> The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest.
We do not know what the onion's bid was. We only have what Jones says it was. Until the actual hearing happens the exact details of what the onion offered are unknown. We do know they worked with the sandy hook parents and it stands to reason that they are leveraging their outstanding debts against jones to fund the purchase.
The ONLY source of the "it was a lower bid" is known liar Alex Jones. Who also spent the entire day yesterday talking about how the democrats were going to storm his building to evict him. Only to later meekly walk out of the building when he realized that wasn't going to happen.
> The judge is going to toss that out.
Maybe, depends on what is found in the evidentiary hearing. Sort of the point of such a hearing, to get everyone in the room and crack open what happened and why.
But I have 2 bits of cold water for the Jones narrative of "the deep state democrats" treating him unfairly.
1. The trustee is a professional receiver court appointed. Meaning they are unlikely to have tried to "fuck" over Jones (That'd screw them out of future receiverships).
2. The company that ran the auction does it professionally. They are unlikely to have to have done the deep state's bidding just to screw over Jones. That would impact their ability to run future auctions. Further, the auctioneers earn money based on the final sale price which would doubly hurt them in the case that the trustee ended up accepting a lower bid.
> Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order.
I got news for you, Jones says that about every single court case or action against him that doesn't go his way. It's always a secret enemy that's out to screw him or silence him. That's because that narrative allows him to sell more sea algae.
> Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
If it's found that there were major problems with the auction, the most likely outcome is the auction will simply be reran with a new auction house and a new trustee. If there were such major problems with the way things were done, it's highly unlikely that just letting the results of the last auction stand will be good enough. After all, were their other bidders excluded by the auction house? Was there really a transparency issue? If an auction was ran counter to a court order, you throw out the results and redo.
"At a court hearing Thursday afternoon in Houston, the trustee who oversaw the auction, Christopher Murray, acknowledged that The Onion did not have the highest bid but said it was a better deal overall because some of the Sandy Hook families agreed to forgo a portion of the sale proceeds to pay Jones’ other creditors."
Right, so if The Onion bid $2.5M and the Sandy hook families said "Our portion of that $2.5M will be forgiven and it will pay for the other creditors" Then Jones' debt would have been reduce by ~$5M instead of the $3.5M of the other bidder.
Now, it is possible that the onion only bid $1.75M in which case there might be something to the claim. But, I doubt that's the case.
I'm not going to speculate on what the trustee's motivations may have been, but according to the reports we have so far, no public auction was held. Since apparently there were only 2 bidders, it's most likely going to the actual highest bidder. It would be highly prejudicial to hold 'another' auction, as now we know what the original bids were.
Jones is alleging the DOJ has been orchestrating this from behind the scenes. We'll see what's going on once Trump takes office.
Reports from who? The auction, especially with the media coverage of the auction, was very public and publicly listed [1]. The bidding was sealed and under an NDA, which is exactly what you'd want when selling such a controversial property.
> Since apparently there were only 2 bidders, it's most likely going to the actual highest bidder. It would be highly prejudicial to hold 'another' auction, as now we know what the original bids were.
Prejudicial to who? And again, we do not know what the original bids were. We know what one of the original bids was and not the other because of the aforementioned NDA.
> Jones is alleging the DOJ has been orchestrating this from behind the scenes. We'll see what's going on once Trump takes office.
Jones also alleged that nobody died at sandy hook. He alleged, on multiple occasions, that the parents of dead children were crisis actors working for demons. He also alleged that the democrats would steal the election and that the DOJ/CIA/FBI/CDC/FEMA/etc were all planning a coop. Jones alleges a lot of shit. Why do you believe him?
His MO is to say 10000 lies and then whenever anything in reality comes anywhere close to 1 of his lies, he brags that it is absolutely proof that he's correct about everything. He's literally predicted that Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, and Clinton would be assassinated. He's predicts riots and civil unrest every year. Every single time there's a mass shooting event he calls it a false flag.
I urge you to think critically about this. For starters, what exactly would the DOJ do in his lawsuits? Let's assume that Jones' claim is correct and the CIA/FBI/NSA/DHS/DEA all got together to go after him.
1. Do you believe that the DOJ somehow strong armed not only the 2 Judges of his case, but also the appellate judges and the supreme court judges who have each ruled against him on appeal?
2. Do you believe the DOJ somehow strong armed the 2 juries against Jones? And do you believe after that strong arm those Jury members decided to stay quiet?
3. And if you believe both of those things, why do you believe that Trump can somehow make a difference here? How can you believe that a DOJ with enough power to literally strong arm the supreme court is going to just roll over for Trump?
4. Do you believe that the DOJ somehow managed to fully cover all of this up, yet somehow the one person who figured it all out was the alcoholic Alex Jones? The very target of the conspiracy? There was no other corroboration?
