OA660: Alex Jones... Declares... (personal) BANKRUPTCYYYYYY

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:01:17 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 660. I'm Thomas. That's Andrew. How you doing?

0:01:24 Andrew: I am fantastic, Thomas. How are you?

0:01:25 Thomas: Doing great on this Sunday, late evening, Monday, early morning episode. Episode. And Andrew, we've got another live YouTube Q&A coming up. We're going to do that. There's just so much of us. There is too much of us actually, but now, you know, the US will continue until morale improves. The 16th, that's Friday Dec., that is at 4pm Pacific, 7pm Eastern, right smack dab in the middle of kind of the end of the week for everybody. Hopefully you can attend. Attend. Looking forward to seeing you. And they can always go on Patreon to find the Q&A thread that'll be up where you can ask the questions. And I neglected to remind people last time to make sure to vote on the questions that you want to hear. Because we got really good voting like, I don't know, two months ago. And then I think I forgot to say it this time. And I guess I gotta harp on everybody. Vote on those questions that that you want answered. And that's how we know which ones to answer and to prioritize. Because there are always too many questions and we can't get to all of them.

0:01:39 Andrew: There It There really is we Yep, and as always, uh, show up, uh, even if you're not a patron, everybody gets to participate in the live Q&A but the patrons get to ask and vote on the questions. We felt like that was a fair distribution of, you know, benefits and uh and serving the audience. So, uh, that is Friday, December 16th at 4 p.m. Pacific, 7 p.m. Eastern. And uh be there and be square.

0:02:46 Thomas: Look forward to a lot of movies on the feed as well for the two dollar and up patrons on patreon.com slash law.

0:02:52 Andrew: Oh boy we have an update on our friend Michael Avenatti, who, you know, we called out as a scumbag I think before anybody, like I feel really, really good about our Avenatti reporting.

0:02:55 Clip: YOU BETRAYED THE LAW!

0:03:01 Thomas: Yeah. Well, We'll give the LA Times credit because I believe we were referencing their article when we did that. The thing, but, but, Yeah, no, I mean, it was pretty, and, and, like, you know, it was interesting when I was listening to cleanup. I, I heard you AG, saying, well, I took a selfie with him, and it was being, and it felt like she was being a, a little defensive about it. And I don't know why we would need to be defensive about, and sorry, if this is misrepresenting you, AG, if you're having to listen to this, but it felt a little defensive. There's no reason why it was wrong for you to take a selfie with Avenatti before we knew he was a creep piece of crap. The, you, you know what I mean? I think oftentimes on the internet, somehow it's a gotcha. If you didn't know everything at the exact time, like we didn't knows he was piece of until we knew he was pieces of crap, and then our side was like, oh, we're done with that guy because we're not Republicans.

0:03:13 Andrew: That's that's true. All right. But nevertheless.

0:03:54 Andrew: It's so weird the way I think my all-time favorite on that was like a year into the Trump administration, in which, you know, he sort of floated a, like, hey, I'd like to pardon a whole bunch of scumbags, and also Rod Blagojevich. And, like, Democrats were like, the fuck like are you kidding, like, no, we want Rod Blagoevich to stay in jail, like, yeah.

0:03:55 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. No. Yeah so weird.

0:04:19 Andrew: It's, it is that they just think differently than us. Anyway, so with that in mind, uh, Michael Avenatti just got 14 more years in federal prison, um, he was, he was sentenced last Monday, so one week ago today, when you're likely listening to this, and ordered to pay over $10 million, nearly $11 million in restitution to his victims, which included the IRS, for embezzling millions of dollars from four of his clients and obstruction of justice. Justice.

0:04:47 Thomas: Boy, that's the thing. It's not like he just did one thing wrong and we caught him on it. It turned out everything this guy was doing. So much fraud, so much stealing. Feeling.

0:04:56 Andrew: And and This included, right, so the IRS part of this, the obstruction part had to do with the fact that he owned coffee shops, right? So there were five, alleged, well, now proven, five million dollars in unpaid payroll taxes in connection with Tully's Coffee. And so he was sentenced. That's Judge James Selma. But, of course, Michael Avenatti is in the middle of a five-year prison term that he's serving in New York.

0:05:05 Thomas: I, so,

0:05:28 Andrew: Yeah, after being convicted on two separate cases in Newark. So these these new counts will be served concurrently, but it will be consecutively after he completes the five years in New York, which I think he's got another three years to run on that. Won't we won't be seeing a lot of Michael Avedati for for quite some time.

