4 ms·

> auction failed to maximize the amount of money I don't run auctions but something tells me there's a lot of research behind them that goes into optimizing fo

> auction failed to maximize the amount of money I don't run auctions but something tells me there's a lot of research behind them that goes into optimizing for this precise thing. It's wild that the judge is disregarding the expertise of the person who was appointed by another judge to run the auction without asserting that the person is not qualified to run it.

cogman10 2y ago
It is quite wild and frankly just shocking. The hearings in the last 2 days seemed to have Lopez agreeing with the creditors and not Jone's FUAC. Yet, somewhat seemingly out of the blue, he decided to deny the sale. What's even more crazy about this ruling is he's told the trustee to come up with an alternative solution, that doesn't involve a new auction... But like no other guidance. That leaves the Trustee in a weird situation where the judge has said "I don't like what you did, fix it somehow, but not in a way that uses a new auction". Frankly, this judge has just been pretty bad at their job. More than a few rulings have been just weird ramblings from the judge with unclear instructions to the trustee and the other parties. And all this mainly appears to be because the judge doesn't like the amount that Infowars was sold for.
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  Out of curiosity, does anyone in this thread who is commenting on the quality of this judge or the sanity of his ruling practice bankruptcy law? I don’t, and I’m having a hard time evaluating these claims.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - frogpelt 2y ago
      These kind of comments don’t help any discussion.
    - m10i 2y ago
      (To put this in a less inflammatory way) if it is indeed true that this judge was appointed by Trump (I haven't looked into it), it is reasonable to believe that it probably wasn't based on merit or understanding of law. This is because he has a long history of promoting/installing people that he believes (whether or not it turns out to be the case) will obey him above all else. Being "fit for the task" is an afterthought.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - cogman10 2y ago
        I don't think the trump admin really cared one way or another about a bankruptcy judge. FWIW, Lopez has the credentials for the job. [1] He was a bankruptcy lawyer and teacher for years before being appointed as a judge. I say this as someone not a fan of his rulings. I think the "he was a Trump appointee" critiques are misplaced. He's simply isn't good as a judge which, arguably, is a pretty different skillset from being a lawyer. [1] http://nbconf.org/team/hon-chris-lopez/ http://nbconf.org/team/hon-chris-lopez/
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - celdon25 2y ago
        > This is because he has a long history of promoting/installing people that he believes (whether or not it turns out to be the case) will obey him above all else. Is there any evidence of this besides some angry tweets? If this was widely accepted as fact, I don't think the constitutionalists on the right would have supported his re-election, as that doesn't align with separation of powers.
        2y ago
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Not a whole lot of bankruptcy lawyers on the internet that I've seen. But here's one business law lawyer/professor breakdown of the proceedings that I think is pretty good [1] [1] https://confrontationality.substack.com/p/bankrupt-alex-jones-bankrupts-bankruptcy https://confrontationality.substack.com/p/bankrupt-alex-jone...
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    So he's been doing bankruptcy for five years, which should be enough time for him to understand the intricacies of the statutes and case law. Sometimes you see judges put in specialty courts with no experience in that domain and make some absurd rulings.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - singleshot_ 2y ago
      He’s been practicing bankruptcy since at least 2013.
- dtquad 2y ago
  Infowars and Alex Jones have some fanatic followers. It should be investigated if the judge has been threatened to come to this conclusion.
  - kernal 2y ago
    The Onion should be investigated for making a false bid for which they never had the money for. >Jones' attorney Ben Broocks told Lopez at a hearing on Monday that the Onion only put up half as much cash as the $3.5 million offer from First American United Companies but boosted its bid with "smoke and mirrors" calculations.
    - cogman10 2y ago
