, sue the purchaser for the difference from the market value, and take additional steps to recover assets.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tredre3 2y ago
      In the financial world, hiding an asset doesn't always mean making it literally invisible. It just means making it out of reach to the collector. You can argue about the legality of what he did if you want, but being a pedant about the dictionary definition of the word "hide" just detracts from your main point by showing that you're arguing in bad faith.
      - braincat31415 2y ago
        Fine, I'll go with your definition. I already pointed out (which you didn't bother to read) that fire-sale of assets before the bancruptcy does not make them out of reach to the collector. Maybe you need yet another definition. Try harder.
Cumpiler69 2y ago
[flagged]
- yapyap 2y ago
  the problem with vigilanate justice is not that it doesn’t work, it’s very effective. The problem is that the vigilante might not have the right version of justice
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    Kinda yeah. The problem is when you allow for vigilante justice, it can easily also turn against you at some point. Someone one day might decide that your mom/dad broke law and evaded justice and it's therefore OK to un-alive them because the court system failed. Which is why countries where vigilante justice is common are significantly more dangerous and worse to live in than where it's not.
    - buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
      This isn’t TikTok. You can say kill and murder. Jesus.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
    A worked example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      A better example in the US is the thousands of innocent black men who have been hanged from a tree because "everyone knows they did it"
      - peterfirefly 2y ago
        [flagged]
logicchains 2y ago
>money for Jones which he will use with even less restraint since he knows there are no consequences He was fined over a billion dollars, in what world is losing a billion dollars no consequences?
- sophacles 2y ago
  He wasn't fined. He had a judgement for damages against him. They are different things with a similar outcome (he's out a billion dollars) - accuracy is important. Also - until he actually pays any of that billion dollars, there have been no consequences.
  - munk-a 2y ago
    Additionally, it's important to highlight that he refused to properly comply with the legal process - so it was a default judgement. This is essentially unheard of due to how unwise it is.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      We can consider his non-compliance an investment in his audience. By refusing to comply, he signals his supporters that the lawsuit is unfair persecution. And they believe him. His lawyer already stated “Finally, a judge followed the law.”.
- SkeuomorphicBee 2y ago
  He was fined a billion dollars, but it will never be collected, he never lost a billion dollars. With this decision all his debts are pardoned and he gets to keep his megaphone, that is very "no consequences".
  - pookha 2y ago
    America was founded with a constitution that guarantee's citizens a megaphone as part of a list of inalienable rights (God given per words in the constitution). Bankrupting Jones won't remove his ability speak or muzzle him and it's more than likely only going to give him more of an audience. He'll still be able to voice his performance art about growing babies-in-cows-for-25-years and gay-frogs. He'll more than likely struggle to sell his seeds and end-of-times nonsense and he's probably been debanked. But megaphone wise he'll be louder than ever.
ajb 2y ago
That's not what this judgement says. It actually says the sale did not generate enough money for the creditors and the process should be run again. I think the Judge maybe naive in thinking that re-running an auction will generate more money (normally it will generate less, as the losing bidders will drop out) but he did not agree with Jones' claims.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Will he keep running do overs until he gets the outcome he wants?
  - goodluckchuck 2y ago
    From what the internet says, it didn’t go to the highest bidder.
    - munk-a 2y ago
      It's complicated - it went to the bidder that would result in the two largest debtors being the happiest with the outcome but that bidder didn't bid the most money in a regular manner. The structure of the bid was quite complex but essentially the largest debtor agreed to enlarge the share the second largest debtor would receive by supplementing it from their own share due to the awards in the two court cases being so drastically different (basically the largest debtor decided to decrease their own share in that specific bid to supplement the second largest debtor) - this bid was the one that the primary debtor prefers and would award a lot more value to the secondary debtor than the bid that was, on paper, larger. There are some good detailed analyses of the arrangement out there that would give you a much better understanding than I can communicate second-hand - I'd suggest the overview by LegalEagle[1], personally. 1. https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > went to the bidder that would result in the two largest debtors being the happiest with the outcome but that bidder didn't bid the most money in a regular manner The creditors own the asset. If every dollar the creditors are owed voted, which bid would they choose?
theknocker 2y ago
[dead]
adolph 2y ago
> The end effect will probably be even more subscribers and money for Jones That seems a very foreseeable outcome.
alsetmusic 2y ago
> What recourse is left when the legal system is this broken? I mean, I’m not advocating it, but we saw the decision of a guy who made the news over the past week with a healthcare exec.
tonygiorgio 2y ago
[flagged]
- hypeatei 2y ago
  > Instead we have people crying that free speech is the actual evil crime here. Is this a satire comment? I hope so or else you need to do some reading on what "free speech" actually means. It doesn't let you defame someone, for example, by telling them they were crisis actors in a mass killing of school children.
davidw 2y ago
"no consequences." This is basically going to be the United States for the immediate future, if you're connected to the right people. Downvote all you want, but we see it with our own eyes.
- ARandomerDude 2y ago
  When has it been otherwise? See also: Hunter Biden.
  - zer8k 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > The Hunter Biden pardon literally set historical precedent. It followed a long-established historical precedent. Clinton pardoned his brother (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controvers...). The Bushes pardoned their Iran Contra cronies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controv...). Trump pardoned his son-in-law's father (and now appointed him to be the French ambassador; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charles-kushner-nomination-ambassador-to-france/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charles-kushner-nominatio...). Pardons have always garnered controversy.
      - capybaraStorm 2y ago
        I promise this is an honest question: has ANY president since the civil war reconciliation blanket pardoned someone for an entire decade for all known and unknown federal crimes?
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        There's a pretty big obvious example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon > Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
jason-phillips 2y ago
> What recourse is left when the legal system is this broken? Exactly. The lawfare must stop.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  They won a defamation lawsuit when what he did was way more than just defamation. He deliberately made the families' lives hell, and did that for profit.
devops99 2y ago
[flagged]
Vaslo 2y ago
Can’t blame him, that monetary judgement is ridiculous and should be capped.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  Why should it be capped? Was the harm dealt to the victims capped at all?
stronglikedan 2y ago
[flagged]
- ehaughee 2y ago
  Would you mind elaborating?
capybaraStorm 2y ago
[flagged]
- timerol 2y ago
  Repeatedly accusing the families of being actors lying about the event sounds like defamation of living people to me
  - capybaraStorm 2y ago
    The argument the lawsuit wasn't about defending the honor of the dead kids while going after the nearest deep pockets is pretty questionable. I don't condone what Jones said but it seems pretty clear to me the reason the parents wanted the money was because they felt Jones was selling a false story about their children.
blacksqr 2y ago
This seems to me like a victim of attempted murder suing the assailant into bankruptcy, where one of the assailant's main assets is a really expensive gun, and the assailant is still saying how much they'd like to kill the victim with that gun. Surely there must be a legally viable way to resolve such a bankruptcy that doesn't involve the assailant buying back the gun with funds raised from friends.
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  You speak practically. Unfortunately the courts do not, and as a result, the courts are suffering a deficit of trust and confidence, nationally.[1] The problems transcend one case and unfortunately they do not point clearly to one answer or a single set of answers. Is it the system? Is it the laws? Is it the people? Why do we get bizarre elevation of form, and results wholly devoid of justice? [1] https://www.mass.gov/news/supreme-judicial-court-chief-justice-kimberly-s-budd-delivers-state-of-the-judiciary-speech-to-the-legal-community-0 https://www.mass.gov/news/supreme-judicial-court-chief-justi...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
How could you possibly claim that Jone's has faced no consequences when the best case scenario is him spending $10-100MM to buy back his business from his creditors?

