Alex Jones accused of trying to hide assets from Sandy Hook families

The trustee overseeing Infowars host Alex Jones's personal bankruptcy case is accusing the far-right conspiracy theorist of trying to shield more than $5m from creditors, including relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Connecticut.
Three new lawsuits filed by the trustee on Friday alleging fraudulent asset transfers are the latest developments in Jones's long-running bankruptcy case, which has been pending in federal court in Houston for more than two years. In financial statements filed in bankruptcy court last year, Jones listed his net worth at $8.4m.
The Sandy Hook families won nearly $1.5bn in judgments in 2022 in lawsuits filed in Connecticut and Texas accusing Jones of defamation and emotional distress for saying the school shooting that killed 20 first-graders and six educators was a hoax. Victims' relatives testified in court about being terrorized by Jones's supporters.
Attempts to liquidate Jones's Infowars broadcasting and product-selling platforms and give the proceeds to the families and other creditors have been hindered by a failed auction and legal wrangling. Jones, meanwhile, continues to appeal the Sandy Hook judgments.
Here's what to know about the status of Jones's bankruptcy case:
The trustee, Christopher Murray, alleges that Jones tried to shield the money through a complex series of money and property transfers among family members, various trusts and limited liability companies. Other named defendants include Jones's wife, Erika; his father, David Jones; and companies and trusts.
Murray alleges that a trust run by Jones and his father fraudulently transferred nearly $1.5m to various other Jones-associated entities in the months leading up to the bankruptcy. Jones is also accused of fraudulently transferring $1.5m to his wife, more than $800,000 in cash and property to his father, and trying to hide ownership of two condominiums in Austin, Texas, with a combined value of more than $1.5m.
Murray is trying to recoup that money and property for creditors.
Jones's bankruptcy lawyers did not return email messages seeking comment.
In an email to the Associated Press, Erika Wulff Jones called the lawsuits 'pure harassment' and said she already had sat for a deposition. She said 'the accounting has been done', but did not elaborate.
A lawyer for David Jones did not immediately return an email seeking comment.
Jones railed against the new allegations on his show on Saturday. He has repeatedly said Democratic activists and the justice department are behind the Sandy Hook defamation lawsuits and bankruptcy proceedings, and claimed they were now 'trying to get' to him by suing his father, who he says is seriously ill.
The fraud allegations are similar to those in a lawsuit in a Texas state court filed by Sandy Hook families. Jones also denied those claims. That lawsuit was put on hold because of the bankruptcy.
Jones says the fact that the Sandy Hook families haven't received any money from him yet should be expected because he is appealing the $1.5bn in judgments.
Infowars' assets continue to be tied up in the legal processes. Those assets, and some of Jones's personal assets, are being held by Murray for eventual distribution to creditors.
An effort to sell Infowars' assets was derailed when US bankruptcy judge Christopher Lopez rejected the results of a November auction in which the Onion, a satirical news outlet, was named the winning bidder over only one other proposal by a company affiliated with Jones. The Onion had planned to turn the Infowars platforms into parody sites.
Lopez had several concerns about the auction, including a lack of transparency and murky details about the actual value of the Onion's bid and whether it was better than the other offer. The judge rejected holding another auction and said the families could pursue liquidation of Jones's assets in the state courts where the defamation judgments were awarded.
In a financial statement last year, Infowars' parent company, Free Speech Systems, listed $18m, including merchandise and studio equipment.
Lawyers for the Sandy Hook families said they will soon move their effort to sell Infowars' assets to a Texas state court in Austin, where they expect a receiver to be appointed to take possession of the platform's possessions and sell them to provide money to creditors. A court schedule has not been set.
'The families we represent are as determined as ever to enforce the jury's verdict, and he will never outrun it,' Christopher Mattei, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families in the Connecticut lawsuit, said Tuesday.
Jones's appeals, meanwhile, continue in the courts. He said he plans to appeal the Connecticut lawsuit judgment to the US supreme court, after the Connecticut supreme court declined to hear his challenge. A lower state appeals court upheld all but $150m of the original $1.4bn judgment. The $49m judgment in the Texas lawsuit is before a state appeals court.
He said in 2022 that he believes the shootings were '100% real'.
Because Infowars' assets are still tied up in the courts, Jones has been allowed to continue broadcasting his shows and hawking merchandise from Infowars' Austin studio.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

19 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Tragic video 20-year-old Texas woman sent boyfriend shortly before going missing on jet ski

