908

The families of Sandy Hook school shooting victims voted overwhelmingly in favor of a plan to wrap up Alex Jones’ bankruptcy proceedings by liquidating the right wing talk show host’s assets.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

In bankruptcy cases, a proposal is usually put forth by the end of the process that describes a plan with respect to how the debtor's assets will be liquidated and the funds distributed to creditors. This plan is put to a vote before the creditors and if the creditors accept the plan, then the bankruptcy court will order that the debtor's assets be liquidated in the manner described. When that's all done, the bankruptcy trustee will distribute the proceeds according to the plan to the creditors. Any remaining debts are cancelled.

[-] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 1 points 2 years ago

Why are remaining debts cancelled? They should liquidate all his assets and then take every single cent he makes for the rest of his life.

[-] mPony@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

all of this, but maybe also have people constantly harassing him pushing a narrative about how none of it is actually happening, and that it never happened, and how he made everything up.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

This is how bankruptcy works. When someone goes bankrupt then it is intended to give them a fresh start. Some debts, such as those incurred as a result of fraud, are not dischargeable.

[-] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 2 points 2 years ago

But why grant him bankruptcy? Where I live, personal bankruptcy isn’t really a thing. You can’t just walk away from debt and get a fresh start as you please. There is a ‘debt sanitation’ procedure but any creditors have to agree to the procedure and you have to go through a period of at least 3 years in which any income above the social minimum will be garnished and used to pay your debts. After this period outstanding debt can be discharged but this is entirely up to the discretion of each individual creditor.

In this case, I do not see any reason why you would agree to that. Let him pay every cent he makes for the rest of his life.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Edit: thought this was a reply to the Trump case. Edited to apply to Jones

Bankruptcy is not "granted". It is a legal process and courts cannot decline to bankrupt a person. This is the law in the United States, and changing it would require an Act of Congress. Nobody has to "agree" to this. It is just as much a violation of the rule of law to unduly deprive Jones of the rights he has by law as it is to ignore the consequences of his actions prescribed by law. It doesn't matter what your opinion is of him or his actions; these are his rights. Anyone who has a crushing amount of debt that they can't pay off, due to no particular fault of their own other than bad financial management, can have their assets liquidated and those debts cancelled. Note that debts incurred by fraud or malicious intent, such as this large judgement, are still not eligible for cancellation in bankruptcy. The purpose of personal bankruptcy laws around the world is because it is recognised that citizens are more economically productive when they aren't forced to pay a crushing amount of debt for the rest of their lives. It isn't fair to them. Again, we're looking at laws that apply to everyone, so your opinion of Jones's case doesn't matter. It isn't about Jones.

Nobody "walks away" from debt. People get their assets liquidated, their properties sold off. and in many cases their lives upended by bankruptcy. Nobody will ever want to lend money to someone bankrupt. Since Jones declards personal bankruptcy then his business and assets will be sold to pay his creditors and he'll be left with maybe enough to live an average life working an actual job. At the same time, the law stipulates that he, like everyone else, still deserves a decent standard of living even despite his debts. This is not favouritism, this is the rule of law.

Consider the case where a person, after getting into a serious car accident, is hospitalised for two months. When they get out, now they could owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital bills, could be severely behind on their mortgage, was out of work for two months so they might also owe thousands of dollars on their credit card, and may have even lost their job in the meantime. All those things are possible in the US, so you have to understand that bankruptcy is the last resort for this person. Otherwise, interest and late fees on tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt will crush them for the rest of their lives, and we (Americans) as a society have decided that we don't want people in that position.

[-] not_again@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I also believe that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's probably some Ronald Reagan bullshit. Let me go look it up.

Edit: It's not. Apparently it only started in 2005.

this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
908 points (98.5% liked)

News

35754 readers
611 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS