1224
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
1224 points (100.0% liked)
News
31409 readers
2720 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
There's no answer which is both easy and 'just.'
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.
That's why they won't take the company, just take most of the money it makes until the debt is payed. Either that or sell the company to pay the debt.
All I want is for him to die homeless, penniless, friendless, and utterly forgotten. Is that really so much to ask?
Those kinds of punishments exist in somalia if you like their standards.
So if I move to Somalia, Alex Jones will be punished appropriately? Your "gotcha" is WEAK.
That wasnt even a gotcha you smart man 🤓
I was saying if you are into vigilante justice then maybe the West just isnt for you
I didn't say shit about vigilante justice.
'All i want is for him to [insert punishment outside of law]'
'How am I talking about vigilante justice'
🤓
"Vigilantism" is an interesting interpretation of wanting him to give over all the money he's been legally ordered to pay to his victims
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
There are way too many fucking idiots on Lemmy.
Cheers to that brother! Can i get 5 likes
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.
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.