AP (“Sandy Hook families offer to settle Alex Jones’ $1.5 billion legal debt for a minimum of $85 million“):
Sandy Hook families who won nearly $1.5 billion in legal judgments against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for calling the 2012 Connecticut school shooting a hoax have offered to settle that debt for only pennies on the dollar — at least $85 million over 10 years.
As slimy a figure as Jones is, the judgment always struck me as farcical. There was simply no way he was ever going to be able to pay even a fraction of $1.5 billion. (Cue Dr. Evil voice.) The $85 million amount is much more reasonable—and only because Jones is so wealthy.
But the real story here isn’t the absurdity of civil court judgments but rather of the legal loopholes that have thus far let Jones thumb his nose at them.
The offer was made in Jones’ personal bankruptcy case in Houston last week. In a legal filing, lawyers for the families said they believed the proposal was a viable way to help resolve the bankruptcy reorganization cases of both Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems.
But in the sharply worded document, the attorneys continued to accuse the Infowars host of failing to curb his personal spending and “extravagant lifestyle,” failing to preserve the value of his holdings, refusing to sell assets and failing to produce certain financial documents.
“Jones has failed in every way to serve as the fiduciary mandated by the Bankruptcy Code in exchange for the breathing spell he has enjoyed for almost a year. His time is up,” lawyers for the Sandy Hook families wrote.
The families’ lawyers offered Jones two options: either liquidate his estate and give the proceeds to creditors, or pay them at least $8.5 million a year for 10 years — plus 50% of any income over $9 million per year.
But, of course, plaintiff’s attorneys don’t actually get to make these rules. It’s mere bluster.
During a court hearing in Houston, Jones’ personal bankruptcy lawyer, Vickie Driver, suggested Monday that the $85 million, 10-year settlement offer was too high and unrealistic for Jones to pay.
“There are no financials that will ever show that Mr. Jones ever made that … in 10 years,” she said.
In a new bankruptcy plan filed on Nov. 18, Free Speech Systems said it could afford to pay creditors about $4 million a year, down from an estimate earlier this year of $7 million to $10 million annually. The company said it expected to make about $19.2 million next year from selling the dietary supplements, clothing and other merchandise Jones promotes on his shows, while operating expenses including salaries would total about $14.3 million.
That Jones still has a show and is still raking in millions of dollars a year after being exposed as a fraud is remarkable to me. But, hey, that’s America.
Personally, Jones listed about $13 million in total assets in his most recent financial statements filed with the bankruptcy court, including about $856,000 in various bank accounts.
Under the bankruptcy case orders, Jones had been receiving a salary of $20,000 every two weeks, or $520,000 a year. But this month, a court-appointed restructuring officer upped Jones’ pay to about $57,700 biweekly, or $1.5 million a year, saying he has been “grossly” underpaid for how vital he is to the media company.
Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez on Monday rejected the $1.5 million salary, saying the pay raise didn’t appear to have been made properly under bankruptcy laws and a hearing needed to be held.
If Jones doesn’t accept the families’ offer, Lopez would determine how much he would pay the families and other creditors.
I honestly don’t understand how someone with this much income and wealth is even allowed to declare bankruptcy. Much less continue to draw a $20,000 biweekly salary. Not a lot of folks make $520,000 a year, let alone while not having to meet their financial obligations—especially those imposed by the legal system.
The point of the bankruptcy system, at least as I understand it, is to allow people to recover from financial mistakes rather than be ruined for life. And I support that. But it seems absurd to allow it to be used to avoid meeting one’s financial obligations while still being permitted to live like a rich man. I’m not sure where the line should be drawn but something around the national or local median income seems much more reasonable.
