People are kept in prison without a conviction, for not affording bail. Owing a thousand times the lifetime earnings of other people should at the very least mean all your accounts and holdings are frozen, and you can’t spend anything without getting independent approval every time.
The settlement payout is on hold pending his bankruptcy case is why they haven't done something like this. However, lawyers for the families are in fact trying to have his assets placed in a trust or have the bankruptcy case cancelled outright because of his spending. By design it's a slow, complicated process where Jones has lots of legal (and illegal) avenues to delay paying. Fortunately Jones is so stupid and outlandish that he's likely hurting his own case so I wouldn't be surprised if a judge slaps him with more severe sanctions.
If it had been a criminal defamation case, then it would be criminally enforcable… but all this really means is “a judge ruled you need to pay” and if you don’t pay, then you could sue them again for not paying, and it just goes in a loop over and over again. I have a friend whose family has been in a loop like this in civil court over a bad real estate venture for decades with someone who simply ignores the rulings.
It hangs over the head of the person who did it, but in the end it’s mostly just a “it’s on your permanent record” kind of stain which can stop people from working with you and damage your personal life, but it’s not like the kind of people who would work with Alex Jones don’t know who they’re working with.
It’s a lot harder with rich people, they typically aren’t reimbursed by traditional means, and they can afford to hire people to obscure your assets with your businesses or trust assets.
What do you think banks do if you don’t pay your loans?
They typically take what you put up as collateral, this is why banks typically require some sort of collateral even if the person is wealthy.
Do you have any sources for that claim? There really isn’t a reason for a bank to lend a significant amount of money via an unsecured loan. Even people like musk and bezos have to levy their stock to secure large loans.
Are you asking for internal bank documents about specific loan defaults over a certain amount? No one is going to share that with you, but yes a bank will definitely loan amounts over $50K with no collateral. It’s usually called a “credit card” or just a large line of credit.
Are you asking for internal bank documents about specific loan defaults over a certain amount?
I mean like any evidence? A report about a rise in defaults on unsecured loans, examples of people being given huge unsecured loans, the information that has led you to believe in your own claim?
It’s usually called a “credit card” or just a large line of credit.
Again, having a credit limit on a single card exceeding 50k is extremely rare even for the wealthy, the same goes for personal lines of credit. I think at this point you’re just being pedantic. The vast majority of large loans are secured via collateral. With the reason being that it can be exceedingly difficult to recoup your investment in civil court.
Seems to me that failing to pay a proper court ordered civil case should be a crime, at least in the case where you’re just ignoring the court order, not where you can’t actually pay.
which is why people want to be rich. it's way bigger benefit than the money.
people think about all the maga types that are 'one day millionaires'. nah, it's not about being rich for money, it's about they back a guy who does the stuff they wish they could personally do. like be rabidly racist in public without consequence
It’s why these rich people back the GOP. The tax breaks are real but the consequences of social policies won’t affect them when they can fly wherever, put their kids in private schools and escape any social damage.
One of the people he owes millions of dollars to, Erica Lafferty, had to do a Kickstarter for a cancer treatment just so she has a better chance of not fucking dying. She still hasn’t seen a dime from Alex “I’m the Debil” Jones.
Just so we are on the same page, what exactly is he expected to do? He doesnt even have 1/50 of that amount in any form. Even if he sayys everything he owns and liquidated everything he wont have anywhere near of that. He is abusing credit lines right now, i think i read he owes like 80 different creditors 100k or something. He will definitely run out of string but what is he expected to do when he does? He is probably gonna just go to jail and not pay anything.
What he’s supposed to do is live with reasonable expenses and pay whatever he can. What he’s doing instead is increasing his expenditure so he has nothing left to give them. In fact, he does have money to pay them, he’s just trying to use it for himself first instead.
Court should seize all his assets and sell them. Then seize all income. The court can then grant him a stipend for reasonable living expenses. Since he's obviously committing fraud and refusing to pay court ordered fines. People go to prison for less.
