MovieChat Forums > Alex Jones Discussion > Details on Jones' efforts to avoid payin...

Details on Jones' efforts to avoid paying out on civil case.

posted a month ago by Ranb (9595)
21 replies | jump to latest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yizjldUT9kc

How Jones is hiding and transferring assets to avoid paying out on the judgement against him. Filing bankruptcy and transferring money from Free Speech Systems to PQPR Holdings Limited might not work as far as keeping Jones from paying his debts.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/24/judge-to-ok-auctions-liquidating-alex-jones-infowars-pay-sandy-hook-families-00180884

[–] SamNoyoun (5827) a month ago

What a wonderful human being!

[–] Satan2016 (25525) a month ago

I saw that video in my feed. Much easier to read an article. Looks like Jones will have to just use X now.

Wonder if Musk will buy the studio and let Jones use it? He does lots of stupid shit lately.

[–] blue1981 (7735) a month ago

Good for him as he should. The people trying to silence him hate free speech.

[–] Ranb (9595) a month ago

If Jones had been silenced, he would have not been sued.

You think the 1st Amendment protects libel and slander? Do you really believe what Jones said about the Sandy Hook shooting victims?

[–] Lord Rake (4454) a month ago

He has said repeatedly that the event happened and it was a tragedy. They are clearly going after him because of his audience size and beliefs, otherwise they would have come to a reasonable settlement with the people actually involved. A billion dollars is not a number ever heard of before especially without the ability to defend oneself in court and giving fed agents millions when they were never named or defamed.

[–] Martoto (5024) a month ago

He admitted in court that the knowingly spread false information and he profited from it. The court saw emails that proved he knew the information was false, and that it would be profitable to spread it.

The fine is probably to do with the numbers of victims and victims families he caused distress, reputational damage and whom his audience demonised and harassed. The fine is multiplied for each person he affected.

[–] Ranb (9595) a month ago

So it had nothing to do with the lies Jones told about the victim's families? And the threats of violence from Jones' followers?

What is a reasonable settlement in your opinion? How is a wealthy person "taught a lesson" with a $1000 fine instead of a much larger fine/settlement?

[–] TearofLys (2641) 10 days ago

There was no libel or slander. He was speculating on an event in the public arena, not verbally assailing anyone. It wasn't about what was said. It was about who said it, and if they can trample his rights and destroy him over basically nothing, they could do it to any one of us. Right now, they are kicking down doors in Great Britain over X/twitter posts. There is a reason we left that shithole centuries ago, and we should do all we can to prevent backsliding into that authoritarian morass, even if it means defending people like Alex Jones.

[–] Satan2016 (25525) 10 days ago

> There was no libel or slander.
Jones has a serious Delusional Disorder. You are insane just like Jones!

[–] Ranb (9595) 9 days ago

Here is a partial explanation of what happened. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legal-fallout-alex-jones-false-sandy-hook-claims-2022-09-13/

You can look up the definitions of libel and slander on your own.

So you would no take any action against a person who speculated that you were a pedophile rapist and murderer? You should, unless those accusations were true.

[–] TearofLys (2641) 4 days ago

Your analogy is imperfect, to say the least.

[–] Ranb (9595) 3 days ago

So, it is because no one is allowed to libel you or Jones, but it is okay when Jones libels others? That is what I'm reading into your post. Why can't you be more specific?

[–] TearofLys (2641) 3 days ago

No, I said your attempt at drawing a parallel between what Jones said and what you said, failed. Keep in mind that I am quietly judging you on your critical thinking skills.

[–] Ranb (9595) 3 days ago

You judge poorly.

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 9 days ago

not verbally assailing anyone
You're right thats its an unusual situation , its not direct slander , its making millions from telling lies about dead babies and multiplying the grief and pain of their parents - for years on end.
Its disgusting .

I'm happy to throw whatever warped definition of so called "free speech" is being used out of the window in his case and punish him to the maximum extent of the law , ideally prison.

[–] TearofLys (2641) 4 days ago

I don't like your opinion on this matter. If we were both in Great Britain, I would report you to the authorities.

[–] parkerbot (8993) 3 days ago

Can you both identify as being in Great Britain or did Trump's win put the kabosh on pretending?

[–] TearofLys (2641) 3 days ago

??? Clarify.

[–] parkerbot (8993) 2 days ago

Apparently I have to turn it town a notch.

Screw that, it stays at 11.

[–] TearofLys (2641) 2 days ago

Turn it *down.* Also, turn down what? Your incoherence?

I was asking you to clarify as what you wrote didn't rise to what most consider proper English. Let me explain. Here is what you stated:

"Can you both identify as being in Great Britain or did Trump's win put the kabosh on pretending?"

You indicated you would make two claims about me with the word "both" then you only made one "identify as being in GB." Then you mentally wandered off with a statement about Trump putting the kabosh on pretending. That one sentence is mangled garbage. Your second post had a misspelling, so literally every post I have ever seen from you either lacks coherency or has misspellings. Are you posting while drunk or high? No shame in that. Most of us have done it. If not that, they why?

[–] parkerbot (8993) 2 days ago

Tell me you're on a spectrum of some kind without telling me you're a spectrum of some kind.