Villagers protest cement project ahead of Hurungwe Council meeting

MAGUNJE

Villagers
in
Hurungwe
district
are
raising
alarm
over
a
Chinese-owned
cement
project
they
allege
has
proceeded
through
illegal
means,
threatening
their
homes,
livelihoods,
and
the
local
environment.

The
Hurungwe
Rural
District
Council
(HRDC)
has
called
for
an
inception
meeting
on
Wednesday,
11
December,
to
introduce
WHI-ZIM
Construction
Material
Investments
Pvt
Ltd
project,
but
critics
claim
the
process
is
marred
by
corruption
and
disregard
for
due
process.

WHI-ZIM,
a
joint
venture
between
Lebanmon
Investments
and
West
International
Holding,
has
promised
to
invest
US$1
billion
in
Mashonaland
West’s
cement
industry,
and
further
promised
to
create
5,000
jobs
and
boost
foreign
currency
earnings.

However,
villagers
from
Chasara
and
Kapere
say
the
project
comes
at
a
steep
cost,
with
over
80
families
facing
displacement.


Elderly
residents,
including
a
partially
blind
woman
in
her
70s,
have
been
particularly
affected.
Vegetable
gardens
were
burnt
down,
fields
cordoned
off,
and
three
women,
two
of
whom
are
over
70,
were
apprehended
and
charged
with
malicious
damage
to
property
for
allegedly
unlawfully
entering
their
fields.

The
matter
remains
before
the
courts.
Additional
arrests
followed,
with
others
accused
of
disturbing
the
peace
and
aiding
alleged
invaders.

Despite
the
promises
of
economic
transformation,
the
villagers
argue
that
the
human
toll
has
been
devastating.

Residents
accuse
company
representatives,
accompanied
by
armed
police,
of
forcibly
depositing
construction
materials
on
communal
land
without
legal
permits
or
occupancy
certificates.

They
are
also
furious
at
Chief
Chanetsa
of
Hurungwe
who
endorsed
the
construction
of
a
cement
and
power
station
plant
on
135
hectares
of
land
at
Katenhe
Turn-Off,
Ward
11,
Magunje
Constituency.

In
a
letter
to
the
HRDC,
Chief
Chanetsa
said
the
project,
spearheaded
by
Labenmon
Investments,
promises
significant
community
benefits,
including
the
construction
of
six
classroom
blocks,
two
clinics,
10
solar-powered
boreholes,
and
a
45km
concrete
road.

“If
there
is
any
field
affected
within
these
135
hectares,
we
have
agreed
with
the
company
that
it
shall
fully
compensate
the
affected
area,”
Chief
Chanetsa
wrote.

“In
my
capacity
as
the
Chief
responsible
for
the
area
of
the
proposed
cement
and
power
station
plant…I
have
no
objection
to
such
a
big
project
which
will
contribute
more
to
the
vision
of
My
President.”

He
spoke
even
as
the
cement
plant,
located
less
than
1.4
kilometers
upstream
of
Magunje
Dam,
has
raised
concerns
among
environmentalists.
The
dam,
the
district’s
primary
water
source,
sustains
agriculture
and
local
ecosystems.
Critics
warn
that
emissions
and
pollutants
could
contaminate
the
dam,
causing
irreversible
damage.

Villagers
also
allege
irregularities
in
the
project’s
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
(EIA).
Approved
under
EMA
Certificate
No.
10000034346,
the
EIA
lists
conditions,
including
the
protection
of
Kamreza
Dam
and
compliance
with
environmental
laws.

Local
residents
say
the
assessment
failed
to
address
critical
risks,
such
as
air
and
water
pollution.
Consultations
were
reportedly
held
120
kilometers
away
in
Chinhoyi,
with
findings
never
shared
locally.

“The
corruption
here
is
blatant.
People
are
being
forced
off
their
land
while
officials
look
the
other
way,”
said
a
community
activist
who
requested
anonymity
fearing
reprisals.

Insiders
revealed
that
WHI-ZIM
began
fencing
off
communal
land
in
July
2024,
despite
lacking
an
occupancy
certificate,
leaving
families
landless
ahead
of
the
farming
season
and
depriving
livestock
of
grazing
areas.
Seasonal
gardens
and
vital
resources
were
also
destroyed
during
the
fencing
off
period,
disrupting
livelihoods,
villagers
said,
adding
that
the
fenced
area
is
now
a
no-go-area.