      Yes and Lopez rejected that as an issue. He also accepted the logic of why the Trustee picked the onion. What Lopez did not like was the dollar amount and how the auction was ran, that's it. Lopez kept the Trustee on board, though, because he doesn't believe the Trustee did anything wrong (Strangely since the Trustee organized the auction). It wasn't a false bid, it was a bid that would have relieved Jones of more debt than the bid FAUC put up. Which was accepted by his creditors.
  - slavboj 2y ago
    You might be surprised to discover that federal judges are extremely not shy about bringing up threats to their safety that involve litigants before them.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      Wasn't there some famous case in NY where a business man had to be sanctioned ~10 times before he stopped trying to get death threats against the judges family? I don't really doubt that judges would bring something up to litigants but I do really doubt the bar would actually do something.
- throw16180339 2y ago
  Judge Lopez was appointed by Trump, so I'd assume that he's acting under instructions. Why would Trump have appointed a judge who wouldn't do favors for him?
  - celdon25 2y ago
    I hope you realize that he can't fire judges just because he appointed them.
    - redeux 2y ago
      I believe the implication isn’t that he’d be fired. Rather that doing the bidding of the far right (as instructed) was the deal he made to get the job. I look at it as payment for services rendered.
      - celdon25 2y ago
        So the deal's "contract" is backed by honor then. Doesn't seem to make sense but I suppose it's possible. Is there any evidence that it is happening?
      - Alupis 2y ago
        So what would be the consequences of not honoring these, "instructions"? Oh, nothing?
        jcgrillo 2y ago
        Firing isn't the worst possible consequence by a damn sight. Not all consequences need to work within some legal framework.
        redeux 2y ago
        There are absolutely social, political, and economic consequences. Those in the political class don’t exist in a separate bubble from each other. There are natural consequences for breaking from the party line, especially on the right, which demands complete fealty. Natural consequences might be that the judge and their family no longer get to go to the yacht extravagant social gatherings, their kids may no longer have an in at their preferred university, or they may have even have the propaganda machine turned against them - potentially endangering them. There are so many potential consequences that it’s not even worth trying to mention them all. These are all real threats that keep people in these types of positions aligned with the original intent for putting them there.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > The hearings in the last 2 days seemed to have Lopez agreeing with the creditors and not Jone's FUAC. Yet, somewhat seemingly out of the blue, he decided to deny the sale. This is actualy quite common with judges. Or so i heard from Popehat who is a practicing lawyer. What is going on is that the judge is feeling that one side is making a stronger argument, in their opinion, and they then tend to give more procedural leeway to the other side. In order to be, or appear to be unbiased. Then commentators or sometimes even the plantifs interpret it as the judge signaling that the judge is agreeing with them. Supposedly this is common enough that lawyers get worried if the judge is too “nice” with their side.
  - globalnode 2y ago
    So quite often judges make their decisions based on "feels" and then go out of their way to be nice to the other party so they don't appear biased. You can imagine the poor self representing party that has a strong case but is automatically disliked by the judge for not playing the game properly and basically has no chance.
    - owlmirror 2y ago
      I think you misunderstood. It is not based on "feel" and the greater procedural leeway they provide the party with the perceived or actual weaker argument is not for appearance sake alone. A judge wants both parties to make their best case and if one party fails to do so, they try to help them along to achieve it.
      - globalnode 2y ago
        fair enough, thanks for clarifying that. I did not see it that way and in fact that is hopefully how the system works!
jcgrillo 2y ago
It's not only a question of qualifications, they're complaining about a quantity which is not measurable. The auction concluded with a certain maximum bid. Now prove to me there could have been a higher bid. You can't! We measured all the bids, and this one was the highest! EDIT: I'm sorry your honor but the halting problem is undecidable?
- tetnis 2y ago
  this is not the halting problem.

