Alex Jones spent over $93,000 in July. Sandy Hook families who sued him have yet to see a dime
Alex Jones spent over $93,000 in July. Sandy Hook families who sued him have yet to see a dime
Lawyers for several families of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting are criticizing Alex Jones' personal spending as they seek nearly $1.5 billion they won in lawsuits against the Infowars host.
You're viewing a single thread.
How is this not enforced by the court that ordered it? It should be 30 days and you end up in prison.
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.
his bankruptcy case
The fact that he can simultaneously have a bankruptcy case and spend nearly six figures in a single month is absolutely infuriating.
its almost like our bankruptcy system is built by rich people for rich people.
Yes, at very least that!
They should put him under a conservatorship.
Welcome to the world of civil court decisions :(
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.
That's not true at all. You can garnish their wages or put a lien on their property. What do you think banks do if you don't pay your loans?
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tips-collecting-judgment-29479.html
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.
Not for signature loans
Yes, and that's the reason they really don't hand those out to just anyone, and when they do it's typically in limited to under 50k.
Your comment was about "rich people". There are plenty of those defaulting on signature loans larger than $50K.
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.
There's a bankruptcy process ongoing. He's trying to trick it but is failing.
The ruling meant nothing. The guy is on the air now calling the Maui fire a false flag.