Vampiero 2y ago

[flagged]

wakawaka28 2y ago

[flagged]

ternnoburn 2y ago
Taking the man's source of income is absolutely a way to get paid. He can work a day job like anyone else.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  No, it's not. He will not be paying that. He might have paid a smaller yet still large amount, but he's certainly not going to work in McDonalds to pay off $1 billion dollars. He has the same legal rights as anyone else to not be a debt slave.
  - ternnoburn 2y ago
    [dead]
  - Muromec 2y ago
    Taking away some amount of wages is very much a thing, as everyone who ever divorced can tell you. You better not ask how math works there, because it’s not fun.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      As I said to someone else, taking some feasible payment from income is different from rendering someone unemployed. If you took a construction worker's tools, a taxi drivers car, or anything like that, then you put them out of business and render them incapable of paying. As far as divorce or child support, the same principle applies (or ought to). If the worker cannot sustain himself and his necessary expenses, he will become unemployed and incapable of paying.
      - Muromec 2y ago
        Well, the catch is, you may not like what the judge decides is feasible. At least in the divorce cases the interests of the parties have to be balanced, here they don't have to be.
      - ternnoburn 2y ago
        This happens all the time. It's super super common, not even accounting for pre trial detention leading to job loss for innocent people. We should fix that system, but like, why is Alex Jones the one to get hung up on?
  - wat10000 2y ago
    I don’t think they’ll throw him in jail if he sells off all his assets, pays everything he can, but refuses to work a job so he can pay more. Being liable for an amount more than you have means the people you owe won’t be able to get the full amount, but it doesn’t mean you get to keep all your stuff and pay them nothing.
  - mportela 2y ago
    It's called garnishment [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnishment
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Garnishment is taking a portion of income, not taking the actual source of it. No business means no income, no income means no garnishment. I love how you cite Wikipedia as if grown adults here have never heard of garnishment. Then again education really is going downhill these days I guess.
cess11 2y ago
He can't pay his debts. What alternative to bankruptcy do you propose?
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  I'm not arguing against bankruptcy. I'm saying that bankruptcy is a structured process that is supposed to generate monetary outcomes for everyone. Selling off assets in a non-competitive process is basically a criminal move, especially if you collude with one of the bidders who is also a creditor. Bankruptcy itself aside, the judgement against Alex Jones here is huge. I haven't looked it up but I'm sure it broke records. The plaintiffs' initial demands of trillions of dollars were absolutely insane. They could have actually gotten more money with a lower judgement that allowed him to pay over time. But clearly restitution is not the objective.
  - cess11 2y ago
    No, it's a process that takes also other interests into account.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > But clearly restitution is not the objective. It's not the only objective, punishment is also an objective. If not you get settlements like Purdue Pharma's one which even after paying billions in damages still had made more money than that, you don't want an incentive to break the law like that, it becomes just another cost for the business and not really a punishment for it.
  - avianlyric 2y ago
    > Selling off assets in a non-competitive process is basically a criminal move, especially if you collude with one of the bidders who is also a creditor. Not sure why the bankruptcy trustee working with the companies largest creditors, so large, that a simple proportionate would result in them claiming pretty much the entire possible payout, can be considered collusion. The only people who can possibly be harmed are the creditors themselves. If they want to strike a deal that results in more equitable outcome, but with less total cash, that’s their business. Remember Alex Jones is on the hook for close to a billon dollars, and that sum has already been through various appeals and due process already, it’s no longer up for debate. The only question left is how Jones is gonna pay it. Unless someone creditably believes someone is going to hand over close to a billion dollars to purchase InfoWars, it seems silly to reject an offer that the creditors themselves believe is fair and reasonable.
ethbr1 2y ago
> mere defamation I think what Alex Jones did is more than mere defamation. Repeatedly lying about the reality of a school mass shooting, over years, in such a way that he caused threats to be made against the families of victims? Incitement to credible threats of violence, and especially continuing to do so even after you're aware that's what your listeners are doing, deserves severe consequences.
- logicchains 2y ago
  >Incitement to credible threats of violence Incitement means means explicitly encouraging. Just because someone people made threats of violence to the families because they believed what Alex Jones said about the shootings, doesn't mean that saying "The shootings were faked" is incitement. If Jones had explicitly said "the families deserve to suffer violent consequences for helping fake the shootings", that would be incitement. That's why he wasn't convicted of incitement, he was convicted of defamation.