I think it’s about time for society to have some frank discussions about this. As I understand it, he’s still at the helm because not having him in charge of these companies would hurt their ability to function, as he’s the sole reason people even pay them attention.
Having him in charge, spewing rhetoric and generally existing in spite of numerous civil judgements, continues to harm a portion of the population.
I don’t think he can be sent to prison for these specific civil judgments but I’m not a lawyer. He’s presumably paying for the court fines (to the governments bodies) but not the civil judgements (to the individual parties who have sued him). Seizing his businesses will almost certainly reduce their value, but it’s probably worth more than the near $0 that he’s currently paying back as ordered.
If this were happening to any non-rich person, they’d be living in squalor or severely under-employed to fight the system. They don’t get to spend more money in a month than the average American makes in a year, no matter the games they are playing.
This is exactly what I am thinking. He is obviously trying to game the system but he is on borrowed time. His actions show that he can make payments but the fact that he cant make payments if his assets are seized is interesting. Thats why I asked what is he expected to do if the court is asking for way more than is possible.
Let’s assume that financial slavery is not something that the United States allows. We shouldn’t force a person to live the rest of their life allocating 100% of their income to garnish debts. That’s indentured slavery with extra legal steps. I think that’s probably a reasonable take for most of the population.
Let’s also assume that you don’t get a ~1.5 aggregate billion dollar judgement against you without you being responsible for it. This dude clearly has been judged by society and the result is that he needs to remit payment to atone for his mistakes. His previous business status and incomes may have eventually been able to pay that off, but the mere existence of the judgement completely obliterates his ability to pay. We’re in limbo here - it seems wrong to let him continue being himself, as that’s a big reason why he’s been judged against in the first place, but not letting him be himself hurts his ability to make good on the payments required of him.
If the government seizes his assets, he will in no way be able to cover the full amounts that have been ordered. The people will get some small portion of what they are owed. Nobody really is made whole. Alex Jones ‘loses,’ but continues to live. How much money should he be allowed to keep to himself for rent, utilities, food, transportation, liberties, etc? Should that money instead be actively sent to the other parties in perpetuity until the debt is repaid? Does Alex Jones have any incentive to keep living in that case? Are we then indirectly advocating for death as a result of the inability to repay civil debts?
I’m just going on a rant at this point. Sucks for the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre and all those who have had to deal with his bullshit. I don’t think anybody will ever be made whole or happy from this train of events, but I know for sure that there’s a line that we as a society shouldn’t entertain crossing.
This is the comment I wanted to see. I feel like this case might be used later as an example of what not to do. Yes he is an asshole but thats his brand, take that away and he wont be able to be good on paying. The only way out is him serving life in prison over this but i think thats unprecedented.
I’m hoping that these kinds of conversations are happening behind closed doors, because I sure don’t see them happening in the media at large.
I do feel that my line of thought is creeping into the “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” territory, but I have no dog in this fight, so I think that’s a luxury I can take.
So i was thinking about this again, and I was wondering… do you think this might be taken to the Supreme Court as it might be infringing on the 4th amendment as an unreasonable seizure? Would that be why they are holding off? Is there any standing on that
What I don’t get is yes it is a lot of money but the court should force him to sell all of his expensive toys such as the lake house and boats. Take him down to a single house and car. That way he is not spending as much money he owes his victims. Then garnish his wages to the median salary people make in the area he lives.
Granted the forced sale and garnishment should be after the bankruptcy court but they should run through this case fast. I don’t have much hope for bankruptcy court in Texas since that seems to be where all corporations go to screw people over. (Also look at how the sacklers abused the process)
The bankruptcy process will force him to sell the expensive toys but I am not sure if even that can force him to set aside money for civil judgements. In some cases, bankruptcy can also discharge those debts… so we will see.
Transfer his shares/ownership over to the victims if he can't liquidate it.