The
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
(EIA)
certificate
issued
by
the
Environmental
Management
Agency
(EMA)
explicitly
requires
that
no
project
activities
proceed
until
all
affected
individuals
are
compensated
and
relocated,
as
outlined
in
its
special
conditions.

The
EIA
seen
by
Kukurigo
also
requires
compliance
with
air
pollution
laws,
and
the
installation
of
emissions
monitoring
systems.
It
is
not
clear
if
this
has
been
put
in
place
as
noncompliance
could
result
in
the
cancellation
of
the
EIA
certificate
under
Section
104
of
the
Environmental
Management
Act.

“Compensation
and
relocation
of
all
the
affected
households
should
be
done
and
finalized
before
any
commencement
of
works,”
the
EIA
states.

However,
villagers
claim
there
has
been
no
communication
regarding
relocation
or
compensation.

Multiple
complaints
have
been
sent
to
EMA,
the
Zimbabwe
Anti-Corruption
Commission
(ZACC),
and
the
Ministry
of
Local
Government,
among
others,
but
residents
say
they
have
received
no
responses
since
May
2024.

The
HRDC’s
last-minute
meeting
invitation
has
only
deepened
mistrust.

“Why
involve
us
now,
after
the
project
is
already
underway?
And
in
any
case
we
are
being
arrested
if
we
go
into
our
gardens.
This
seems
like
a
way
to
legitimize
decisions
made
in
secret,”
said
a
resident.

Villagers
are
demanding
transparency,
a
halt
to
the
project,
and
meaningful
consultations
before
further
action
is
taken.

“Our
only
hope
now
is
the
President,”
said
one
villager,
expressing
frustration
over
inaction
from
authorities.

Govt urged to prioritise NatPharm in budget allocation

NatPharm
is
a
parastatal
under
the
Ministry
of
Health
and
Child
Care
(MoHCC)which
is
involved
in
procurement,
warehousing
and
distribution
of
medicines
and
medical
supplies.

The
health
sector
was
allocated
ZiG28.3
billion,
which
is
equivalent
to
US$785.9
million.
The
amount
is
11.8
percent
of
the
total
budget,
a
slight
increase
from
the
previous
year’s
allocation
which
was
11
percent.

However,
according
to
the
Abuja
Declaration,
the
government
must
allocate
at
least
15
percent
of
its
total
budget
to
the
health
sector.

Luveve-Makhandeni
constituency
MP,
Discent
Bajila,
who
sits
on
the
health
committee,
said
the
sector
needs
at
least
17
million
to
buy
adequate
medicines.

“The
first
thing
that
the
Finance
Minister
must
do
is
to
disburse
the
Health
Budget
fully.
Allocating
resources
only
to
refuse
to
disburse
them
is
an
act
of
grandstanding
and
sabotage.
Sabotaging
healthcare
is
genocide.
Secondly,
more
focus
should
be
in
capacitating
NATPHARM
to
meet
the
country’s
monthly
needs
for
medicines,”said
Bajila.

“SIRDC
also
needs
to
be
capacitated
to
conduct
health
research
using
local
Contemporary
samples.
Lastly,
access
to
sexual
and
reproductive
health
services
needs
lots
of
attention
for
Zimbabwe
to
make
its
contribution
to
the
elimination
of
HIV/AIDS.”

The
Zimbabwe
Coalition
on
Debt
and
Development
(ZIMCODD)
noted
that
the
resources
earmarked
for
health
are
not
sufficient
to
finance
the
attainment
of
the
policy
goals
and
objectives
stated
in
the
National
Health
Strategy
(NHS)
(2021

2025),
as
outlined
in
the
Investment
Case
for
the
NHS
(2021-2025).

“The
allocation
falls
short
of
the
bare
minimum
of
earmarking
at
least
15%
of
the
budget
to
health
as
agreed
under
the
Abuja
Declaration.
The
2025
National
Budget
will
be
unable
to
fund
the
country’s
monthly
requirements
for
medicines.
Our
people
will
continue
to
rely
on
hope
and
religion
for
their
healing
needs,”
ZIMCODD
stated.

At the Third TLTF Summit, Legal Tech Leaders Convened in Miami for Three Days of Dialogue and Serendipity

If
there
is
a
single
“it”
conference
right
now
in
legal
tech,
it
is
the

TLTF
Summit
.
Last
week
was
the
third
annual
occurrence
of
this
invite-only
event,
and
while
organizers
accepted
500
registrants

up
from
150
the
first
year

it
left
another
1,000
hopefuls
sitting
on
a
waiting
list.