0:05:27 Thomas: In line prison terms he's Yeah, he's gonna be in prison for quite a while, and it, it scares me because, like, if we turn over the average stone of just some random lawyer, how much are we gonna going find of this? I mean, Avenatti was just a guy doing things until he blew up in prominence entirely because of our show about how Stormy Daniels is illegal, no, not really, but like, do you think he would have been found out otherwise, or do you think the added attention was really what did it, and therefore, are there a whole bunch of Avenatti's out there that we just don't know about, you know how.

0:06:20 Andrew: I don't know. I mean, you know, this is my profession. And so it really hurts. And, you know what I mean that on?

0:06:27 Thomas: Many coffee carts are you not paying payroll taxes on, Andrew, answer, answer the question, sir, yeah.

0:06:30 Andrew: I will say, you see a lot of lawyers who, you wind up with a lot of you passively owned businesses, um, that makes me nervous, um, but I am fundamentally Optimist Prime, I, I, want to believe that there are a few bad apples out there, but but that, the barrel is not yet contaminated. But, yeah,

0:06:43 Thomas: Yeah, that guy sucked, glad he's in prison forever, and uh, you know, we just need our version of Trump to go, and right now we don't actually at all need that, let's hear about Dirt Catch.

0:07:00 Andrew: You might recall that one week ago today, we talked about the, was actually the Tuesday episode, But the lawsuit by serial litigator and ex-member of Congress and not a cow, Devin Nunes, against the entire universe, but particularly this time against NBC for [unclear] by Rachel Maddow on her show in the course of investigating the connection between between Devin Nunes and Ukrainian national and Russian stooge Andrei Derkach. And that revolved around Derkach having sent to Nunes, and a handful of other people, a packet of information, right? And the question was sort of what was done with this packet of information. The damning part is that Derkach sent it in the first place, right, the, hey, you're my buddy. And so, you know, why is a pro-Russian stooge sending a member of Congress that has voted in connection with the pro-Russian stooge wing of his party pretty much in lockstep? You know, I don't know. You figure that one out.

0:07:49 Thomas: Yeah.

0:08:15 Andrew: But just unsealed a couple of days ago, we got notice from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York that Andrei Derkach has been charged with a seven-count indictment that was just un sealed in federal court, charging him with conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, with bank fraud, money laundering, and four additional counts of money launding it connects with the purchase and maintenance of two condominiums in Beverly Hills, California.

So, um, no mention in here of a specific connection to, you know, in other words, if you control left and you search for Devin Nunez, uh, you get nothing, uh, but you do get unindicted co-conspirator, uh, number one. And it is tough to tell, um, here's what I can say, uh, we told you Derkach was a, uh, a bad dude, and shockingly, um, that continues, uh, uh, process, and uh, in addition to, uh, you know, being a pro-Russian stooge, huge inserted as a sleeper agent into the Ukrainian parliament. He's also engaged in, you wire fraud here in the United States. And kind of timely that the U.S. is still going after this guy who had high level connections, met with Rudy Giuliani, was part of the Russian efforts to spread disinformation regarding Hunter Biden. And influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election. So, you know, as you continue to wonder, isn't that just sort of random desperation?

Like, yeah, you can you can tell Uncle Frank, like if it's if it's random desperation, there seems like there's an awful lot more evidence on the side of boy, everybody who's ever peddled the Hunter Biden story seems seems to have connections to Russian disinformation campaigns that Republican officials have described as choosing to intervene in the U.S.

0:10:12 Andrew: Presidential election in support of Donald Trump and in opposition to Joe Biden. So there you go.

0:10:19 Clip: I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!

0:10:25 Andrew: What we've all been waiting for.

0:10:25 Thomas: And now time How many different ways can you do bankruptcy? Alex Jones seems like he could write the Kama Sutra for bankruptcies. And now you can be bankrupt in this position. You know, like, what is this one?

0:10:40 Andrew: This is a slow, and you get you put the bankruptcy up in the air.

0:10:44 Thomas: This bankruptcy involves a bunch of third-party LLCs that you might invite over for a steamy night of bankruptcy. I

0:10:45 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, this one actually doesn't, so um, might, you might think of a couple of different different prior proceedings. The only one, as far as I know, that remains active is the Free Speech Systems LLC bankruptcy. Prior to that, there was a bankruptcy that was filed that included various alphabet LLCs that were, you know, sort of a confusing arrangement, and owned by other holding companies where the ownership traces back to either Alex Jones or his mommy. Right, like that's how he does all of this. And by, right, the way, like I say, mommy and daddy, like daddy was the person with ostensible business expertise. And so he's actually been deposed in connection with these cases, had a role, an ongoing role in InfoWars and with the kind of sprawling enterprise in terms of, you know, I think as a broadcaster.

0:11:51 Andrew: Jones sort of looked to his dad for influence here, and uh and and if so, again, I want to be very, very clear, I have no idea who did what in connection with the obvious fraud that Alex Jones's companies have uh perpetrated. Um So I don't know if that was daddy's influence or not, and I want to make that clear for libel purposes, you know, for defamation purposes. But but somehow, the the connection of this has led an awful lot of folks to believe that, for example, Free Speech Systems has claimed a $50 million unsecured debt to which, again, is owned by Alex Jones and another holding company and his daddy. And that is a debt to himself. Transparently obvious attempts to hide money when you know you are facing a judgment.

And all of these supposed interests came into play around the time that Alex Jones was about to take a default judgment. Happened last week is Alex Jones has finally declared personal bankruptcy. That's right. And has done so in exactly the same court in which Free Speech Systems has declared bankruptcy. Free Speech Systems is the LLC that is the company that runs the, you garbage supplements and crap that Alex Jones hawks on his show and for which he has claimed that PQPR, you acted sort of as the middleman, the distributor to free speech systems, but has incurred all these costs and has never been paid. And look, reason that that is such a preposterously stupid lie is that documents will demonstrate whether that is true or not, right? And

0:12:54 Thomas: Declare personal bankruptcy.

0:13:42 Thomas: Forgot

0:13:42 Andrew: So, yeah, it's Just one of those that, like, hmm, you know, you would have some evidence of expenses being incurred by PQPR systems if they're actually entitled to $50 million in back payments over the last four years that they supposedly have never received. And of course, again, all of these, at the end of the day, there are no outside interests. So trustee participates in these bankruptcy filings. And the last time, the U.S. trustee was, we say, skeptical of the relationship by and among these parties. So now, Jones's personal bankruptcy has necessitated two additional filings, right? One is to discuss how that affects the Free Speech Systems bankruptcy, and the other is you have to produce an initial status report and sort of describe why you've declared personal bankruptcy to the court.

0:13:42 Thomas: That documents exist. Damn it. It

0:14:39 Andrew: So let's start with the status report, and then go to how that's going to interface with the free speech systems bankruptcy, because this pleading is just, it is so Alex Jones.

0:14:55 Andrew: So Alex Jones has filed this under Chapter 11, which allows you to come up with a plan that adjudicates the debts to your various creditors and then ostensibly start over again. Right? And so we have, I'm kind of starting at the bottom because this is part of what you do in a status report in a Chapter 11 case. You describe what you want to do. So here's what Alex Jones wants to do and what he is now affirmed under penalty of perjury, right?

Like, his lawyers have signed this document and they have said, as of the petition date, that's couple days ago, Jones estimates that he personally has less than $12 million in assets, including an IRS deposit of $4.1 million and administrative costs due from FSS to Jones of approximately $1 million. And again, remember, anything like that is just hiding money pocket to pocket, right? Alex Jones owns 100% of Free Speech Systems. So when you say, "I have an administrative claim for something owed to me from Free Speech Systems," that's saying, well, I have a million dollars in my left pocket and I'd like my right hand to be able to go in and get, right, like that's nonsense, okay?

That is absolutely not, that is a, not a bankruptcy lawyer, and don't take legal advice from a podcast, that seems to scream prohibited insider transaction to me. But, you know, if you are a bankruptcy lawyer and there's a situation under which you would allow an administrative claim by one bankrupt entity to the person who owns 100% of that bankrupt entity, to then somehow get a priority claim, let me know.

0:15:38 Thomas: Poor guy.

0:16:38 Andrew: Priority claims get paid out before the plan gets enacted. So that's why you'd like to have a... What's an example of a priority claim? So for example, when you see a company go into chapter 11 bankruptcy, but they're still selling stuff, right? So you would say, oh, a priority claims would be the drivers driving our vans from the warehouse to ship out the stuff that we're selling. They get paid in priority. Norm Pettis, for example, got paid in priority. He got his hundred grand paid in full. And so that comes off the top of the estate. Yeah, I know. It comes, there

0:17:01 Thomas: Right, right, right. Yeesh. There should be a Norm Pattis rule just in all of bankruptcy that he's not a priority.

0:17:16 Andrew: Should be. And So Jones says less than $12 million, which includes 4 million, that's an IRS deposit that is in connection with taxes, and this $1 million administrative claim. So he's saying that's how you get to $12 million. Although Jones has a written employment agreement with free speech systems, and again, that's worth the paper it's printed on, right? Jones owns 100% of free speech systems.

0:17:40 Thomas: So Unless he fires himself He should be pretty Solid there, okay.

0:17:43 Andrew: Right. Yeah. Including an indemnity for the litigation costs. His $1.3 million salary has gone unpaid for 2022, other than a partial post-petition payment beginning in August 2022 at approximately 40% of his contract salary. Yeah, $40,000 a month, if you're wondering what he's drawing out there. People can manage to live on $40,000 a month. FSS requires the continued participation by Jones in order to stay in business. That's true and make its plan payments or mediated settlement payments. What a plan of reorganization for Jones will look like depends in great part on the other parties in this case. It is practically and functionally impossible for a human being who has less than 12 million dollars in assets who makes less than two million dollars per year to pay over $1.5 billion in debt.

0:18:32 Andrew: So while Jones comes, comes to this court in good faith and wants to reach an amicable resolution between all the parties, it is imperative that all parties do the same. Any argument that Jones must give up his public life or discontinue public discourse is contrary to supporting his ability to fund a plan and pay creditors, leaving Jones with limited options. And so if you're wondering, paragraph 13 then says, Jones's intention is to continue his broadcast and the Alex Jones Show and simultaneously, simultaneously, proceed with this Chapter 11, acting in the best interest of the estate and the creditors, participating in good faith in the mediation process, and fulfilling all obligations for information transparency in pursuit of a fair and reasonable compromise and settlement.

0:19:13 Thomas: This Is, this is interesting because I feel like in everyday bankruptcy thing, you, the entity that's bankrupt owes a bunch of people money, and your figure this whole process is who gets paid what, how much are we discounting that, who getspaid first, and you might think like, well, you would, would want them to be able to keep making money, like you say, they have some way to make money, then that means more of their creditors will get paid, more of the, you know, more of victims, more than whatever, but boy, that's weird in the case of Alex Jones where you're like, um, yeah, please continue conspiracy mongering so that the past victims of your conspiracy monger and can get some of the money they're owed. That's a weird one.

0:19:15 Andrew: Yeah.

0:19:52 Andrew: I agree. As you think about, you know, Sears going through bankruptcy, right, and thinking like, oh, hey, is there still a way that, you Know, you could, you think about it like a case with which I'm very not I'm familiar, we've alluded to on the show on multiple occasions, the Johns Manville bankruptcy. Suppose your product was asbestos, right? You would not come to the court and go, what we'd like to do is continue manufacturing and selling some asbestose, right, Because the revenues you are generating would be instantly dwarfed by the litigation costs and therefore the debts that those revenues would accumulate.

0:20:16 Thomas: We Gotta Keep Selling asbestos as best As We can Right.

0:20:32 Thomas: It's A very Good Comparison.

0:20:34 Andrew: And that is 100 percent the argument that I would be making as the creditors in connection with this, which is the Alex Jones show is why. Why?

0:20:34 Thomas: This Is an incredibly Good Comparison.

0:20:45 Andrew: Right. You know, he's it Is absolutely. Alex Jones is the asbestos of broadcasting. Jones has said, it, right, is my intention to continue broadcasting. And then, you go back through the rest of it. It says, OK, what, who are the parties that are involved? Evolved. This is where, you know, we concede Free Speech Systems is a single member LLC, 100% owned by Alex Jones, that produces and syndicates much of the show. I think that language is in there for weasel LLC purposes. Right. Well, no, no. Because to say like, oh, well, you know, it's also external production is handled by XABC LLC, which happens to be 97% owned by Alex Jones and two percent owned by an LLC that is split 50 50 between his father and his mother, and like that's the way that he structured, you

0:20:44 Thomas: It's The Asbestose Of broadcasting.

0:21:36 Andrew: Know These These

0:21:36 Thomas: I'm Just Laughing At weasel LLC purposes. He also has weasels LLC, and this is just for that.

0:21:42 Andrew: It's important that the boy learns how to weasel out of things, so It separates us from the animals, except The weasels So, uh, then it describes, that's So good, the, uh, outstanding, uh, obligations of $1.429 billion in the Connecticut litigation and $49.3 million in the Texas litigation. There's a very weird type of, this is paragraph four, uh, which says post verdict the Texas court made a sui sponte ruling that the Texas statutory reform, quote, caps generally applicable to tort damages, were unconstitutional and permitted the amended pleadings adding for the first time criminal elder abuse. And then there is a footnote that says the purpose of the criminal elder abuse cause of action was to remove the cap for tort damages, which would have totaled $1.5 million for both plaintiffs, um, that's not, I think it's a typo, but that's just not, we've discussed that on the

0:21:46 Thomas: Except The weasel that Show Was so good, pretty

0:22:41 Andrew: Show, and that's not an accurate description of what the Texas court did, but it doesn't matter, that what, matters for purposes of the bankruptcy is disclosing the liabilities, right, one and a half billion dollars, uh, Yeah Which is a lot, right, uh, and then, then it says the proposed mediation supported by FSS and Jones, which, again, would be weird for an LLC that you own 100 percent of to take a different view than you do. But, you know, FSS in Jones have participated in initiating a proposed mediate, reflected by this court's order putting a mediator. Jones has participated and indicated he would be prepared to mediate with these parties and attempt to reach a good faith, realistic settlement and resolution.

0:22:51 Thomas: Big one I'm Prepared To negotiate with myself, is that What he's saying, right?

0:23:20 Andrew: Right. Well, and also with the plaintiffs. But The idea is, you know, to come up with some disposition that will be, we won't see the results of mediation until we see that mediator, the, has failed to reach a result in this, this state case, uh, I would be very, very shocked, uh, if, uh, there is a mediated solution based on Jones's conduct to date, and if there is, you know, you would, I'll do it, Andrew was wrong, I do that all the time, so that we have, I, just love this section, which is talking about, um, the ongoing, ongoing, uh, debtor's work, uh, that will be, uh, done in, so Alex Jones is the debtor, how is he still continuing to, you be in business, what's going to happen, and, and I just wanted to read these paragraphs because they are so Alex Jones.

0:23:23 Thomas: What

0:24:11 Andrew: Paragraph 10, with, with respect to this case, Jones is in the process of hiring and educating a reputable financial advisor to assist him with getting all details of Past and present transactions organized and reported. Jones and his counsel believe having a financial advisor will not only help Jones reduce unnecessary expenses by putting in proper procedural controls, but also put together what will be needed to assist other professionals in this case in terms of records and reporting. This financial advisor will interface with the Free Speech Systems Chief Reporting Officer Patrick McGill and the Free Speech Systems Chapter 7 Trustee's Financial Advisor M3 to ensure that information requests are timely honored and duplication of efforts are avoided. Now, I'll explain the reason for that crazy paragraph. Remember that the Free Speech Systems bankruptcy, the chief reporting officer that Alex Jones identified and had produced, quote, evidence in that case described to the court that the PQPR debt was legitimate, that drew a stinging rebuke from the U.S.

0:24:22 Thomas: Yeah

0:25:16 Andrew: Trustee that said, this looks like classic fraud. And so now you're sort of trying to hide all of that by saying, well, see, what we need is an actual financial advisor who knows stuff because nobody knows anything. So if we lied to you, that was certainly by accident. And having Having somebody who knows stuff will ensure that the records and reporting, that's their language, not mine, is accurate. And, you know, we'll we'll make sure there's no more of that going forward.

0:25:48 Thomas: Their perspective, what does this mean, like, are they trying to hire, like, Alex Jones's cousin to be a financial, I'm just wondering what's in it for them, them Yeah Who

0:25:56 Andrew: It might be. Right. That gets us to 11, which says, Because in addition to the overwhelming cost of the litigation with the plaintiffs, estimated to exceed $13 million. Now, let me say this. If Alex Jones has spent $13 million on legal fees, then he must have done something as stupid as hiring a lawyer as bad as Norm Pattis for $100,000 a month, right? Defies the imagination in a case like this. If you were lawyering the hell out of it. And again, we know they weren't because they didn't review documents. They didn't produce documents.

0:26:21 Thomas: Would do that

0:26:34 Andrew: Yeah.

0:26:30 Thomas: Very Little Actually Took Place

0:26:35 Andrew: If you were lawyer in the hellout of it, you would have at most, you know, a couple of million, and I mean, like one to two million dollars in legal fees, and that would be, again, you could have Covington and Burling litigating this case and they could have kept it under a million dollars for the last couple of years, idea, right, that it's $13 million is more grift to his incompetent buddies. So Jones has incurred multiple other related legal costs. Furthermore, years has been focused on his talk show and his family, and thus his personal finances, comma, somewhat disorganized, are being reviewed and analyzed to ensure clarity and integrity of information going forward. Word.

0:26:59 Thomas: Are They intentionally writing that badly to be like, see, we have no, little attention, we can't even use Grammar At

0:27:25 Andrew: It could Be, I mean, like, that is just, yeah, oh by the way we put you on notice that like nothing we may have said in the past about money may have been accurate in any way whatsoever, right? Jones at FSS lost a great deal of money trusting people who did not have the ability or the character to handle the finances. Well, I would like to ask to depose Alex Jones about that. One That, that's an interesting allegation. As an example, Jones's contributions to FSS during only 2022 reflects the scope of this problem. Jones contributed one, approximately nine million dollars to FSS, up through the filing of its Chapter 11 case, and two, an additional $1.3 million to fund product shipping and consignment product purchases to maintain the, the FSS operations. So, um, there's... there's All the caveats in the personal bankruptcy, uh, it is going to be, uh, something else entirely. And one thing you might ask is, hey, if, if the game, at this point assume that Alex Jones is a bad actor, okay, and I know this Is requires Requires

0:28:27 Thomas: Okay. Yeah, I guess I Can stretch my Mind into That, like, trying to imagine four dimensions, but I'll try, I'll see if I can visualize it.

0:28:29 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Goal is as the Plaintiffs have, have alleged, to engineer a set of fraudulent transfers, right, to, play this shell game, to hide money, to deprive the Sandy Hook creditors that the plaintiffs, the victims of his nonsense, right, from getting the money to which they are entitled, um, and by the way, again, Alex Jones has, let, we, you know, this has been played in numerous media sources, including by our friends over at Knowledge Fight, Alex Jones has specifically, when the verdict came out, you know, laughed on the air and said, ha ha ha, if you think you're getting a dollar out of this, you know, you're crazy, yeah, put it, make it a billion, make it 100 billion, I don't care, you're not getting the money, okay? So this is, uh, maybe not the, the largest Leap

0:29:19 Thomas: So It's not even Like, like an assumption. We're just, this just is. What's what happening. We don't need to assume anything.

0:29:20 Andrew: Yeah. Yeah. Well So Assume his goal, let's, let's be fair. Assume his goal is to engineer fraudulent transfers and hide as much money as possible. You might ask yourself, why would you bring another bankruptcy proceeding, which brings, you know, potentially sort of yet more eyes, and, you brings your personal finances now under an automatic stay, that prevents, right, you from moving money in or out. And the answer to that is, oh, because you have another trial that you'd like to not go forward at all. And while Things are on appeal, you would like to make sure that there is not a final judgment entered on the merits that specifically runs against either you or FSS.

And in fact, as we see in this second filing that I talked about, that is the emergency motion to modify the automatic stay in the FSS bankruptcy, that's exactly what Alex Jones wants, right? So Alex Jones first notes the history, says, hey, know, FSS consented. Remember, in bankruptcy, you have an automatic stay. No money comes in, no money goes out. That includes stopping lawsuits. And this actually did stop the Connecticut and Texas lawsuits the first time it was filed. Then the parties negotiated that there would be a lifting of the stay. The the plaintiffs dismissed out some of the alphabet LLCs with no assets, right? Then they were dropped from the bankruptcy. After all of that negotiation, there right, was a Texas stay order and a Connecticut stay order, which allowed those cases to proceed to judgment.

And then now we have, after describing that history, Jones has not and does not agree to this relief in his individual capacity or as against himself individually. Since the filing of his bankruptcy petition, Jones is entitled to the benefit of the automatic stay. It protects him from the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process of a judicial, administrative,

0:29:56 Thomas: Hmm. Okay. Yeah.

0:31:26 Andrew: Or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the bankruptcy, and further, further protects him from the enforcement against the debtor or property of the estate of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the bankruptcy, right? So what specifically does he want? Alex Jones requests that the stay orders be modified to prevent the entry of a judgment in entry, the judgment, in either the Heslin Lewis lawsuit, that's the Texas case, or the a Connecticut state court lawsuit, pending further order of this court. In the event that judgment is entered in either action, appellate deadlines will begin to run. And in the event that judgment is entered as to Free Speech Systems, but not to Alex Jones, appallate deadlines will be staggered, creating confusion and increased costs. So further, a mediation is expected in this case with Alex Jones's participation.

0:32:12 Andrew: In the event this is successful, the fees and expenses associated with appeals would be for naught and would further deplete the limited resources available to fund such a settlement. So, uh, that's the argument, is, I've now declared personal bankruptcy, that stops everything, you can't go to trial against me in any other case, and you shouldn't allow any judgment to be entered in the cases to which Free Speech Systems consented that they could go forward, because those would judgments, would, would fall into either one of two categories. Either it would also be a judgment against me and I don't consent to that relief, even though I consented on behalf of Free Speech Systems, or the judgment would just run as to Free Speech System and not with respect to me because of the automatic stay.

0:33:00 Andrew: And therefore, you would have this sort of staggered appellate deadlines and cause the confusion. And

0:33:06 Thomas: You can't, any inconvenience to me is really going to hurt my victims. So,

0:33:10 Andrew: Absolutely, that is the argument. Again, not a bankruptcy lawyer, But this this seems to me to be pretty transparent and pretty obvious that what the plaintiffs are going to do is say, you're not the aggrieved party here. So to number one, is an example of where the automatic stay should be lifted as the interests of justice require, which the court, the bankruptcy court is empowered to do. Or number two, fine, go ahead. Just enter the judgment against free speech systems while we figure out your sort of personal liability. And, the fact that you didn't consent to this, Alex Jones, while you consented on behalf of your alter ego, is just proof that chose whatever administrative consequences there are.

0:33:55 Andrew: So, you too bad. Don't think the bankruptcy court is going to have any difficulty seeing through the transparency of this ruse. But us more dockets to monitor and more pleadings to read. But there you go. That's the latest from the mouth of Alex Jones. All

0:34:13 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:34:20 Thomas: Now it's time for T3BE on a streak. Let's see if I can keep that streak alive each week. I attempt to answer a bar question using nothing but my extensive and encyclopedic knowledge of the law. Let'S see if it'll be enough. Here we go.

0:34:34 Andrew: Right, Thomas. Training Co. Conveyed premium shopping center space to a man by quitclaim deed and received $210,000. Four years later, another business, Diet Food Co., filed an action to quiet title to the property as an adverse possessor. Can Diet Foods Co. Introduce evidence that it always kept the property clean?

0:35:00 Thomas: Oh, geez. All right. The book saw that I had a good streak and giveth real property is what happened. Okay.

0:35:01 Andrew: Yeah. Yep. A. Possession. B. Yes. It tends to show actual possession. C. Yes, it tends to show cleanliness. Or, or D. Yes, it tends to show that Diet Foods Co. Employs professional cleaners. I

0:35:25 Thomas: Man, I love this question. First off, it's four yeses. Wow.

0:35:29 Andrew: Know.

0:35:30 Thomas: What a, what a book. This book is really interesting. It's very, it sometimes you're like, is this even a law question? It's so easy. And other times it's, we're doing a real property question with four yes answers. And I just have to say, why this is, oh, this is fun. Okay, one hand you maybe Training Co. Just never fraudulently did this, like they never actually owned the property and just fake sold it to somebody, and then really it's been Diet Foods Co.'s place the whole time, and so they're like, yeah, no, this, that was, that's nothing. I actually am the possessor, and here's this evidence, I've always kept it clean. It's a pretty low burden. It's just asking if you can introduce evidence. So I would think would want it introduce to it because you're trying to show possession. So A shows possession, or B, because it shows actual possession.

0:36:17 Thomas: That is a tough, oof, this is going to be hard. And C, yes, because it him as a carjacker.

0:36:22 Andrew: All Right.

0:36:25 Thomas: CES because it shows cleanliness. I swear if that's the answer. Or DES, it tends to show that Diet Foods Co. Employs professional cleaners. That doesn't mean anything. So on the other hand, I could also see What like, if Diet Foods Co. Is just like a renter, Because you then, I mean, if I rented a place to do business, I might still keep it clean and employ professional cleaners. I don't necessarily think it's the actual owner's responsibility to do that. So I could see this not being proof of anything.

But also, again, if we're fighting about it, it's just the ability to introduce evidence that we're talking about here. And I think you ought to be able to introduce that evidence. And I know that because it's for yes answers. So that's pretty safe bet on my part. But why? All right. So I think it's pretty clear that's going to be between A and B. I really don't think cleanliness or that Diet Foods Co. Employs professional cleaners as anything. There's going be some, if it's a strange wild card, you could see C being the answer shows cleanliness. That would be extreme wildcard. That's too wildcard for my blood. I can't see picking that.

Uh, so it's between A and B. So are they allowed to do it because it tends to show possession or are they allowed to doing it because they're not? I It's, not going for like a squatter's rights thing. Is it like, oh, actually Diet Foods Co. Has been here this whole time, and, we're actually possessing it. Plain I language wise, I would be attracted to be just because it's like, yeah, you're showing actual possession. Maybe somebody else owned it on paper, but that's wrong, and we're showing evidence of actual possession. Some, there's another part of me that's, it's like, wonder I if, if this was the case of Training Co.

Was just fraudulently selling stuff it didn't own and Diet Foods Co. Really owned it, I just, I guess I'm slightly worried that it would be like, no, you're just showing possession. You're not, you don't need to show some actual possession over and above, you know, like you just would need to show possession. I don't know. For that reason, I'm a little worried and I don't know, I can't quite articulate why, but my intuition is like, see it going either way.

0:38:31 Thomas: I feel like B is really attractive because you're like, ah, they're cleaning it. They actually possess it. But I also feel like the rule could be based on what we're trying to prove here. No, you just are trying to show stuff that shows you possess it, you're trying introduce evidence that shows that you possess it. Oh man, I can go either way on this. It time to dust off the coin from like like 10 years ago? You know, I might be crazy because I really think B is the attractive plain language answer, but I'm going to go with A. I don't, I just, something, I just have a hunch. I don'T know. It just feels like, ah, man, I could be really just tripping over over pantsing myself and tripping over my own underwear, but I'm going to go with A over B. It's between A and B. I think I'm doing a crazy thing. I'm on a crazy streak. And maybe I'm just like, I'm choking on the end zone because I've got just too good of a streak going.

0:39:21 Thomas: I'm that snowboarder who just nailed it on the half pipe. And then I go to celebrate and I just fall over and then lose. I could be that, but I don't gonna go with a,

0:39:30 Andrew: And if you want to play along with Thomas, you know how to do that. Just share out this episode on what remains of social media, include the hashtag T3BE, include your guests, your reasons therefore, we will pick a winner and shower that winner with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortune not guaranteed.

0:39:44 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

0:39:46 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our new patrons at patreon.com/law, enjoying all the goodies, the ad free episodes, the kind of early episodes, depending on how that works, and uh, the episodes that aren't broken by a third party that I have no control over, um, well, at least not yet. I mean, I guess Patreon could always screw that up, but anyway, uh, patreon.com/law, and I am gonna go first. Thank you to ArchonWulf, though I should know. El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal casado. So that which causes the cause is the worst cause. Is that what that says? Something like that. I don't know. Adam Fendley. Dan (that's it). Tobykenobi. Chris Condon. Andrew Richter. Zachary Losey. New Maryland lawyer thanks to OA as Bar Prep.

0:40:32 Andrew: Whoo!

0:40:33 Thomas: Wow, that is awesome. Awesome out out, hail or out fail, I'm not sure. Lyn Belzer. Josh 'Bump' Galletta. Tiffany Weber. Adele S. Political Grifters dot com. Erin in Michigan. Josh Andrews. Kimberley Peterson. Anthony Cusick. Nancy Wohl. Jennifer A. Brian Leipprandt. Siseneg Ages, hmm, guess I don't know, uh, the lawyering lawyer who does lawyery things. Yeah, that's a lot of you. Diziet Sma, can confirm, Jeremy is fast at sex. Erik Jensen. And just get Patreon for us, it's totes not a big deal, you silly goose. Your turn, Andrew.

0:40:34 Andrew: Congratulations and A big thank you to Zach Simon, JPR, J P Hailey. So that's that. JPR was the letters, and this is the name, Jay P Hailey. Leslie F. 1734, Data's long password, I won't ask you to read it. 4376-LOCK. Doug Hudson, Yaramir Highlander, High General of the Halas Army. Pirate's Favorite Podcast, Opening Arguments. Glass City Fish Witch. Mary Reilly, Roger Martin, Adam Grocholski, Paul M., Mummel, Mary McCormack. I joined the Patreon and I already missed Thomas's ad reads. I note ad reads for Moink, but, you know. You Brooke

0:41:59 Thomas: I Guess A Couple times a Year, Andrew, I mean, come on, fraud.

0:42:10 Andrew: Griggs. The Gizmo from Pismo……Beach. Mark Van. FraudFish He Hates Everything.

0:42:18 Thomas: Vitiates it's Everything, I That's funny.

0:42:18 Andrew: Yeah, yeah, That's really funny. Vetinari for America 2024. Alex Patton. Sue Jacob. Nycz. Jamie Matthews and Chase F. Thank you all for signing up. That's patreon.com/law, as little as a buck and you get on this list and, uh, get the ad-free version of the show and, you know, bunch of goodies.

0:42:38 Thomas: That's our show. Thanks so much for listening. We'll see you tomorrow for a Deep Dive Tuesday. See you then.

0:42:45 Clip: I move for a bad court thingy. You mean a mistrial? Yeah, that's why you're the judge and I'm the law talking guy.

0:43:18 Clip: openargs.com. Be sure to join the Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash Yodel Mountain and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media LLC, all rights reserved. It is produced with the assistance of transcriptionist Heather Leverage, production assistant Ashley Smith, and additional contributions from Morgan Stringer and Debra Smith. Special thanks to Teresa Gomez, who runs our live shows and heads up the OA Wiki, follow at OA Wiki on Twitter. Additional thanks to the moderators of the Opening Arguments Facebook community, Emily Waters, Alicia Cook, Eric Brewer, Natalie Newell, Brian Ziegenhagen, and Teresa. And finally, thanks to Thomas Smith, who edits the show and created the fabulous theme music, which was used with permission.

0:43:55 Andrew: It defies