cogman10 2y ago

It is quite wild and frankly just shocking. The hearings in the last 2 days seemed to have Lopez agreeing with the creditors and not Jone's FUAC. Yet, somewhat seemingly out of the blue, he decided to deny the sale. What's even more crazy about this ruling is he's told the trustee to come up with an alternative solution, that doesn't involve a new auction... But like no other guidance. That leaves the Trustee in a weird situation where the judge has said "I don't like what you did, fix it somehow, but not in a way that uses a new auction". Frankly, this judge has just been pretty bad at their job. More than a few rulings have been just weird ramblings from the judge with unclear instructions to the trustee and the other parties. And all this mainly appears to be because the judge doesn't like the amount that Infowars was sold for.

singleshot_ 2y ago
Out of curiosity, does anyone in this thread who is commenting on the quality of this judge or the sanity of his ruling practice bankruptcy law? I don’t, and I’m having a hard time evaluating these claims.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - frogpelt 2y ago
    These kind of comments don’t help any discussion.
  - m10i 2y ago
    (To put this in a less inflammatory way) if it is indeed true that this judge was appointed by Trump (I haven't looked into it), it is reasonable to believe that it probably wasn't based on merit or understanding of law. This is because he has a long history of promoting/installing people that he believes (whether or not it turns out to be the case) will obey him above all else. Being "fit for the task" is an afterthought.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - cogman10 2y ago
      I don't think the trump admin really cared one way or another about a bankruptcy judge. FWIW, Lopez has the credentials for the job. [1] He was a bankruptcy lawyer and teacher for years before being appointed as a judge. I say this as someone not a fan of his rulings. I think the "he was a Trump appointee" critiques are misplaced. He's simply isn't good as a judge which, arguably, is a pretty different skillset from being a lawyer. [1] http://nbconf.org/team/hon-chris-lopez/ http://nbconf.org/team/hon-chris-lopez/
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - celdon25 2y ago
      > This is because he has a long history of promoting/installing people that he believes (whether or not it turns out to be the case) will obey him above all else. Is there any evidence of this besides some angry tweets? If this was widely accepted as fact, I don't think the constitutionalists on the right would have supported his re-election, as that doesn't align with separation of powers.
      - 2y ago
- cogman10 2y ago
  Not a whole lot of bankruptcy lawyers on the internet that I've seen. But here's one business law lawyer/professor breakdown of the proceedings that I think is pretty good [1] [1] https://confrontationality.substack.com/p/bankrupt-alex-jones-bankrupts-bankruptcy https://confrontationality.substack.com/p/bankrupt-alex-jone...
- qingcharles 2y ago
  So he's been doing bankruptcy for five years, which should be enough time for him to understand the intricacies of the statutes and case law. Sometimes you see judges put in specialty courts with no experience in that domain and make some absurd rulings.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    He’s been practicing bankruptcy since at least 2013.
dtquad 2y ago
Infowars and Alex Jones have some fanatic followers. It should be investigated if the judge has been threatened to come to this conclusion.
- kernal 2y ago
  The Onion should be investigated for making a false bid for which they never had the money for. >Jones' attorney Ben Broocks told Lopez at a hearing on Monday that the Onion only put up half as much cash as the $3.5 million offer from First American United Companies but boosted its bid with "smoke and mirrors" calculations.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Yes and Lopez rejected that as an issue. He also accepted the logic of why the Trustee picked the onion. What Lopez did not like was the dollar amount and how the auction was ran, that's it. Lopez kept the Trustee on board, though, because he doesn't believe the Trustee did anything wrong (Strangely since the Trustee organized the auction). It wasn't a false bid, it was a bid that would have relieved Jones of more debt than the bid FAUC put up. Which was accepted by his creditors.
- slavboj 2y ago
  You might be surprised to discover that federal judges are extremely not shy about bringing up threats to their safety that involve litigants before them.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Wasn't there some famous case in NY where a business man had to be sanctioned ~10 times before he stopped trying to get death threats against the judges family? I don't really doubt that judges would bring something up to litigants but I do really doubt the bar would actually do something.
throw16180339 2y ago
Judge Lopez was appointed by Trump, so I'd assume that he's acting under instructions. Why would Trump have appointed a judge who wouldn't do favors for him?
- celdon25 2y ago
  I hope you realize that he can't fire judges just because he appointed them.
  - redeux 2y ago
    I believe the implication isn’t that he’d be fired. Rather that doing the bidding of the far right (as instructed) was the deal he made to get the job. I look at it as payment for services rendered.
    - celdon25 2y ago
      So the deal's "contract" is backed by honor then. Doesn't seem to make sense but I suppose it's possible. Is there any evidence that it is happening?
    - Alupis 2y ago
      So what would be the consequences of not honoring these, "instructions"? Oh, nothing?
      - jcgrillo 2y ago
        Firing isn't the worst possible consequence by a damn sight. Not all consequences need to work within some legal framework.
      - redeux 2y ago
        There are absolutely social, political, and economic consequences. Those in the political class don’t exist in a separate bubble from each other. There are natural consequences for breaking from the party line, especially on the right, which demands complete fealty. Natural consequences might be that the judge and their family no longer get to go to the yacht extravagant social gatherings, their kids may no longer have an in at their preferred university, or they may have even have the propaganda machine turned against them - potentially endangering them. There are so many potential consequences that it’s not even worth trying to mention them all. These are all real threats that keep people in these types of positions aligned with the original intent for putting them there.
krisoft 2y ago
> The hearings in the last 2 days seemed to have Lopez agreeing with the creditors and not Jone's FUAC. Yet, somewhat seemingly out of the blue, he decided to deny the sale. This is actualy quite common with judges. Or so i heard from Popehat who is a practicing lawyer. What is going on is that the judge is feeling that one side is making a stronger argument, in their opinion, and they then tend to give more procedural leeway to the other side. In order to be, or appear to be unbiased. Then commentators or sometimes even the plantifs interpret it as the judge signaling that the judge is agreeing with them. Supposedly this is common enough that lawyers get worried if the judge is too “nice” with their side.
- globalnode 2y ago
  So quite often judges make their decisions based on "feels" and then go out of their way to be nice to the other party so they don't appear biased. You can imagine the poor self representing party that has a strong case but is automatically disliked by the judge for not playing the game properly and basically has no chance.
  - owlmirror 2y ago
    I think you misunderstood. It is not based on "feel" and the greater procedural leeway they provide the party with the perceived or actual weaker argument is not for appearance sake alone. A judge wants both parties to make their best case and if one party fails to do so, they try to help them along to achieve it.
    - globalnode 2y ago
      fair enough, thanks for clarifying that. I did not see it that way and in fact that is hopefully how the system works!

jcgrillo 2y ago

It's not only a question of qualifications, they're complaining about a quantity which is not measurable. The auction concluded with a certain maximum bid. Now prove to me there could have been a higher bid. You can't! We measured all the bids, and this one was the highest! EDIT: I'm sorry your honor but the halting problem is undecidable?

tetnis 2y ago
this is not the halting problem.