politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The issue is what the valuation of the seized assets are. The asset seizure is only to fulfill the monetary debt since he cannot pay the entire amount in cash. If he could pay it in full, there would be no seizure (unless the seizure itself was a separate part of the judgement). The valuation is essentially what someone is willing to pay for it, and in this case, there are only 2 bidders to value it.
The Onion's bid was not the highest bid, but does have the backing of the family. Jones on the other hand also has a right for the valuation to be as correct as possible to fulfill his debt. This type of situation isn't particularly unique, and it's not exactly new.
The Judge could end up deciding that The Onion's bid goes through due to family backing since the debt is to them and the asset being sold is directly relevant to the judgement, but the valuation of the opposing bid is counted against the debt, which is the only thing Jones is really entitled to here.
My impression from the article was, The Onion bid contained both a monetary sum, and partial debt relief. The total value then - the sum + the debt relief - was higher, and that's how it won. So, it wasn't just the victims' backing weighing in, they actually put money on it.
You are correct. It's just that because the details of the bids are sealed, it appears on the surface that the Onion bid was too low relative to the value of the asset and the competitive bid. The hearing is to clear that misconception up; The onion bid + incentives thrown in (debt relief + benefits to other creditors) actually brings the overall value of the bid to above the value of the competing bid, and possibly of Infowars itself. This means that not only is the Onion bid the actual winning bid, the bid is of greater financial benefit to not only the sandy hook families, but to Jones' creditors and ultimately Jones himself.
This is normally routine, but given all of the players involved, it just opens the door to a lot of fuckery. Under normal circumstances, a hearing like this wouldn't even be noteworthy, much less newsworthy.
The Onions bid does not just have the backing of the Sandy Hooks families, those same families agreed to defer their payments until after Jones has paid his other debts as part of the Onions bid.
Nitpick: This is probably the case 99% of the time, but there is the outside possibility that there were some restrictions on the auction that we do not know about that caused potential bidders to shy away, therefore lowering the perceived value of the assets artificially.