I
guess
I
was
right
when,
after
the
first
year,
I
predicted
that
when
registrations
opened
for
the
second
year,
“it
will
likely
be
the
legal
tech
equivalent
of
a
Taylor
Swift
ticket.”

For
those
who
did
score
an
invite,
it
was
well
worth
their
time

and
not
just
for
the
opportunity
to
visit
Miami
in
December.
 Every
attendee
that
I
had
the
chance
to
speak
to
described
this
event,
without
reservation,
as
the
best
legal
tech
conference
they’d
been
to.
Not
the
best
legal
tech
conference
this
year,
mind
you,
but
the
best

ever
.

If
“renewal
rate”
is
any
indication,
consider
that
of
the
150
who
attended
the
first
year,
108
have
attended
each
subsequent
year.
(Me
among
them.)
Some
additional
number
of
those
first-year
attendees
have
attended
at
least
one
additional
year.



Legal
futurist
Richard
Susskind
was
featured
in
a
fireside
chat.

In
fact,
being
a
three-peat
was
a
badge
of
honor
at
the
conference

quite
literally

in
that
the
name
badges
showed
the
years
the
person
had
attended.

After
the
first
TLTF
Summit,
I
described
it
as

the
Davos
of
legal
tech
,
in
that
it
brought
together
leaders
from
across
disciplines
to
engage
in
open
and
unfettered
dialogue
about
the
state
and
future
of
legal
innovation.

To
encourage
dialogue
(and
networking),
the
summit
operates
under
the

Chatham
House
Rule
,
by
which
participants
are
free
to
use
the
information
they
receive,
but
not
reveal
the
identify
or
affiliation
of
any
speaker
or
participant.



Miami
Mayor
Francis
Suarez
was
on
hand
to
welcome
attendees
to
the
opening
night
reception.

Also
helping
to
foster
dialogue
is
the
summit’s
intimacy.
With
just
150
participants
the
first
year
and
300
last
year,
some
worried
that
this
year’s
jump
to
500
would
stifle
that
sense
of
intimacy.
Thankfully,
it
did
not.

In
fact,
this
year’s
summit
was
everything
it
had
been
in
those
prior
two
years,
and
maybe
more.
Among
those
who
attended
for
the
first
time
this
year,
the
only
regret
I
heard
was
that
they
hadn’t
attended
the
prior
two.


Thought
Leaders
At
the
Forefront

By
way
of
background,
the
TLTF
Summit
is
produced
by
 The
LegalTech
Fund
,
the
first
venture
capital
firm
to
focus
exclusively
on
legal
tech.
The
goal
of
the
summit
is
to
bring
together
“the
most
innovative
thought-leaders
at
the
forefront
of
the
legal
industry.”

It
featured
three
days
of
programming
along
seven
tracks:
general,
law
firm,
ALSP,
GC/legal
ops,
compliance,
fintech
and
consumer.
There
were
16
panels,
seven
roundtables,
four
education
sessions,
and
four
fireside
chats.



Discussing
how
legal
AI
startups
compete
against
AI
giants
were
Nikki
Shaver,
CEO
of
Legaltech
Hub;
Pablo
Arredondo,
vice
president,
CoCounsel,
Thomson
Reuters;
Steve
Gong,
corporate
counsel,
head
of
data
science
&
operations,
Google;
and
Julian
Tsisin,
director
legal
and
compliance
technology,
Meta.

Interspersed
through
the
three
days
was
the
Startup
Showcase,
where
pre-seed
through
Series
A
companies,
selected
by
a
panel
of
judges,
took
to
the
stage
and
presented
their
pitches.
Twenty-four
companies
presented,
out
of
200
applicants.
Five
were
selected
by
attendees
to
present
as
finalists
on
the
last
day
of
the
summit.

(The
five
that
attendees
voted
to
be
finalists
were:

Rasa
,

Boltive
,

Trustie
,

Skribe

and

Neur.on
.)


Engagement
and
Serendipity

If
you
have
read
this
far,
no
doubt
you
are
wondering
just
what
it
is
that
makes
this
conference
so
special.
As
someone
who
has
attended
more
than
my
fair
share
of
legal
tech
conferences
over
the
years,
I
have
come
to
understand
that
the
qualities
that
separate
a
great
conference
from
a
mediocre
or
poor
one
are
largely
intangible
and
therefore
difficult
to
define.
But
let
me
try.

