Dominion's $1.6B Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News Going to Trial

[Kingnoob]

I believe that's correct.

AJ reportedly transferred ownership of one his houses to his wife about a year ago. However, this was obviously done in anticipation of civil liability and it may well be voided by a court on the basis that it was fraudulent:

>>>“I don’t need asset protection. Last year, I transferred everything to my wife.”

Bad strategy. The transfer of assets to a spouse is usually not effective. . . .

Finally, the transfer to the spouse must have occurred years in advance of a claim by a creditor, lest the transfer be challenged as a fraudulent conveyance.

Courts have the ability to look back in time for six years and undo fraudulent transfers. Thus, a husband sued this year must have transferred the assets to his wife at least six years ago.<<<

Transferring Assets to a Spouse

"I don’t need asset protection. Last year, I transferred everything to my wife." Bad strategy. The transfer of assets to a spouse is usually not effective.

www.assetlawyer.com

For AJ, transferring the assets may well be a losing strategy in the end, but it's probably better than nothing because it at least puts the burden on the plaintiffs to prove in court that the transfers were fraudulent.

Here's a short blog post about possible shell companies AJ may own. As you can see, the guy who wrote the blog found 13 companies that may be related to AJ.

Did Alex Jones the Infowars Host Hide Money or Other Assets?

This Asset Search Blog post asks: Did Infowars host Alex Jones hide money through shell companies, fraudulent transfers and nominees?

www.assetsearchblog.com

In addition to the direct transfers and potentially fraudulent shell companies, my best guess is that AJ may have also transferred assets into offshore trusts.

Overall, bankruptcy is not a great strategy because it puts the court in control. However, AJ didn't really have any viable options so it might be better than nothing. He talks a lot of smack but his actions broadcast desperation.

As a practical matter, AJ will probably continue to stonewall and the litigation will probably continue for many years. I'm not sure it will ever be fully resolved.

Aj is a Nutjob but this is proof free speech is dead . Some wacko makes up crazy theories gets sued for billions. May as well lock up every theorist . And declare martial law:

 

[Mr._Clark]

Aj is a Nutjob but this is proof free speech is dead . Some wacko makes up crazy theories gets sued for billions. May as well lock up every theorist . And declare martial law:

When you say "this is proof free speech is dead" do you mean it was "free" in your view back in 1917 when people were arrested and fined for demonstrating, but it was somehow not free in 2018 when the NYPD guarded protestors?

>>>I’m staying at a hotel very close to Lafayette Square, and you’ll see a plaque there showing how in 1917, a number of women’s rights advocates were burning an effigy of President Woodrow Wilson. They were arrested and fined for demonstrating for their right to vote. I remember thinking about that in 2018, when I was living on the Upper West Side with my family and I took my son to a museum. Outside, tens of thousands of people were protesting, most of them women, wearing these pink “pussy hats” and shouting obscenities at the president of the time. The NYPD was there to safeguard their First Amendment rights to criticize the president, in terms that were probably more aggressive than those of many who went before them. I thought that was really a sign of how free speech has furthered the rights of groups that had previously been persecuted.<<<

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2022/what-we-can-learn-history-free-speech#

Do you have any clue what the history of libel law and free speech has been in the U.S.?

What in God's name are you trying to say?

 

[lovinthehd]

When you say "this is proof free speech is dead" do you mean it was "free" in your view back in 1917 when people were arrested and fined for demonstrating, but it was somehow not free in 2018 when the NYPD guarded protestors?

>>>I’m staying at a hotel very close to Lafayette Square, and you’ll see a plaque there showing how in 1917, a number of women’s rights advocates were burning an effigy of President Woodrow Wilson. They were arrested and fined for demonstrating for their right to vote. I remember thinking about that in 2018, when I was living on the Upper West Side with my family and I took my son to a museum. Outside, tens of thousands of people were protesting, most of them women, wearing these pink “pussy hats” and shouting obscenities at the president of the time. The NYPD was there to safeguard their First Amendment rights to criticize the president, in terms that were probably more aggressive than those of many who went before them. I thought that was really a sign of how free speech has furthered the rights of groups that had previously been persecuted.<<<

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2022/what-we-can-learn-history-free-speech#

Do you have any clue what the history of libel law and free speech has been in the U.S.?

What in God's name are you trying to say?

It's kingnoob, don't expect a lot of sense.

 

[Mr._Clark]

It's kingnoob, don't expect a lot of sense.

His statements are so far detached from reality that I literally cannot figure what he's trying to say.

Jones lost be default in both Connecticut and Texas:

>>>On Monday, November 15th, a superior court judge in Connecticut ruled that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was liable by default in a defamation lawsuit brought by the parents of a Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victim.

Judge Barbara Bellis issued the default judgement after years of Jones’ refusal to turn over financial and web analytics data that had been ordered by the court.<<<(emphasis added)

Alex Jones Liable by Default in Sandy Hook Elementary Defamation Suit

On Monday, November 15th, a superior court judge in Connecticut ruled that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was liable by default in a defamation lawsuit. Judge Barbara Bellis issued the default judgement after years of Jones’ refusal to turn over financial and web analytics data that had been...

firstamendmentwatch.org

>>>A district court judge for Travis County, Texas issued a default judgment against Alex Jones for failing to comply with discovery requests in the defamation suits brought by two families in the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting. The shooting, which occurred on December 14, 2012, resulted in the deaths of 20 children and six adult school staff members.

“The Court find that Defendants unreasonably and vexatiously failed to comply with their discovery duties. The Court finds that Defendants’ failure to comply with discovery in this case is greatly aggravated by Defendants’ consistent pattern of | discovery abuse throughout the other similar cases pending before this Court,” reads the ruling by Judge Maya Guerra Gamble.<<<(emphasis added)

Judge Issues Default Judgment In Alex Jones’ Sandy Hook Defamation Suits

A district court judge in Texas ruled that Alex Jones must face a jury to determine how much he needs to pay for defamation claims to Sandy Hook parents.

firstamendmentwatch.org

How in God's name can someone conclude that default judgements that Jones brought on himself are "proof free speech is dead"?

 

[isolar8001]

It's kingnoob, don't expect a lot of sense.

Mommy and Daddy must have gotten tired of him whimpering in the corner of the basement and turned his phone back on....for now.
Rather than hear all about his 130 dollar audio system every post, now he's become a philosopher !