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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#821

Post by [deleted] »

kypro wrote: post #775
Eextra953 wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shocking to me too. I can't understand how people are 'both sides-ing' this or just supporting him under some free speech argument. Free speech has limits and a court found Jones went too far and that cost him his business.

People have been arguing the same bogus free speech point in the UK recently because people have been arrested for saying things that are anti-immigration and offensive online. People have free speech, but obviously that doesn't mean you are free to say things that could be considered hateful or factually untrue. If you go around tweeting hateful things about the Royal family and the courts find you guilty, don't be…

[deleted]

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#822

Post by Propelloni »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #770
johnnyanmac wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all parties were happy with a bid, why does it need to be run "fairly"? This isn't house auction offereing up an artifact, this is a man guilty in the court of law going bankrupt and divvying off his assets. If the people in charge of said divvying and the ones owed money are happy, who really cares?

All parties were not happy with the bid, which is why this went to a judge.

That's confusing. We know from the reporting that some parties were happy with the bid. I guess, you mean "not all parties were happy..."?

(Please note: this is not a case of ∀x ∈ X ¬P(x) ≣ ¬∀x ∈ X P(x). ∀x ∈ X ¬P(x) means "for all x not-P", while ¬∀x ∈ X P(x) reads "there exists no x that P", i.e. there is no party that is happy with the bid, which is either a false statement or not the intended meaning. This is actually a common, but not well-known mistake, so I'm pointing it out.)

EDIT: I even found a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_quantification

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#823

Post by qingcharles »

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.

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.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#824

Post by qingcharles »

cogman10 wrote: post #811
doctoboggan wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't all of the mechanics of the auction been agreed upon explicitly or at least implicitly with past precedent of bankruptcy auctions? How did the lawyers go ahead of an auction that even had a chance of being thrown out by the judge?

This is something that was brought up in the hearings. For starters, one issue here is the Judge is just, frankly, bad at giving instructions. He left how the auction should be ran up to the Trustee who ultimately used an auction company which handles these sorts of liquation auctions. He didn't give clear instructions on what he wanted. FAUC (alex jones's new company) did not raise any issues with the auction until…

Surely this ruling is immediately (interlocutory) appealable?

Obviously that would add another two years of misery, but still...

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#825

Post by celdon25 »

redeux wrote: post #816
celdon25 wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you realize that he can't fire judges just because he appointed them.

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.

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?

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#826

Post by [deleted] »

m10i wrote: post #780
DrillShopper wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

(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 afterth…

[deleted]

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#827

Post by [deleted] »

m10i wrote: post #780
DrillShopper wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

(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 afterth…

[deleted]

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#828

Post by [deleted] »

m10i wrote: post #780
DrillShopper wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

(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 afterth…

[deleted]

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#829

Post by celdon25 »

m10i wrote: post #780
DrillShopper wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

(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 afterth…

> 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.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#830

Post by freejazz »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #748
rob_c wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well they are the creditors, so they put their credit up against the value of the thing. It's no different than what a bank does when it bids on a house it put up for auction after a mortgagee default. Here the only difference is that the bidding was blind, which the judge took issue with.
Post reply on HN