Without
question,
the
defining
trait
of
this
summit
is
its
atmosphere
of
engagement,
discovery
and
serendipity.



On
the
startup
showcase
stage,
Karl
Seelbach,
founder
of
Skribe.ai,
delivers
his
pitch.

At
the
opening
of
last
year’s
summit,
organizer Zach
Posner
,
cofounder
and
managing
director
of
The
LegalTech
Fund,
urged
attendees
to
“skip
a
session,
skip
every
single
session,”
and
instead,
“Take
a
walk
with
somebody.”
Conjuring
a
concept conceived
by
business
author
Jim
Collins
,
Posner
said,
“Our
goal
is
to
make
‘who
luck’
happen.”

I
do
not
know
whether
he
again
invoked
“who
luck”
this
year,
as
I
arrived
late
to
his
opening
keynote,
but
regardless,
it
was
available
in
abundance.
As
noted,
the
conference
operates
under
the
Chatham
House
Rule,
and
attendees
are
encouraged
to
talk
often
and
openly
with
one
another

even
better
if
the
talk
is
with
a
stranger.

To
underscore
this,
attendees
this
year
were
given
bingo
cards
with
which
they
could
win
prizes
by
identifying
people
who,
for
example,
owned
a
working
farm
or
had
been
in
legal
tech
since
the
1980s.
The
hallways
were
constantly
full
of
people
sitting
and
standing
in
pairs
or
groups,
engaged
in
animated
conversation,
and
a
large
room
was
set
up
as
an
all-day
coffee
shop
with
tables
and
even
live
music.

This
isn’t
networking
in
the
traditional
sense
of
exchanging
business
cards
and
elevator
pitches.
Instead,
it’s
an
intentional
cultivation
of
serendipitous
connections.


Unique
Mix
of
Participants

Of
course,
encouraging
conversation
would
be
fruitless
if
there
were
no
one
interesting
with
whom
to
converse.

After
the
conference
was
over,
one
participant

a
veteran
of
many
legal
tech
conferences

told
me
that
what
most
impressed
him
was
how
smart
the
attendees
were.
That
might
sound
pretentious,
but
it
is
probably
also
factually
accurate.
The
people
who
attend
this
conference
are
the
cream
of
the
crop
of
those
who
are
thinking
about
and
working
on
the
future
of
legal
practice
and
legal
technology.



Cartoonists
captured
the
key
points
of
each
session.

Driving
that
is
the
summit’s
unique
mix
of
attendees.
The
summit
somehow
manages
to
draw
a
mix
of
people
unlike
what
I
see
at
any
other
legal
tech
conference.
There
are
veteran
founders
and
big-name
CEOs.
There
are
fledgling
startups
and
late-stage
enterprises.
There
are
law
firm
innovation
leaders
and
corporate
operations
professionals.
There
are
practicing
lawyers
and
legal
academics.
There
are
people
from
the
public
sector
and
people
from
“legal
tech
adjacent”
consultancies
and
service
providers.

Most
significantly,
at
least
to
my
mind,
there
are
investors
from
major
venture
capital
and
financial
firms,
who
are
open
and
active
participants.
This
is
unlike
at
other
conferences,
where,
if
they
attend
at
all,
they
tend
to
lurk
in
the
shadows,
prospecting
in
stealth
mode.

At
the
TLTF
Summit,
a
late-stage
enterprise
CEO
might
find
herself
in
deep
conversation
with
a
pre-seed
startup
founder.
A
criminal
defense
lawyer
could
be
discussing
artificial
intelligence
with
a
venture
capitalist.
Or
maybe
all
four
of
those
people
are
sitting
together
over
a
cocktail
in
the
balmy
twilight.


Sales-Free
Zone

In
virtually
every
conversation
I
had,
I
asked
people
what
they
thought
of
the
summit.
As
I
already
reported
above,
to
a
one
they
said
that
it
was
the
best
legal
tech
conference
they
had
attended.
Every
time
they
said
that,
my
next
question
was,
“Why?”

Two
answers
came
back
to
me
over
and
over
again.

One
was
what
I
have
already
described,
which
is
the
diverse
mix
of
attendees,
all
thought
leaders
in
their
respective
fields.

