Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#741

Post by DrillShopper »

singleshot_ wrote: post #737
cogman10 wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 we…

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.

[flagged]

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#742

Post by micromacrofoot »

fooker wrote: post #573
micromacrofoot wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he's arguably waving that by claiming he, and not the poster, owns the content

You know how we percieve absurd hacking scenes in movies? That's how lawyers look at internet comments like this.

and I'm sure novelists are upset about our brevity

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#743

Post by johnnyanmac »

WhatsTheBigIdea wrote: post #740
NoGravitas wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the legal pretext, which appears about 2/3 of the way through the article: > Judge Lopez said that the bankruptcy auction failed to maximize the amount of money that the sale of Infowars should provide to Mr. Jones’s creditors, including the Sandy Hook families, in part because the bids were submitted in secret.

[dead]

Given how the NYT is describing the entire court case (only a level above shit slinging from Twitter), it sounds like this is less about any rationale and more dragging of the feet to get any kind of "win" out of this whole kerfluffle.

The judge basically says as much in the end:

>“You’ve got to scratch and claw and get everything you can for everyone else,” he said.

Which is a truly bizarre statement for a judge to make given the nature of this entire case. Then again, "good faith errors" certainly shows the bias of this judge here.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#744

Post by CDRdude »

michaelt wrote: post #738
logifail wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the bids were open, the competing parties could simply go $1 above the highest offer [..] Isn't that what you want to happen? All the auctions I've ever participated have repeated this very process until none of the buyers are prepared to raise their bid, at which point it appears the seller has got the highest price anyone will offer. What am I missing?

In theory , a Second-price sealed-bid auction will produce the same price as an Open ascending-bid auction. Every bidder will offer the true value of the item to them, and the item will go to the highest bidder at the second-highest price. But some people might think, due to human nature, that one auction or the other gets higher prices. Maybe an open bid auction gets lower bids, because interested people start lower…

The article suggests that this is is a first price sealed bid auction instead of a second price sealed bid auction. Skipping over the more complex nature of the Onion bid, the linked articles states "The total value of The Onion’s bid was $7 million" and "First United American Companies had a higher bid, offering $3.5 million in cash".

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#745

Post by dukeofdoom »

ceejayoz wrote: post #690
dukeofdoom wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had. Just absurd. Then skipping ahead to the sentencing, and the judge telling your lawyers that if you testify you're not guilty to the jury, he'll find you and your lawyers in contempt (jail-able offence). While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury…

> This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had. Just absurd. To extend the analogy, it helps if you don't subsequently mail the knife you said you didn't have to the prosecution. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-acci... > Then skipping ahead to the sentencing, and the judge telling your l…

Here's the clip of the testimony at the key moment in the trial.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DMbGhAU77ns?feature=share

1. The phone records are from the last 2 years. So not during the time frame of the actual broadcasts about Sandy Hook happened ( which happened way earlier...)

2. He gave the phone records to his lawyer, which goes against claims of him not co-operating. His lawyers would determine which messages get sent over to the prosecution. For example, private communications with his legal team would be protected and would not need to be disclosed.

The defence sent over the entire phone backup, by mistake. Why is this a gotcha you think it is?

The prosecution also acted unethically by not informing the defence that they received protected communications, they weren't entitled to.

The prosecution let the trial happen for 2 weeks, and had not informed the judge that they actually had the information, that they used to get the judge to default him for not cooperating!

So how is this not actually grounds to throw the case out? Seems like misconduct.

Also, just because he mentioned Sandy Hook in a text message with his lawyers, or privately, doesn't mean the prosecution is automatically entitled to it.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#747

Post by archon1410 »

WhatsTheBigIdea wrote: post #740
NoGravitas wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the legal pretext, which appears about 2/3 of the way through the article: > Judge Lopez said that the bankruptcy auction failed to maximize the amount of money that the sale of Infowars should provide to Mr. Jones’s creditors, including the Sandy Hook families, in part because the bids were submitted in secret.

[dead]

You're confused. It's the Vickrey auction which is second-price. English auctions are first-price. First-price sealed-bid auctions are different from Vickrey auctions.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#748

Post by johnnyanmac »

rob_c wrote: post #732
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? If it's public knowledge that Alice would pay $200 and Bob would pay $100 then Alice wouldn't actually bid $200, she'd bid $101 and still win, the same result as that type of auction. If nobody knows what Alice would bid except Alice then it's even worse, because Bob thinks he could win at $60 and would rather pay $60 than $100 and Alice correctly predicts that Bob is going to do that and then wins by biddin…

Go bank to pseudo security. This is the letter of an argument again ingnoring the spirit of the judgment/law/...

The spirit is that a person owes families he defamed billions of dollars and that person doesn't like who they need to sell their assets to to make that money. I don't even know how and why the details of how this money is recouped is important. If I go bankrupt and need to sell my house, I sure can't stop it from being sold to Hitler or something absurd like that.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#749

Post by [deleted] »

_zgx0 wrote: post #506

The amount of folks here supporting Alex Jones is completely shocking to me. He built a business out of attacking and re-victimizing parents whose children were murdered. He's scum of the earth. That business was taken away from him, and folks think that's too much? What the actual fuck.

[deleted]

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#750

Post by dtquad »

cogman10 wrote: post #692
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 we…

Infowars and Alex Jones have some fanatic followers. It should be investigated if the judge has been threatened to come to this conclusion.
Post reply on HN