Alex Jones Struggles To Hide Assets In Sandy Hook Trial Aftermath

AUSTIN – Alex Jones, the right-wing conspiracy theorist, has vowed to fight a nearly RM4.70 billion defamation verdict against him, but neither bankruptcy nor an appeal of a Connecticut jury’s findings on Wednesday are likely to save his personal fortune and media empire.

A jury in Waterbury, Connecticut, found Jones and the parent company of his Infowars website liable to numerous families of the 20 children and six staff members killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, for claiming they were actors who staged the tragedy as part of a government conspiracy.

When a judge decides how much punitive damages to award next month, the verdict could balloon significantly. 

It also comes three months after a Texas jury awarded RM231.71 million to two Sandy Hook parents in a similar case.

Jones has stated that he will fight the verdict on appeal and will use his company’s recent bankruptcy to avoid paying.

It is unclear whether he and his companies will ever be able to pay the verdicts in full, but plaintiffs’ attorneys have vowed to prevent him from shielding any of his assets.

“We are confident we will recover as much of the verdict as we can in the near-term, and in the long-term, this verdict isn’t going anywhere” Chris Mattei, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said.

Infowars’ finances are not public, but according to trial testimony the site brought in revenue of at least RM775.50 million between 2016 and 2018. An economist in the Texas case estimated that Jones is personally worth between RM634.50 million and RM1269.00 million.

Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy in July. The Sandy Hook families have intervened in the case and accused Jones of withdrawing up to RM291.40 million from Free Speech Systems while burdening it with RM253.80 million in “concocted” debt owed to a different company owned by Jones and his parents.

Bankruptcy courts have wide discretion to decide which creditors get paid first and are vigilant in cases where companies try to siphon out funds via debt held by shell entities, UConn School of Law professor Minor Myers said.

“No bankruptcy judge would allow Alex Jones and his dad to stand in line in front of the plaintiffs” Myers said.

Egregious Conduct

Plaintiffs with judgments against bankrupt entities typically recover only a portion of what they are owed, along with other creditors whose debts are ranked in priority by the court.

For judgments involving intentional infliction of harm, however, courts will often rule that plaintiffs can continue seeking payment after the bankruptcy is concluded by going after wages and other assets, experts say.

Jones’ “underlying conduct was egregious, and that’s the kind of thing that could get you beyond the limits of a bankruptcy” Brian Kabateck, an attorney who was not involved in the case, told Reuters.

In the near term, Jones is unlikely to prevail if he asks a judge or appeals court to reduce the verdict on the grounds that it is excessive, according to several Connecticut attorneys.

Unlike some states, Connecticut does not cap compensatory damages, and judges there rarely question jury verdicts because the legal standard for doing so is high, attorney Mike D’Amico said.

While the verdict is eye-popping, it includes more than a dozen plaintiffs who say they suffered years of harassment, death threats and stalking at the hands of Jones’ followers.

D’Amico said a billion-dollar verdict is appropriate given the uniquely tragic circumstances of the case and the egregious nature of Jones’ conduct.

“This was a tragedy unspeakable in terms of its impact and involves conduct that is just so abhorrent” D’Amico said. “This is the kind of award you would expect.”

Jones may have also hurt his chances by repeatedly violating court orders, claiming the trial was a sham and erupting into a tirade against “liberals” during his testimony. Syracuse University College of Law professor Roy Gutterman said that Jones’ “contempt for the system” will likely undermine any appeal.

“It’s going to be a big ask for the defendant to come back to the court and say, “Will you now please reduce this to something a little more reasonable?” Gutterman said. – Reuters

Facebook Comments

author avatar
Staff Editor
New Malaysia Herald publishes articles, comments and posts from various contributors. We always welcome new content and write up. If you would like to contribute please contact us at :

Latest articles

Related articles