The
second
was
the
freedom
from
sales.
Remarkably
at
the
summit,
no
one
was
selling
anything.
There
were
no
exhibit
booths.
Elevators
did
not
blast
advertising.
Vendors’
branding
did
not
cover
every
surface.



Meals
were
served
with
an
ocean
view.

From
what
I
heard,
this
was
liberating
for
both
vendors
and
others.
Of
the
people
I
spoke
to
who
work
for
legal
tech
companies,
most
of
whom
were
top
executives
of
those
companies,
their
shared
refrain
was
how
freeing
it
felt
to
be
at
a
conference
where
they
did
not
have
to
be
constantly
selling.
By
the
same
token,
the
lawyers
and
other
professionals
I
spoke
to
expressed
how
relieved
they
were
to
not
constantly
be
the
target
of
sales
pitches.

No
one
comes
to
the
summit
to
make
sales
(at
least
not
directly).
People
are
there
to
learn
and
share
and
collaborate
and
maybe
expand
their
perspectives
and
horizons.
And,
honestly,
that
simple
fact
created
an
air
of
lightness
at
the
summit
that
was
buoying.


But
Deals
Do
Get
Done

To
be
clear,
while
no
one
at
the
summit
was
there
to
sell
products,
there
were
deals
getting
done.
Investments
were
getting
discussed.
Acquisitions
were
getting
germinated.
Jobs
were
getting
offered.
Things
happen
at
this
conference,
make
no
mistake
about
that,
but
they
happen
discretely.

In
fact,
Posner,
in
his
keynote,
gave
some
numbers
about
deals
from
the
prior
years’
summits

at
least
the
deals
he
knows
of.
As
a
result
of
the
2022
and
2023
summits,
there
were:

  • 18
    rounds
    of
    funding.
  • 3
    M&A
    events.
  • 20
    job
    changes.
  • 30
    bizdev
    relationships.

Only
time
will
tell
what
emerges
from
this
year.



Between
meals,
snacks
were
abundant.


Other
Standout
Features

While
those
are
some
of
the
intangibles
that
make
this
summit
great,
there
were
also
a
number
of
tangible
factors:

  • Top-notch
    programming
    and
    speakers.
    Look,
    for
    the
    reasons
    I’ve
    already
    discussed,
    if
    you
    never
    went
    to
    a
    single
    panel
    during
    the
    conference,
    you
    are
    forgiven.
    But
    the
    panels
    provided
    plenty
    of
    incentive
    to
    break
    away
    from
    all
    those
    hallway
    conversations
    and
    learn
    from
    experts.
    Particularly
    thought
    provoking
    were
    the
    four
    fireside
    chats
    that
    punctuated
    the
    summit,
    featuring
    conversations
    with
    U.S.
    Sen.
    John
    Hickenlooper
    (D-CO),
    Carta
    CEO
    Henry
    Ward,
    criminal
    defense
    lawyers
    Alan
    Dershowitz
    and
    Alex
    Spiro,
    and
    legal
    futurist
    Richard
    Susskind.
  • Picture-perfect
    venue.
    Four
    words:
    Ritz
    Carlton
    Key
    Biscayne.
    Need
    I
    say
    more?
  • Good
    and
    seemingly
    limitless
    food.
    The
    conference
    served
    breakfast,
    lunch
    and
    dinner,
    all
    of
    which
    were
    tasty
    and
    included
    vegetarian
    and
    gluten-free
    options.
    In
    between
    meals
    were
    various
    arrays
    of
    snacks
    and
    sweets.
    Most
    meals
    could
    be
    taken
    outside
    or
    inside,
    and
    the
    second
    day’s
    breakfast
    was
    broken
    up
    by
    interest
    groups.
  • No
    legal
    tech
    conference
    does
    swag
    like
    the
    TLTF
    Summit.
    At
    a
    designated
    hour,
    it
    threw
    open
    the
    doors
    to
    a
    swag
    room

    or
    what
    you
    might
    have
    thought
    was
    a
    gold
    rush

    as
    an
    onslaught
    of
    attendees
    filled
    swag
    bags
    with
    hoodies
    and
    t-shirts
    and
    hats
    and
    socks
    and
    sandals
    and
    all
    sorts
    of
    other
    paraphernalia.
    It
    was
    an
    embarrassment
    of
    riches
    that
    to
    some
    seemed
    over
    the
    top,
    even
    as
    they
    rifled
    around
    for
    a
    size
    L
    hoodie.