  - hobs 2y ago
    Anyone defending Alex Jones in this case is either ignorant, a fool, or an absolute garbage human being. I am going to pick ignorant in this case. > “Folks, we got to get private investigators up to Sandy Hook right now. Because I’m telling you this — this stinks to highest heaven.” > “Why did Hitler blow up the Reichstag — to get control! Why do governments stage these things — to get our guns! Why can’t people get that through their head?”
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
      Blanket statements like this are worse than useless. It's a nuanced discussion of damages, not a conversation of whether Alex Jones was right or wrong.
  - tmpz22 2y ago
jasonjayr 2y ago
What he did was beyond mere defamation. It was heinous, it was blatant and deliberate dishonesty, and targeted vulnerable victims. Repeating the verifiable lie that the Sandy Hook incident did not happen, and promoting violence against the surviving families, despite repeated opportunities to stop without penalty, is beyond forgivable. And this penalty is because he declined to defend this behavior. Remember, it's a default judgement. The conditioning to the public is that this behavior is not tolerated in a civil society, no matter what your political leanings. Him losing his "intellectual property", but not his voice, is getting off lightly.
- strogonoff 2y ago
  Calling what Alex Jones has done (repeatedly, for quite a while) “dishonesty” is a bit like calling the Ukrainian war “special operation”. Targeted harassment, defamation, libel, intimidation? Sure. Dishonesty, however, doesn’t seem to even remotely cut it.
- Thinkx220 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - JacobThreeThree 2y ago
    I've also never seen video of him inciting people. But supposedly he did? Does someone have the actual evidence?
    - petsfed 2y ago
      For one, he specifically gave financial and logistical support to Wolfgang Halbig so that he could harass the families of the victims.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
  - 2y ago
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
"steal someone's stuff through improper processes" How is a bankruptcy case "stealing stuff through improper process"?
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  The trustee here did not follow acceptable processes. Sorry I thought that was clear from the article.
  - OvidNaso 2y ago
    In the article they quote the judge saying "nobody did anything wrong". And the judgemental was to get more money from the sale. Absolutely 0 about Jones keeping anything.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      OK if nobody did anything wrong then why is the sale cancelled? Obviously something stinks here. I also never said AJ would keep anything. The property has to be disposed of correctly according to established procedures put in place to protect everyone.
munk-a 2y ago
Let's not discuss "proper processes" when Jones illegally hid evidence and refused to participate in our legal system to the point of getting a default judgement against him. Everything he was accused of he did - he refused the right to participate in our justice system and accepted full liability for his actions. On the point of "any award in the billions (much less trillions, as they initially demanded) is exorbitant for mere defamation" this is a pretty clear misunderstanding of our legal system as it is today. Initial claims are a mere formality that do nothing but potentially limit damages - the judgements rendered against Jones were 965M in the Connecticut case and 50M in the Texas case - no other numbers are relevant. Finally, referring to 1.015B as "Billions" feels rather dishonest - the total award is technically above a billion but the families will see nothing near that amount in the final resolution.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - munk-a 2y ago
    It's perfectly fair to stop but I did want to highlight one thing: > It's not a mere technical distinction. The fact that the number is so high essentially guarantees that AJ cannot pay it. A lower amount might have actually been paid. What can we make of this? The intent was not to get restitution, but rather to destroy the business. That seems unethical. There is actually an important reason to secure an absurdly high judgement - some of the creditors involved in this situation are Jones parents (and I believe some affiliate companies also hold some of the debt). The judgement will be divided proportionally by debt so the size of the judgement will impact how much money from the bankruptcy sale Jones' parents will receive. I also think it's fair to view this case through the lens of ongoing damages - Jones has received C&Ds about Sandyhook and ignored them - even during the trial he continued to cause additional damages. There was every indication (to me at least) that if the business survived the damages would continue and the only way to reasonably make the other parties whole was to destroy the business. I understand this may feel like unnecessary censorship but the path to this point was AJ repeatedly ignoring the justice system saying "Stop doing that" and his response to the process up to this point hasn't been to act in good faith.
wat10000 2y ago
The only thing improper about the process was that Jones tried to screw around with it instead of actually cooperating with the legal system. The judge rightfully came down on him like a ton of bricks for his behavior. Follow court orders and provide evidence when it’s required. If you don’t, you’re going to lose your case.
bigtex88 2y ago
[flagged]
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  This comment flagrantly violates the HN guidelines.

