Alex Jones

[Chad Fuck 18034]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's surprising that the bankruptcy judge would ignore the will of the largest creditors that are getting almost the entire plate either way. 

 

But sure, selling the whole thing back to his daddy at a cut rate - against the preferred business plan of the creditors - is DEFINITELY the most pragmatic solution.

I guffaw, sir.  I see bankruptcy judges ignore the will of creditors on the daily.  It is in their nature to do so because by nature of the bankruptcy system, walking in the door creditors are unhappy they're going to take a haircut and have to ask for more than they know they'll get. 

The law is Debtor friendly, not creditor.  And in my experience, bankruptcy judges more often lean towards the Debtors, because that's who keeps showing up at the courthouse represented by law firms they want to work for in the future.  At least that's true in what I see, in higher profile Chapter 11 cases.   

I don't think "pragmatic" is mentioned in the Bankruptcy Code.  And the whole issue here wasn't that daddy was getting a sweetheart deal, it was that Daddy's backers put more money on the table.  THAT is what is at issue. I say again, it's money that matters in this context.  Cash money, today.  

We can agree that it was fun, and felt just that The Onion bought out InfoWars.  At a personal level, that's what I'd like to see happen.  I want the parents to get what they want.  But I also recognize that if there was more money from another source, the Trustee left open the door to questioning the results of the auction.  Moreover, it put the Judge in a position of having to make that inquiry not to be overturned on appeal.  That's the practical reality of why this case is where it is.  

 

 

 

 

[Captainant 28277]

9 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Moreover, it put the Trump Judge in a position of having to make that inquiry not to be overturned on appeal in the Trump judicial system.  That's the practical reality of why this case is where it is.  

ftfy

[Chad Fuck 18034]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

ftfy

No.  Bankruptcy judges are not article III judges.  They aren't appointed and don't serve for life. 

The DOJ puts up an advertisement like any other job, and bankruptcy attorneys apply for it.  It's an insular system with its problems.  It's much more political on a local level (which big firm's fair haired boy will become the bk judge?  Where will they want to work afterwards, and with whom?  What business can they bring to the courthouse because people know and like them?  These are the questions that get asked rather than will "he want to give Alex Jones a pass because he's our boy" level.   In short, bankruptcy judges are more often cut from country club Republican cloth.  They are not typically political radicals.  

 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19357]

4 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

In short, bankruptcy judges are more often cut from country club Republican cloth.  They are not typically political radicals.  

Same could be said for SCOTUS nominees and cabinet nominees in times long gone.  But I'm sure bankruptcy judge appointments have avoided corruption.

[Chad Fuck 18034]

11 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Same could be said for SCOTUS nominees and cabinet nominees in times long gone.  But I'm sure bankruptcy judge appointments have avoided corruption.

Listen, I'm not saying they don't exist.  I'm saying what I've seen doesn't lead me to believe that it's particularly wide spread.  There have been plenty of bankruptcy court decisions I don't agree with, but I've never seen one and said, "Oh yeah, this jurist is hardcore MAGA."  

[Fudge Nuggets 19357]

I don’t think they are necessarily hardcore MAGA but one can’t deny these fucks are in the “hardcore unchecked capitalism at its worst” camp. When’s the last time an egregious violator actually had to pay up in a timely manner?

[Gatorubet 30586]

8 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

I guffaw, sir.  I see bankruptcy judges ignore the will of creditors on the daily.  It is in their nature to do so because by nature of the bankruptcy system, walking in the door creditors are unhappy they're going to take a haircut and have to ask for more than they know they'll get. 

The law is Debtor friendly, not creditor.  And in my experience, bankruptcy judges more often lean towards the Debtors, because that's who keeps showing up at the courthouse represented by law firms they want to work for in the future.  At least that's true in what I see, in higher profile Chapter 11 cases.   

I don't think "pragmatic" is mentioned in the Bankruptcy Code.  And the whole issue here wasn't that daddy was getting a sweetheart deal, it was that Daddy's backers put more money on the table.  THAT is what is at issue. I say again, it's money that matters in this context.  Cash money, today.  

We can agree that it was fun, and felt just that The Onion bought out InfoWars.  At a personal level, that's what I'd like to see happen.  I want the parents to get what they want.  But I also recognize that if there was more money from another source, the Trustee left open the door to questioning the results of the auction.  Moreover, it put the Judge in a position of having to make that inquiry not to be overturned on appeal.  That's the practical reality of why this case is where it is.  

 

7 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

No.  Bankruptcy judges are not article III judges.  They aren't appointed and don't serve for life. 

The DOJ puts up an advertisement like any other job, and bankruptcy attorneys apply for it.  It's an insular system with its problems.  It's much more political on a local level (which big firm's fair haired boy will become the bk judge?  Where will they want to work afterwards, and with whom?  What business can they bring to the courthouse because people know and like them?  These are the questions that get asked rather than will "he want to give Alex Jones a pass because he's our boy" level.   In short, bankruptcy judges are more often cut from country club Republican cloth.  They are not typically political radicals.  

I agree with all of that.  I had a bankruptcy hearing this morning, trying to get a judge to approve the settlement of a case where my client filed a chapter 13 while their lawsuit was going on, which effectively made the bankruptcy trustee the client instead of….the client.    

You have to ask the court to appoint you as special counsel to represent the estate, and judges don’t like to give you your contractual 40% fee unless you have extraordinary circumstances. They want to (shock) give them money to creditors instead.

Things were not going well until I mentioned I had been posting on Shaggy and Surly for over a decade, but hadn’t been banned yet.   BANG! 40% approved!

[wildcat09 29509]

23 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Listen, I'm not saying they don't exist.  I'm saying what I've seen doesn't lead me to believe that it's particularly wide spread.  There have been plenty of bankruptcy court decisions I don't agree with, but I've never seen one and said, "Oh yeah, this jurist is hardcore MAGA."  

I don't think this judge is MAGA. I think he wants Trump to give him a sweet lifetime job so did his boy a solid.

[Gap03 3366]

If these jackasses keep getting lifelines from Trump and the MAGA judiciary, I suspect it's just a matter of time before some folks like Alex end up getting Luigi'ed.

[Sawbonz 27973]

[Mittens 8536]

2 hours ago, Gap03 said:

If these jackasses keep getting lifelines from Trump and the MAGA judiciary, I suspect it's just a matter of time before some folks like Alex end up getting Luigi'ed.

Inshallah!