And one further thing to consider. The lawsuits against Alex Jones started in 2018, very much while Trump was president. Why do you believe that Trump would be the person to "get to the bottom of this" when if we believe Jones, it was Trumps DOJ plotting against him.
You're relying on this 'strong arm' point, which I don't attempt to make. The DOJ could certainly be orchestrating the civil suit, eg, their attorneys help put together the suit and coordinate with the plaintiffs.
We know the government has conspired against Americans to prohibit 'misinformation' on social media, why would this be any different, when the censorship regime considers Jones public enemy #1? We'll find out the full extent once Trump takes office.
As far as the judges, rulings, juries, etc in the civil suit, I'm not up to date on all the facts, but Jones alleges foul play, that he was found in default because they asked him to produce non-existent items. Reporting on both sides of the issue are very partisan and surface-level, so it's unclear what actually transpired for Jones to be found in default.
I don't know the venue off-hand, but if it was in CT, then the judges and jury would be 100% partisan. That places is almost as far-left as California. Judges and juries in Texas or Florida would likely result in a much different outcome.
According to Jones, the first trustee in the bankruptcy was fired by the judge for misconduct.
> We know the government has conspired against Americans to prohibit 'misinformation' on social media
That "conspiracy" was the US government asking media platforms not to share covid misinformation. The "shock" of it was literally just the gov sending out "Hey, could you please limit this?". Not a court order, not a "we'll take you down if you don't" just a "Hey, please take this down". Something that every gov admin has done (and many non-US govs do).
> when the censorship regime considers Jones public enemy #1
Jones is public enemy #1 according to jones. He's wildly irreverent in both left and rightwing media.
> I'm not up to date on all the facts, but Jones alleges foul play, that he was found in default because they asked him to produce non-existent items.
Hey, before you take Jones' word for why he was defaulted, perhaps actually get up to date on the facts. Perhaps, look into them not from what Jones says but read the facts for yourself.
I have to point out that you are rushing to defend someone without actually knowing why they are in the mess they are in.
> so it's unclear what actually transpired for Jones to be found in default.
No, it's not. There are actually public records and court docs for why he was defaulted. It's not a "left right" thing.
It's only unclear because apparently your only source for what transpired is Jones himself.
You can see for yourself the kind of garbage Free speech systems was trying to pull in the depositions [1]. Mind you, this is not the first or only deposition with a corporate representative. They were given a list of topics to prepare for and they did the deposition multiple times because the Court had to instruct them, multiple times "Prepare for these topics and questions, this is what due diligence looks like".
The answers in the video are literally "Who did you ask about this" nobody. "What did you do to prepare for this" nothing. "Did you know I was going to ask this" yes.
That sort of "I'm not playing your game" action from Jones and co is exactly why they got defaulted.
> I don't know the venue off-hand, but if it was in CT, then the judges and jury would be 100% partisan.
Jones was defaulted in both CT and TX. Two different cases, two different judges, two different juries. But he played exactly the same games and lost the same way.
> Judges and juries in Texas or Florida would likely result in a much different outcome.
Found guilty in Texas. Again, maybe familiarize yourself with what he did before defending him.
We do not know what the onion's bid was. We only have what Jones says it was. Until the actual hearing happens the exact details of what the onion offered are unknown. We do know they worked with the sandy hook parents and it stands to reason that they are leveraging their outstanding debts against jones to fund the purchase.
The ONLY source of the "it was a lower bid" is known liar Alex Jones. Who also spent the entire day yesterday talking about how the democrats were going to storm his building to evict him. Only to later meekly walk out of the building when he realized that wasn't going to happen.
> The judge is going to toss that out.
Maybe, depends on what is found in the evidentiary hearing. Sort of the point of such a hearing, to get everyone in the room and crack open what happened and why.
But I have 2 bits of cold water for the Jones narrative of "the deep state democrats" treating him unfairly.
1. The trustee is a professional receiver court appointed. Meaning they are unlikely to have tried to "fuck" over Jones (That'd screw them out of future receiverships).
2. The company that ran the auction does it professionally. They are unlikely to have to have done the deep state's bidding just to screw over Jones. That would impact their ability to run future auctions. Further, the auctioneers earn money based on the final sale price which would doubly hurt them in the case that the trustee ended up accepting a lower bid.
> Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order.
I got news for you, Jones says that about every single court case or action against him that doesn't go his way. It's always a secret enemy that's out to screw him or silence him. That's because that narrative allows him to sell more sea algae.
> Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
If it's found that there were major problems with the auction, the most likely outcome is the auction will simply be reran with a new auction house and a new trustee. If there were such major problems with the way things were done, it's highly unlikely that just letting the results of the last auction stand will be good enough. After all, were their other bidders excluded by the auction house? Was there really a transparency issue? If an auction was ran counter to a court order, you throw out the results and redo.