akira2501 2y ago

[flagged]

cess11 2y ago
Bankruptcy is not a punishment, neither is having to pay damages. His business wasn't about the exercise of first amendment rights, it was about selling supplements and whatnot.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  It's a pretty large punishment.
  - cess11 2y ago
    Is this some kind of joke I'm not getting? Prison and fines are punishments, having to pay damages is not. When you can't afford to pay your debts, bankruptcy is not a punishment, it's a process to clear out the debts so both debtor and creditors can move on. Punishment regulates the relation between a person and the state and is a part of criminal law, paying damages is part of civil law.
    - ada1981 2y ago
      I’d agree re bankruptcy but can you discern between your use of damages (which you say is not a punishment) and fines (which you say are a punishment?
      - cess11 2y ago
        One is payed to the state, the other to another person, as in one regulates the relation to the state, the other the relation to another person.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        What's your view on statutory damages for copyright infringement? "Wilful infringement" has statutory damages up to $150k per work. This is similar. Like this it's a punishment imposed by the state, through the medium of inflated damages.

iwartz 2y ago

[flagged]

btbuildem 2y ago

[flagged]

braincat31415 2y ago

[flagged]

pineaux 2y ago
This is a lie. Hiding assets is trivially easy. You just shouldn't hide them by literally hiding them or not telling about them. Selling the assets for almost free to a different organisation just before you go get your bankrupty is the way to go.
- braincat31415 2y ago
  If it is legal and done in plain sight, then it is not "hiding" by definition. If it were illegal, the court and the lawyers representing parents would have done something about the fact of the sale. Hide: "put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others." The fact is that most of complainers here would be laughed out of the bancruptcy court, yourself included. Selling assets for nothing before bancruptcy is legal, but will almost certainly be scrutinized by the court. The court has a broad power to collect the proceeds, sue the purchaser for the difference from the market value, and take additional steps to recover assets.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tredre3 2y ago
    In the financial world, hiding an asset doesn't always mean making it literally invisible. It just means making it out of reach to the collector. You can argue about the legality of what he did if you want, but being a pedant about the dictionary definition of the word "hide" just detracts from your main point by showing that you're arguing in bad faith.
    - braincat31415 2y ago
      Fine, I'll go with your definition. I already pointed out (which you didn't bother to read) that fire-sale of assets before the bancruptcy does not make them out of reach to the collector. Maybe you need yet another definition. Try harder.

Cumpiler69 2y ago

[flagged]

yapyap 2y ago
the problem with vigilanate justice is not that it doesn’t work, it’s very effective. The problem is that the vigilante might not have the right version of justice
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  Kinda yeah. The problem is when you allow for vigilante justice, it can easily also turn against you at some point. Someone one day might decide that your mom/dad broke law and evaded justice and it's therefore OK to un-alive them because the court system failed. Which is why countries where vigilante justice is common are significantly more dangerous and worse to live in than where it's not.
  - buzzerbetrayed 2y ago
    This isn’t TikTok. You can say kill and murder. Jesus.
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
  A worked example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    A better example in the US is the thousands of innocent black men who have been hanged from a tree because "everyone knows they did it"
    - peterfirefly 2y ago
      [flagged]

logicchains 2y ago

>money for Jones which he will use with even less restraint since he knows there are no consequences He was fined over a billion dollars, in what world is losing a billion dollars no consequences?

sophacles 2y ago
He wasn't fined. He had a judgement for damages against him. They are different things with a similar outcome (he's out a billion dollars) - accuracy is important. Also - until he actually pays any of that billion dollars, there have been no consequences.
- munk-a 2y ago
  Additionally, it's important to highlight that he refused to properly comply with the legal process - so it was a default judgement. This is essentially unheard of due to how unwise it is.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    We can consider his non-compliance an investment in his audience. By refusing to comply, he signals his supporters that the lawsuit is unfair persecution. And they believe him. His lawyer already stated “Finally, a judge followed the law.”.
SkeuomorphicBee 2y ago
He was fined a billion dollars, but it will never be collected, he never lost a billion dollars. With this decision all his debts are pardoned and he gets to keep his megaphone, that is very "no consequences".
- pookha 2y ago
  America was founded with a constitution that guarantee's citizens a megaphone as part of a list of inalienable rights (God given per words in the constitution). Bankrupting Jones won't remove his ability speak or muzzle him and it's more than likely only going to give him more of an audience. He'll still be able to voice his performance art about growing babies-in-cows-for-25-years and gay-frogs. He'll more than likely struggle to sell his seeds and end-of-times nonsense and he's probably been debanked. But megaphone wise he'll be louder than ever.

