Now Now, let’s be fair, the Ark was not damaged, it was the access road that had to be repaired. After all, since all this global warming stuff, it seems Kentucky is getting hit by torrential rains and they will need that road to load all of the animals… You know, the MAGA supporters.
Yeah… about that.
By stating that he is using the bankruptcy courts as a means to fuck over the Sandy Hook claimants, he has admitted to using the bankruptcy court for fraudulent purposes.
Pretty sure the Chancery court of Delaware (or whatever State) will be receiving a filing soon, if they haven’t already.
To give an idea as to how seriously this is taken, remember back in 2021 the NRA had its bankruptcy thrown out by a Texas judge for the same reason. Even conservative judges have a limit.
… n/m
Its a goodie but also an oldie, that article is from 2019, and is unrelated to the recent floods in Kentucky.
Excellent point–and I’m glad to be reminded of it.
During the Mango Menace years we’ve all become so used to grifters being completely open about their grift that Jones’ admission seemed almost routine. But as you say, the courts may see it differently.
Aren’t they only allowed two?
They’re only allowed two of the unclean animals, but fourteen of the clean. So, yeah; for the critters under discussion in this thread: one male, one female.
Are you sure Christian creationists (or MAGA supporters) are unclean animals, in Biblical terms?
Yabbut, his stragety is to shop around for a Chicanery Court.
Are you saying that these folks have cloven hooves?
Who can tell when they all wear shoes. They definitely chew their cud thought.
On Sundays, anyhoo…
Well I’m not eating them.
Are you sure you don’t mean “anyhoof”?
You got a beef with him?
Now, now - let’s not denigrate Deer Lady 
:
I love that show!
Gonna post this to two threads where this will be HIGHLY relevant:
Ben Collins of NBC is live-reporting that Alex Jones’ lawyers, 12 days ago, sent Alex Jones’ opposing lawyers an image of every text Alex made in a period of time covering years.
They are being played right now. It’s being called a legitimate “Perry Mason” moment.
This also has potential J6 implications as well…
Infowars was making $800,000 a day back in 2018! Holy shit!
His financials are on here, this is a thing of beauty.
I’m not sure what state that trial is in, but in Washington, there are some serious ethical issues involved. Rule 4.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct talk about a lawyer’s obligation when receiving something by mistake.
Here are the comments to the rule:
[2] Paragraph (b) recognizes that lawyers sometimes receive a document or electronically stored
information that was mistakenly sent or produced by opposing parties or their lawyers. A
document or electronically stored information is inadvertently sent when it is accidentally
transmitted, such as when an e-mail or letter is misaddressed or a document or electronically
stored information is accidentally included with information that was intentionally transmitted.
If a lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such a document or electronically stored
> information was sent inadvertently, then this Rule requires the lawyer to promptly notify the
> sender in order to permit that person to take protective measures. Whether the lawyer is required
to take additional steps, such as returning the document or electronically stored information, is a
matter of law beyond the scope of these Rules, as is the question of whether the privileged status
of a document or electronically stored information has been waived. Similarly, this Rule does not
address the legal duties of a lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information
that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know may have been inappropriately obtained by the
sending person. For purposes of this Rule, “document or electronically stored information”
includes in addition to paper documents, e-mail and other forms of electronically stored
information, including embedded data (commonly referred to as “metadata”), that is subject to
being read or put into readable form. Metadata in electronic documents creates an obligation
under this Rule only if the receiving lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the metadata
was inadvertently sent to the receiving lawyer.