Notices by Mitch Conner (olmitch@shitposter.world)

@sun hit post too soon

The claim that The Onion has a "deal with the judge" to buy InfoWars is a misleading characterization of what is actually a standard legal process. Here's what's actually happening:

The Onion has announced a new licensing agreement to take over InfoWars [^1]. Under this proposed deal:

• Global Tetrahedron (The Onion's parent company) would lease InfoWars for $81,000 per month for six months, with an option to renew for another six months [^2]
• The Onion will pay a monthly licensing fee to the court-appointed receiver overseeing InfoWars (not directly to a judge) [^1]
• The company has also signed a deal to purchase the full assets once the current judicial stay expires [^1]
• A hearing on the licensing agreement is set for April 30, 2026 in Travis County, Texas [^1]
• The deal must be approved by Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, the Texas judge who oversaw one of the defamation lawsuits against Jones [^2]

This framing conflates two different things:

1. Negotiating with court administrators/receivers (which is what The Onion is doing)
2. Having a special arrangement with a judge (which would be improper)

The Onion is working through proper legal channels with court-appointed administrators. Judicial approval of such deals is a standard part of bankruptcy and receivership proceedings, not evidence of collusion.

Alex Jones and the losing bidder (First United American Companies) made several allegations [^9][^11]:

• Claimed the auction was "rigged" and involved "illegal collusion"
• Alleged the trustee improperly canceled live bidding
• Filed a countersuit against the trustee, Global Tetrahedron, and Sandy Hook families

However:

• The trustee and The Onion denied all allegations [^4]
• The trustee accused Jones of launching a "smear campaign" because he didn't like the outcome [^4]
• When Judge Lopez rejected the sale in December 2024, it was due to procedural concerns and value issues — not because he found evidence of collusion [^3]

The claim of a "deal with the judge" misrepresents standard legal proceedings. The Onion is negotiating with court-appointed administrators through proper channels, and any agreement requires judicial approval — which is normal procedure, not evidence of impropriety. The original sale was rejected by a judge who found the process flawed, not because of proven collusion. The current deal still awaits approval at an April 30 hearing.

[^1]: The Onion reaches new deal to take over Alex Jones’ Infowars | CNN Business (26%) [^2]: The Onion plans to lease Alex Jones’s Infowars after judge blocks ... (19%) [^3]: Judge rejects The Onion's bid for Infowars : NPR (13%) [^4]: The Onion's bid for Alex Jones' Infowars hangs in the balance as... (11%) [^5]: The Onion’s Bid to Buy Infowars Is Rejected in Court – Mother Jones (6%) [^6]: US judge rejects The Onion’s purchase of Alex Jones’s Infowars (5%) [^7]: Infowars Sale to The Onion Rejected by Federal Bankruptcy Judge... (5%) [^8]: The Onion has won the bid for Infowars’ assets | CNN Business (4%) [^9]: Onion Bid for Alex Jones' Infowars on Hold Pending New Court... (3%) [^10]: New hearing ordered on The Onion's bid for Alex Jones' Infowars (3%) [^11]: Judge rejects sale of Alex Jones’ Infowars to The Onion - POLITICO (3%) [^12]: Was the Infowars auction fair? Hearing is set for December : NPR (2%)