I’ll let people who know legalese say it better than I do, but the gist of the answer is:
A judge cannot seize a piece of property to settle a debt, then dramatically undervalue it in order to say that the seizure satisfies only a smaller portion of the debt instead.
So in a case like this, if Infowars was valued at $10 million for example. The judge can’t just arbitrarily say it’s only worth $1 million, and therefore the seizure only satisfies $1 million of the debt instead of $10 million. Further, you can’t take something valued at $10 million, put it up for sale for $1 million, then say that the defendant still owes another $9 million, because you’re effectively increasing the judgement against him by that $9 million. I’m probably not saying this perfectly right, but I’m sure you get the idea.
Judges can allow sales like this to go through, but the winning bidder has to show why the other incentives being offered should be accepted over just straight up cash. If a judge just looks at the bottom line and sees (for example), the Onion bid $1 million but Jones’ associate bid $6 million. A judge is absolutely going to hold a hearing and want to ask about 75 million questions about why the “winning bid” was so low. If the Onion and the families go in and say “We want Onion to get the bid. We are willing to waive $5 million off of the total debt owed to us, along with waiving $X million so Infowars’ creditors can get paid. Therefore, our bid is actually higher than the competitive bid after other incentives have been considered.”, a judge should sign off on it with no issues from there.
Again, I hope I’ve explained this correctly. I don’t know any of the specifics of the auction so the numbers I used were pulled out of my ass for discussion purposes.
The biggest concern I have is that the Trump administration could very well meddle in this case and use whatever quazi-legal bullshit they can come up with to essentially hand the company back to Jones through the back door, if not just invalidate the judgement against him entirely on the basis of because fuck you that’s why. Doing so would be a great way for Trump to advertise the rewards that his cronies can expect for those who are deemed loyal enough while costing him no political capital at all.
To me, the biggest red flag is that an associate of Jones is claiming that they should be the winner of the auction. That sounds to me like a conflict of interest in the sale of seized property, if in effect it likely would end up remaining in control of its original owner.
You shouldn’t get to sell your ill-gotten gains to a close friend who’s “totally not going to let you keep them, trust me bro”.
It might sound like that, but the US keeps proving over and over again that its justice system is impotent against those with money, and downright cruel to those without.
If your assets are being seized, it’s (normally) because you are unable to pay whatever judgement was levied against you with cash. If your fairy godfather magically appears and puts up the money necessary so your assets won’t be seized, the judge isn’t going to care. All his job is is to ensure the plaintiffs are made as whole as possible. He will (generally) not care how your debt is paid or by whom. If the debt is paid, the debt is paid and you get to keep your stuff.
Heck, Elon musk could have swooped in himself, offered to buy infowars for 1.5 billion (which, let’s be real, wouldn’t even count as a rounding error to Musk) to satisfy the entire Sandy Hook judgement with the plans of just handing the whole thing right back to Jones for $1. And the families wouldn’t have been able to do anything about it. As far as the courts are concerned, the families were made whole. The families don’t really get to decide how they are made whole.
I’ll let people who know legalese say it better than I do, but the gist of the answer is:
A judge cannot seize a piece of property to settle a debt, then dramatically undervalue it in order to say that the seizure satisfies only a smaller portion of the debt instead.
So in a case like this, if Infowars was valued at $10 million for example. The judge can’t just arbitrarily say it’s only worth $1 million, and therefore the seizure only satisfies $1 million of the debt instead of $10 million. Further, you can’t take something valued at $10 million, put it up for sale for $1 million, then say that the defendant still owes another $9 million, because you’re effectively increasing the judgement against him by that $9 million. I’m probably not saying this perfectly right, but I’m sure you get the idea.
Judges can allow sales like this to go through, but the winning bidder has to show why the other incentives being offered should be accepted over just straight up cash. If a judge just looks at the bottom line and sees (for example), the Onion bid $1 million but Jones’ associate bid $6 million. A judge is absolutely going to hold a hearing and want to ask about 75 million questions about why the “winning bid” was so low. If the Onion and the families go in and say “We want Onion to get the bid. We are willing to waive $5 million off of the total debt owed to us, along with waiving $X million so Infowars’ creditors can get paid. Therefore, our bid is actually higher than the competitive bid after other incentives have been considered.”, a judge should sign off on it with no issues from there.
Again, I hope I’ve explained this correctly. I don’t know any of the specifics of the auction so the numbers I used were pulled out of my ass for discussion purposes.
The biggest concern I have is that the Trump administration could very well meddle in this case and use whatever quazi-legal bullshit they can come up with to essentially hand the company back to Jones through the back door, if not just invalidate the judgement against him entirely on the basis of because fuck you that’s why. Doing so would be a great way for Trump to advertise the rewards that his cronies can expect for those who are deemed loyal enough while costing him no political capital at all.
To me, the biggest red flag is that an associate of Jones is claiming that they should be the winner of the auction. That sounds to me like a conflict of interest in the sale of seized property, if in effect it likely would end up remaining in control of its original owner.
You shouldn’t get to sell your ill-gotten gains to a close friend who’s “totally not going to let you keep them, trust me bro”.
It might sound like that, but the US keeps proving over and over again that its justice system is impotent against those with money, and downright cruel to those without.
This isn’t the case.
If your assets are being seized, it’s (normally) because you are unable to pay whatever judgement was levied against you with cash. If your fairy godfather magically appears and puts up the money necessary so your assets won’t be seized, the judge isn’t going to care. All his job is is to ensure the plaintiffs are made as whole as possible. He will (generally) not care how your debt is paid or by whom. If the debt is paid, the debt is paid and you get to keep your stuff.
Heck, Elon musk could have swooped in himself, offered to buy infowars for 1.5 billion (which, let’s be real, wouldn’t even count as a rounding error to Musk) to satisfy the entire Sandy Hook judgement with the plans of just handing the whole thing right back to Jones for $1. And the families wouldn’t have been able to do anything about it. As far as the courts are concerned, the families were made whole. The families don’t really get to decide how they are made whole.
It’s a fine, not stolen goods. If they can pay it, it’s hunky dory. It’s not a conflict of interest, it’s the exact opposite.