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

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#861

Post by wakawaka28 »

OvidNaso wrote: post #421
wakawaka28 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trustee here did not follow acceptable processes. Sorry I thought that was clear from the article.

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.

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.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#862

Post by acdha »

elzbardico wrote: post #727
hbn wrote: post #188

Jones seems like a nut, but the way he's being taken to the cleaners and sued for comical amounts of money are just absurd. I'm not being hyperbolic saying people would be less mad at him if he had done the shooting himself. And it's especially rich in a time where the most popular podcast genre is women commenting on brutal murder cases as they're fresh and being investigated, and throwing out their pet theories abo…

I don't agree with Jones' political positions, but as someone who was not born in America, I think I can see the issue in a less passionate and partisan way. For me it is clear that the this judgment had a gigantic political vector. I fully agree on the guilty verdict, but the sentence, frankly, was meant as a political message for Jones and everyone else on his side of the political spectrum: Stop talking the things…

Does that sound as worrisome when you remember that his “talk” was repeatedly accusing parents of faking their own dead children, to the point that many of them were receiving violent threats from his listeners? Nobody went after him because he had weird views on tax policy or international relations, it was because he refused to leave suffering families alone.

This is also a good time to consider what you are saying by calling it a “political vector”. Lying about a mass shooting snd harassment aren’t traditionally a partisan position so by using that framing you’re implicitly saying they belong to his party.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#863

Post by Retric »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #783
Retric wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So they put it up for an auction to get the real value. Except Onion’s bid minimized Alex Jones debt and was the preferred outcome by his creditors. Offering more cash isn’t the same as making a larger bid here.

It was the preferred outcome by the majority of his creditors, not by all his creditors (note that preferred != economically best). If the creditors were unanimous in their preferences, there would be no issue before the court.

No the judge stated he believes it could be sold at a higher price not that the deal wasn’t structured properly.

There’s been confusion on the math. Because one party was forgoing a portion of their share everyone else not just the other victims would be better off financially.

ps: Economic maximization alone isn’t relevant here. The underlying economic value matters when individuals aren’t voluntarily participating in a transaction. If I destroy your car then I owe you based on the cars worth, but if you trade in your car moderately under blue book perhaps you’re just in a hurry.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#864

Post by Alupis »

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 what would be the consequences of not honoring these, "instructions"?

Oh, nothing?

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#865

Post by jcgrillo »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #671
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.

> 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'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?

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#866

Post by Clubber »

ceejayoz wrote: post #688
Clubber wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to prove damages.

You don't, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages > Because they are usually paid in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, if the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious.

Only 1/3 were punative and those were for attorney's fees, but yes, you still have to prove injuries in the first place.

Lopez ruled that more than $1.1 billion of those verdicts, awarded for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, cannot be wiped away in bankruptcy. But he ruled that other parts of the verdicts, including $324 million in attorneys' fees that were awarded as punitive damages in the Connecticut case, could possibly be discharged.

The $1B is a ridiculous number that will never get repaid and it's just to make a big emotional virtuous show. Judges aren't supposed to be emotional, judges aren't supposed to let their personal feelings affect their virdict. If it was say $15, $20, $35 million, the families might get something. It makes a mockery out of the justice system and just goes to show how unserious law is in the US today. Why not $5 trillion? Why not $50 trillion, would that be too obvious where $1 billion somehow is not? Reminds me of the trial in Idiocracy.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#867

Post by [deleted] »

newZWhoDis wrote: post #433
hbn wrote: post #188

Jones seems like a nut, but the way he's being taken to the cleaners and sued for comical amounts of money are just absurd. I'm not being hyperbolic saying people would be less mad at him if he had done the shooting himself. And it's especially rich in a time where the most popular podcast genre is women commenting on brutal murder cases as they're fresh and being investigated, and throwing out their pet theories abo…

Let’s talk about scale: Jones has to pay ~5x what Boeing did. Boeing killed 346 people https://apnews.com/article/boeing-guilty-plea-crashes-245a38...

[deleted]

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#868

Post by jcgrillo »

Alupis wrote: post #864
redeux wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 what would be the consequences of not honoring these, "instructions"? Oh, nothing?

Firing isn't the worst possible consequence by a damn sight. Not all consequences need to work within some legal framework.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#869

Post by slavboj »

dtquad wrote: post #750
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…

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

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.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#870

Post by altcognito »

crazygringo wrote: post #735
baggachipz wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already suspended his sentencing indefinitely due to the election win.

That's a non-sequitur. Justice departments don't go after presidents or president-elects in order to prevent a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the remedy in that case. This policy is entirely unrelated to presidential pardon power.

You're not going after a "President". You are going after a law breaker. He can be President all day long in jail.

The reality is that we've codified that Presidents are largely unable to be investigated and or held to account by the legal system. There was no carve outs in the constitution at any point for anybody in government. This is a new, and probably fatal invention.

Post reply on HN