Aazadan t1_j6k79sd wrote on January 30, 2023 at 10:26 PM

Reply to comment by tmoney144 in J&J’s Talc Bankruptcy Case Thrown Out by Appeals Court by L_Cranston_Shadow

I’m trying to figure out which of the two is the plausible one. That corporate fraud is in the customers interest or that sovereign citizens are maybe on to something.

Normally I would solve this via proof by contradiction but they’re both out there.

tmoney144 t1_j6k8uu5 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 10:36 PM

If you honestly think "sovereign citizens are maybe on to something," I would encourage you to seek help before you hurt yourself or someone you care about.

Aazadan t1_j6k93k0 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 10:38 PM

Where did I say I thought that? I said they’re both crazy theories, to the point I’m not sure how you’re coming up with either being plausible.

tmoney144 t1_j6kbcdl wrote on January 30, 2023 at 10:52 PM

Do you know much about bankruptcy law? What J&J are trying to do is only really shitty because they tried to pull it like 2 months before trial after wasting a bunch of time in discovery. If they had pulled this when they first started getting sued, it probably would have been fine (maybe, after lookinginto it, I feel like they should have to put the whole companyin BK if that'sthe route they want to take). I think a big thing people are missing is that bankruptcy doesn't mean they don't have to pay. They created a shell company, but creating that company came with a promise to pay the liability once it works its way through the courts. They don't just get to skate on the claims by filing for bankruptcy. Here's a better discussion if you're actually interested: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/20/the-texas-two-step-a-new-bankruptcy-strategy-to-avoid-corporate-liability

Again, the 2 situations are not at all the same. What J&J tried had a real basis in law. Sovereign Citizens are lunatics.

PushinPickle t1_j6l7lqj wrote on January 31, 2023 at 2:45 AM

Having come across a few sovereign citizens, I’d wager all if not most are mentally ill.

Aazadan t1_j6mnq84 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 12:29 PM

Do I know much about bankruptcy law? Not really.

What I do know though, is companies use this strategy, as mentioned before, to escape liability and pay less. That means the victims of their fraud aren't properly compensated. Meaning, that tactic is a system designed to say corporate fraud needs to be protected.

There is no other reason to split off an entity to pay for it other than to limit assets/liability.