ajb 2y ago

That's not what this judgement says. It actually says the sale did not generate enough money for the creditors and the process should be run again. I think the Judge maybe naive in thinking that re-running an auction will generate more money (normally it will generate less, as the losing bidders will drop out) but he did not agree with Jones' claims.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Will he keep running do overs until he gets the outcome he wants?
- goodluckchuck 2y ago
  From what the internet says, it didn’t go to the highest bidder.
  - munk-a 2y ago
    It's complicated - it went to the bidder that would result in the two largest debtors being the happiest with the outcome but that bidder didn't bid the most money in a regular manner. The structure of the bid was quite complex but essentially the largest debtor agreed to enlarge the share the second largest debtor would receive by supplementing it from their own share due to the awards in the two court cases being so drastically different (basically the largest debtor decided to decrease their own share in that specific bid to supplement the second largest debtor) - this bid was the one that the primary debtor prefers and would award a lot more value to the secondary debtor than the bid that was, on paper, larger. There are some good detailed analyses of the arrangement out there that would give you a much better understanding than I can communicate second-hand - I'd suggest the overview by LegalEagle[1], personally. 1. https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw https://youtu.be/GmDNz7irGgw
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > went to the bidder that would result in the two largest debtors being the happiest with the outcome but that bidder didn't bid the most money in a regular manner The creditors own the asset. If every dollar the creditors are owed voted, which bid would they choose?

theknocker 2y ago

[dead]

adolph 2y ago

> The end effect will probably be even more subscribers and money for Jones That seems a very foreseeable outcome.

alsetmusic 2y ago

> What recourse is left when the legal system is this broken? I mean, I’m not advocating it, but we saw the decision of a guy who made the news over the past week with a healthcare exec.

tonygiorgio 2y ago

[flagged]

hypeatei 2y ago
> Instead we have people crying that free speech is the actual evil crime here. Is this a satire comment? I hope so or else you need to do some reading on what "free speech" actually means. It doesn't let you defame someone, for example, by telling them they were crisis actors in a mass killing of school children.

davidw 2y ago

"no consequences." This is basically going to be the United States for the immediate future, if you're connected to the right people. Downvote all you want, but we see it with our own eyes.

ARandomerDude 2y ago
When has it been otherwise? See also: Hunter Biden.
- zer8k 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > The Hunter Biden pardon literally set historical precedent. It followed a long-established historical precedent. Clinton pardoned his brother (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controvers...). The Bushes pardoned their Iran Contra cronies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controv...). Trump pardoned his son-in-law's father (and now appointed him to be the French ambassador; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charles-kushner-nomination-ambassador-to-france/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charles-kushner-nominatio...). Pardons have always garnered controversy.
    - capybaraStorm 2y ago
      I promise this is an honest question: has ANY president since the civil war reconciliation blanket pardoned someone for an entire decade for all known and unknown federal crimes?
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        There's a pretty big obvious example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon > Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

jason-phillips 2y ago

> What recourse is left when the legal system is this broken? Exactly. The lawfare must stop.

rbanffy 2y ago
They won a defamation lawsuit when what he did was way more than just defamation. He deliberately made the families' lives hell, and did that for profit.

devops99 2y ago

[flagged]

Vaslo 2y ago

Can’t blame him, that monetary judgement is ridiculous and should be capped.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
Why should it be capped? Was the harm dealt to the victims capped at all?

stronglikedan 2y ago

[flagged]

ehaughee 2y ago
Would you mind elaborating?

capybaraStorm 2y ago

[flagged]

timerol 2y ago
Repeatedly accusing the families of being actors lying about the event sounds like defamation of living people to me
- capybaraStorm 2y ago
  The argument the lawsuit wasn't about defending the honor of the dead kids while going after the nearest deep pockets is pretty questionable. I don't condone what Jones said but it seems pretty clear to me the reason the parents wanted the money was because they felt Jones was selling a false story about their children.

blacksqr 2y ago

This seems to me like a victim of attempted murder suing the assailant into bankruptcy, where one of the assailant's main assets is a really expensive gun, and the assailant is still saying how much they'd like to kill the victim with that gun. Surely there must be a legally viable way to resolve such a bankruptcy that doesn't involve the assailant buying back the gun with funds raised from friends.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
You speak practically. Unfortunately the courts do not, and as a result, the courts are suffering a deficit of trust and confidence, nationally.[1] The problems transcend one case and unfortunately they do not point clearly to one answer or a single set of answers. Is it the system? Is it the laws? Is it the people? Why do we get bizarre elevation of form, and results wholly devoid of justice? [1] https://www.mass.gov/news/supreme-judicial-court-chief-justice-kimberly-s-budd-delivers-state-of-the-judiciary-speech-to-the-legal-community-0 https://www.mass.gov/news/supreme-judicial-court-chief-justi...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

DiggyJohnson 2y ago

How could you possibly claim that Jone's has faced no consequences when the best case scenario is him spending $10-100MM to buy back his business from his creditors?