A woman sent a heartbreaking video to her boyfriend before she went missing from a Texas lake. Ashley Gil, 20, was pulled from the waters of Lake Houston on Thursday after she fell into the water while riding a jet ski with two others. She had sent a video of herself earlier that day riding the recreational watercraft while wearing a life jacket to her boyfriend, Jason Campos Rodriquez. Tragically, cops said, when she fell in the water she was not wearing a life jacket. Speaking with ABC13, Rodriquez said: 'My motive here is understanding everything that happened. '[I] kind of right away, right away got a sense something's not right.' He claims a man fishing near Gil said the group she was with had no urgency to find her. Recalling what the man told him, he said: 'To be honest with you, they didn't even pay attention. 'They didn't even know when they lost her, where they lost her, they looked like they didn't even care.' Rodriquez told KHOU that Gil was 'careful and cautious', with her death leaving him puzzled. 'When you see someone that has so much potential, leave this world. This is just sad in and of itself, and it's hard to you know accept that she's not here anymore', he said. He had been out of town for work when he received the horrifying news about her disappearance and death. The recovery of her body was confirmed by the Office of Commissioner Rodney Ellis on Thursday. A statement said: 'I am deeply saddened to learn that the young woman who went missing on Lake Houston hear Alexander Deussen Park has been found deceased.' It continued: 'My heart goes out to her family, her loved ones, and everyone affected by this tragic loss.' Houston Police had said earlier this week that there were three people on the jet ski when Gil fell into the water and didn't come back up to the surface. They said that they don't believe she was wearing a life jacket at the time, despite the video sent to Rodriquez. Alexander Deussen Park was closed on Wednesday as search crews looked for Gil,it reopened on Thursday. Her family have since launched a fundraiser to help with funeral costs, it has raised over $6,500 as of Friday. In a post to the fundraiser, her family said: 'It is with heavy hearts that we share the tragic loss of my beloved sister, Ashley Gil, who passed away after a heartbreaking accident on the lake. 'Ashley fell from a jet ski and, despite all efforts, she did not survive. Ashley was a bright light in the lives of so many, full of love, laughter, and kindness. 'She had an incredible spirit that touched everyone around her. Her absence leaves a deep void in the hearts of our family, friends, and all who knew her.' It added: 'We are starting this GoFundMe to support our family, especially our mother, during this incredibly difficult time. 'The funds raised will help cover funeral expenses and any additional costs we may face as we grieve and begin to heal. 'If you are able to give, any amount—no matter how small—will mean the world to her loved ones. 'And if you aren't able to donate, please consider sharing this campaign and keeping Ashley's family in your thoughts and prayers.'

Telegraph

25 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'

Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.

Reuters

28 minutes ago

• Reuters

Middle East tensions put investors on alert, weighing worst-case scenarios

NEW YORK, June 21 (Reuters) - Investors are mulling a host of different market scenarios should the U.S. deepen its involvement in the Middle East conflict, with the potential for ripple effects if energy prices skyrocket. They have honed in on the evolving situation between Israel and Iran, which have exchanged missile strikes, and are closely monitoring whether the U.S. decides to join Israel in its bombing campaign. Potential scenarios could send inflation higher, dampening consumer confidence and lessening the chance of near-term interest rate cuts. This would likely cause an initial selloff in equities and possible safe-haven bid for the dollar. While U.S. crude prices have climbed some 10% over the past week, the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab has been little changed as of yet, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks. However, if attacks were to take out Iranian oil supply, "that's when the market is going to sit up and take notice," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B Riley Wealth. "If you get disruption to supply of oil product on the global marketplace, that is not reflected in today's WTI price and that is where things get negative," Hogan said. The White House said on Thursday President Donald Trump would decide on U.S. involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. Analysts at Oxford Economics modeled three scenarios, ranging from a de-escalation in the conflict, a complete shutdown in Iranian production, and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, "each with increasingly large impacts on global oil prices," the firm said in a note. In the most severe case, global oil prices jump to around $130 per barrel, driving U.S. inflation near 6% by the end of this year, Oxford said in the note. "Although the price shock inevitably dampens consumer spending because of the hit to real incomes, the scale of the rise in inflation and concerns about the potential for second-round inflation effects likely ruin any chance of rate cuts in the U.S. this year," Oxford said in the note. The biggest market impact from the escalating conflict has been restricted to oil, with oil prices soaring on worries that the Iran-Israel conflict could disrupt supplies. Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18% since June 10, hitting a near 5-month high of $79.04 on Thursday. The accompanying rise in investors' expectations for further near-term volatility in oil prices has outpaced the rise in volatility expectations for other major asset classes, including stocks and bonds. But other asset classes, including stocks, could still feel the knock-on effects of higher oil prices, especially if there is a larger surge in oil prices if the worst market fears of supply disruptions come true, analysts said. "Geopolitical tensions have been mostly ignored by equities, but they are being factored into oil," Citigroup analysts wrote in a note. "To us, the key for equities from here will come from energy commodity pricing," they said. U.S. stocks have so far weathered rising Middle East tensions with little sign of panic. A more direct U.S. involvement in the conflict could, however, spook markets, investors said. Financial markets may be in for an initial selloff if the U.S. military attacks Iran, with economists warning that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Trump's tariffs. Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past prominent instances of Middle East tensions coming to a boil, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead. On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3% in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3% higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro. An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the U.S. dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished U.S. exceptionalism. In the event of U.S. direct engagement in the Iran-Israel War, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said. "Traders are likely to worry more about the implicit erosion of the terms of trade for Europe, the UK, and Japan, rather than the economic shock to the US, a major oil producer," Thierry Wizman, Global FX & Rates Strategist at Macquarie Group, said in a note. But longer-term, the prospect of US-directed 'nation-building' would probably weaken the dollar, he said. "We recall that after the attacks of 9/11, and running through the decade-long US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USD weakened," Wizman said.