It’s good news that a twit like that get slammed by the court he disrespected, but while I am sure he is understating how much he is worth, I am also confident he does not have $965M in assets. What happens when he cannot pay? How are these plaintiffs made whole based on the judgement?
FWIW:
Jones’ net worth is between $135 million and $270 million, according to testimony in another case. SOURCE
So how do claims against future earnings work? Obviously the defendant still needs to eat and keep a roof over their head and so on… Is some percentage taken off of all income? Is he allowed to keep some minimal amount for necessities and has to pay everything else? Does he have to pay some set amount each month and get to keep anything above that that he earns? Is it decided on a case-by-case basis? What if the defendant arranges to suddenly change his total income (working less, or whatever)?
I’d add to that…
What is sufficient for a “roof over his head?” Does he get to keep a mansion or is a one bedroom apartment sufficient? Does he get to drive a $100,000 car or is some used beater considered enough? We can go on for things like food and clothes and vacations and so on.
We still have some forms of debtors’ prison in the US. Maybe we can expand it for this special case? That would give him a “roof over his head”.
How about a cage in the middle of Newtown, Connecticut? With a nearby pile of overripe tomatoes.
I like the way you think
Yeah, that’s what got me thinking about the question. If he made that much up to this point in his life with his lying, scheming company and media presence, it seems unlikely he will be able to earn 3X that much with whatever life he has left. Even if reduced to a pauper and he decides not to earn another dime for the rest of his life, where will the settlement money come from? Perhaps there is an answer, but this $1B judgement seems more like a headline than a real thing. It seems like when someone is sentenced to 500 years in prison. I hope someone can explain how these families are going to collect those amounts (that they deserve, from that idiot that deserves to be a pauper).
If he is really worth $270M and you split that up amongst the 15 plaintiffs, that is still in the ballpark of $18M each. I assume he cannot protect that nest egg…
Wonderful news. Frankly, I suspect the man is quite insane.
It provides plenty of room for the amount to be reduced on appeal, but still to something that would effectively strip him of his assets (just like multi-century sentences have the practical effect of insuring that the convict will remain imprisoned for life in jurisdictions where parole eligibility is tied to serving a given fraction of the sentence).
Remember that yesterday’s judgement was compensatory damages; the judge hasn’t decided what the punitive damages should be. Do appeals courts often reduce compensatory damages?
That piece of human garbage was defiant and mocked the judgement as it was happening. Sadly, even if he loses all of his assets, he will likely still be on the air, and people will still be exposed to his filth. Is there any way to get him to STFU?
I think it is common in cases with big judgements (not least because many states have put in limits to protect against huge punitive judgements). This assumes someone with deep pockets who can afford to stretch things out and keep litigating the issue. If Alex Jones is worth something like $200 million (give or take) I suspect he can do that.
Remember the Exxon Valdez? Initial ruling was $5 billion in punitive damages. They got that reduced to about $500 million. And that took about 17(ish) years to litigate.
But your example is one of punitive damages being reduced. That’s not what was awarded yesterday.
Ah…I see. My mistake.
I am not sure actual damages (compensatory) can be reduced. But, in this case, those would be hard to calculate so I imagine there is room for argument.
And those amounts will be very small compared to punitive damages.
Except the actual damages were calculated, and totalled $965 million.
And I do hope that the compensatory damages are dwarfed by the punitive damages, yet to be determined.
<< Deleted by poster >>
(I conflated terms, my mistake…again.)
I still get the sick feeling that if we were to check up on him in a year from now he’d still be living in a big house driving a fancy car and when we’d question it would get a mixed bag answer of “blah blah blah… laws… blah blah blah… loopholes… blah blah blah… appeals”
They can be, but generally shouldn’t be. Appellate courts are supposed to give great deference to the jury’s verdict. (if the trial didn’t have other significant errors, of course)