Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe officially the vitamin company is owned by his parents and isn't included in the judgement against Alex Jones.
How is that not fraud?
Since when has that mattered? He'll get a pardon in 1 month anyway.
Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
251–260 of 1001 posts
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will the losing bidders drop out, or not? In a sealed bid you have to guess what others will bid - you want to bid $1 more than your competitors (or if you will lose the bid make your competitor pay as much as possible). The judge is saying because the bids were seals losing bidders had no clue what their correct bid is and some are likely to have bid less than they would have in open bidding. Who is right I don't kn…
> judge is saying because the bids were seals losing bidders had no clue what their correct bid is and some are likely to have bid less than they would have in open bidding. Who is right I don't know. Sealed-bid auctions are incredibly common across markets [1]. Real estate. Corporate mergers. Note, too, that an English auction is revenue equivalent to a second-price sealed-bid auction [2], and here we had a first-pr…
you need a lot more than 2 bidders for the theory to hold. Repeating the auction just seems pointless, but another avenue could be for the assets to not be sold, and the claimants to receive 100% of the equity of the business. Then over time they can potentially see a better recovery than what they are getting from a sale.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Section 230 of Title 47 says no.
he's arguably waving that by claiming he, and not the poster, owns the content
The claim that he owns the account is not the same as claiming to own its contents. E.g. a landlord that owns an apartment typically does not have a claim on their tenant's property in the apartment, except under special circumstances. They may have some liability for their tenant's property in some cases, e.g. if they knowingly allow a bomb factory. But Section 230 is an explicit waiver for that liability in terms of speech.
Both parties are very interested in limiting the scope of that waiver in different ways, but that's the current law, and it tends to be broadly interpreted.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#254This is probably the correct decision. Alex Jones's vitamin company offered 2x more cash, and in the case of a bankruptcy, cash completely trumps any notion of "giving up debt." Especially when the debt being settled is astronomically large and you are giving up a very small portion of it ($7 million out of $1.5 billion). The other creditors are far better off getting more cash, and those $7 million of claims are wor…
No, Legal Eagle covered the sale, and the agreement giving it to the Onion maximized the proceeds to both of the Sandy Hook groups that have won judgement against Alex Jones. With the sale to Alex Jones's set of straw buyers, that wasn't true.
The sale to Alex Jones would have given the creditors basically nothing since the assets used to buy should already be theirs.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Will he keep running do overs until he gets the outcome he wants?
From what the internet says, it didn’t go to the highest bidder.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
>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…
Watch the Behind the Bastards podcast on Alex Jones or read some of the testimony from his various cases. The amount of evidence burying him is incontrovertible. His actions before during and after are incontrovertible.
There’s a reason even the right wing hardliners abandoned this guy.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yep so that Elon can step in and buy it
This is the comment I was looking for. He said he was going to intervene and something to the effect of “fix it.” This seems like a logical outcome of that statement.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
> judge is saying because the bids were seals losing bidders had no clue what their correct bid is and some are likely to have bid less than they would have in open bidding. Who is right I don't know. Sealed-bid auctions are incredibly common across markets [1]. Real estate. Corporate mergers. Note, too, that an English auction is revenue equivalent to a second-price sealed-bid auction [2], and here we had a first-pr…
you need a lot more than 2 bidders for the theory to hold. Repeating the auction just seems pointless, but another avenue could be for the assets to not be sold, and the claimants to receive 100% of the equity of the business. Then over time they can potentially see a better recovery than what they are getting from a sale.
> you need a lot more than 2 bidders for the theory to hold
Wrong. Vickrey auctions are well studied in single-item auctions even with two bidders [1]. (They perform between 4/3 and 2 compared to an optimal omniscient auction. Not solved. But not unstudied.)
> claimants to receive 100% of the equity of the business
This is Chapter 7. The bankruptcy estate already legally owns the asset, not Jones.
[1] https://www.timroughgarden.org/papers/bk.pdf Examples 4.6 and 5.2
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#259It 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.…
[dead]
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#260I really don't understand how a judgement this large can be reasonable in a case where nobody has had his house burned down. A billion dollars is ten billion crowns, that's 10 000 million crowns, or around 5 000 apartments. I don't understand how 5 000 apartments can be a judgement handed out to an individual over something he says. It doesn't really matter what he says, when it's this kind of huge amounts. One can't…
[flagged]