He should not be able to sped $93,000 while not giving a dime to his victims. He wouldn't be able to spend anything above the poverty level until he pays it off in a just world.
He was already hiding assets because his ex wife was suing for full custody and would wind up with substantial child support. Her lawyers argued that he was batshit and shouldn't be around the kids. His lawyers argued it was all just an act. Then he got on the stand and doubled down on his "act" and acted batshit.
It's also been known that he's been hiding assets since due to this ruling since early 2022.
So what do I expect? I expect us to stop buying the bullshit "plausible deniability" angles these crooks keep thinking up. Plenty of people owe restitution that they can never hope to pay back. They still owe the money and are expected to make reasonable payments, to not artificially limit their income, and to not bump up their expenses unnecessarily. If they can't do that, then the court can and should garnish their accounts above a set budget.
He will most certainly end up paying for the rest of his life but what I mean is what it that is expected here. They can seize his assets but its not enough, if they take away his company he will never be able to pay it off.
Interesting question. I’m thinking what he should have done was not fuck these folks over for years, and then ignore a court order to pay them. Fuck the lenders, they knew who they were lending to.
I’m really not interested in giving this fucker any more thought than that. I have my own bills to worry over (and I’ll actually get in trouble for ignoring them). He made this shit sandwich for himself, he can have it. Actually, he shouldn’t have it, and it should be handed over to the victims, while his assets are frozen/liquidated for eternity.
No no, thats a bad interpretation. What he said was essentially “can we get retribution for person I dont like?”. Thats all, theres not much more to think about
Well maybe he should have thought of that first, before running his mouth like the wheezing piece of sweaty shit he is and victimizing innocent people in the process who were already suffering.
You know, I will literally never ever understand standing up for someone like this. I have an elderly far right trumper family member who barely survives on fucking social security who tries to defend Bezos and Musk this way. “Oh BuT iTs NoT lIqUiD.” Who gives a shit?! Fuck all of them.
If he managed to spend that much in a month on himself and his wife, he can manage to spend that much on his victims. Who gives a flying fuck where it comes from? Why the fuck would you? Is it his victims’ fault he has to declare bankruptcy and rely on lines of credit (supposedly)? Of course not. So he can take out more and more and more lines of credit to pay them. It’s not that hard.
It’s EUR, so like 26k in Dollars or something like that. It’s pretty ok, tbh, I can pay rent and spend on stuff I want here and there. It’s pure speculation, but it’s probably a lot more comfortable than if I would live in the US. I am definitely not poor or anything, but most of the people I know definitely earn more.
That’s amazing to me. It’s me and my two kids, I’m lucky enough to have been able to recently purchase a house but up to six months ago we were living in a two bedroom 900 sq ft apartment and it cost $1300 a month. This is in Ohio, not anything I would think is high cost of living area. Boys were getting old enough that sharing a room and not having space apart was starting to present issues. Nothing bad just felt bad about our living situation. I couldn’t find anything with three bedrooms for under $2200 a month. How the hell does a family of four survive on $26k, seriously what do people do?
Merriam-Webster needs to do a fund raiser where if people donate up to some set goal they will change the entry “shit” to Shit (n) - : bodily waste discharged through the anus; Usage - “Alex Jones is a real piece of shit”
Then give all the money raised to these families and gun control advocacy groups.
Jones’ spending in July, which was up from nearly $75,000 in April, included his monthly $15,000 payment to his wife, Erika Wulff Jones — payouts called “fraudulent transfers” by lawyers for the Sandy Hook families. Jones says they’re required under a prenuptial agreement.
They somehow wrote in monthly “spousal maintenance” or similar payments in the prenup. It’s weird, but legal and enforceable in many states.
Jones probably chooses to try and keep some money in the family by sending it to his wife. I don’t really know if there’s a debtor hierarchy for this sort of thing, but until somebody challenges it, he’s going to keep doing it.
Add comment