Did
I
Just
Say
‘Chill’?

On
the
last
day
of
the
conference,
several
people
asked
me
what
my
big
takeaway
was
or
what
I
saw
as
the
big
theme.
Sure,
everyone
was
talking
about
gen
AI,
just
as
they
do
at
every
other
conference.
But
that
wasn’t
the
takeaway.



The
swag
room
was
an
embarrassment
of
riches.

If
I
haven’t
by
now
already
made
it
clear,
for
me,
the
theme
was
the
value
of
networking,
and
of
networking
beyond
your
comfort
zone

of
letting
serendipity
happen,
“who
luck”
happen.
I
met
so
many
new
people
this
week,
and
so
many
of
the
conversations
I
had
with
those
people
were
not
just
conference
chitter-chatter,
but
substantive
and
thoughtful
and
even
challenging
interactions.

A
unique
feature
of
this
conference
over
others
I’ve
attended
was
that
everyone
seemed
to
feel
free
and
relaxed
and
unburdened
and
open.
No
one
was
too
big
or
important
to
approach,
or
too
unapproachable
because
they
were
surrounded
by
their
people.
Everyone
was
on
equal
footing,
and
everyone
engaged
as
co-equal
peers.

People
often
refer
to
conferences
as
“shows,”
and
maybe
that
is
partly
because
we
are
all
expected
to
perform
when
we
attend
them,
to
be
“on”
and
play
our
designated
role.

Here,
the
pretense
seemed
to
melt
away.
I
found
myself
several
times
describing
the
conference
as
“chill”

which
is,
trust
me,
not
a
word
I
often
use,
and
certainly
not
to
describe
a
legal
tech
conference.
People
seemed
to
relax
and
let
down
their
guards
and
thereby
open
themselves
to
truly
engaging
with
one
another.

I
am
leaving
the
TLTF
Summit
energized,
enthusiastic,
and
grateful
for
all
the
“who
luck”
that
happened
for
me
there.
And,
of
course,
I
am
already
looking
forward
to
next
year’s
summit

provided
I
can
score
one
of
those
coveted
invites.

Timely Lessons From A Contingent Risk Insurance Conference – Above the Law

Last
year,
I
had
the
good
fortune
to
be
invited
to
attend
the
first
Contingent
Risk
Insurance
Conference
hosted
by
a
leading
insurance
brokerage,

CAC
Group,

at
one
of
Washington,
D.C.’s
more
historic
addresses,
the
Mayflower
Hotel.
I
shared
some

takeaways

of
consequence
for
IP
litigators
on
these
pages
following
the
event,
including
an
exhortation
to
this
readership
to
“continue
to
look
at
how
litigation
finance
and
insurance
can
independently
and
collectively
support
their
practices
and
the
aims
of
their
clients.”
That
advice
remains
just
as
relevant
and
timely
now
as
it
was
last
year,
even
as
the
insurance
market
is
very
upfront
about
some
of
the
challenges
it
faced
in
the
past
year,
particularly
with
respect
to
its
most
popular
product
to
date,
judgment
preservation
insurance
(JPI)
policies.
Despite
those
challenges,
however,
there
is
a
lot
of
justified
excitement
about
how
insurance
can
be
of
benefit
to
IP
owners
in
particular,
as
the
industry
continues
to
evolve
alongside
litigation
finance
to
expand
the
tools
available
for
IP
owners
ready
and
willing
to
take
on
well-heeled
and
dug-in
infringers.

Eager
to
hear
the
latest
developments,
I
was
excited
to
have
the
opportunity
to
attend
this
year’s
installment,
the
second
annual
CRICON.
As
with
all
invitees,
CAC
was
kind
enough
to
cover
my
room
and
board,
within
the
stately
confines
of
the
Mayflower
once
again.
Just
like
last
year,
the
event
featured
a
notable
keynote
speaker,
former
solicitor
general
and
legendary
appellate
advocate
Paul
Clement,
as
well
as
multiple
panels
stacked
with
a
diverse
set
of
panelists
including
insurance,
litigation
finance,
and
law
firm
practitioners
active
in
the
insurance
markets
for
contingent
risk
today.
Manning
the
till
on
those
panels
were
members
of
CAC’s
own
contingent
risk
team,
which,
in
the
past
year,
has
expanded
commensurate
with
the
growth
of
interest
and
activity
in
the
contingent
risk
insurance
space.
As
you
would
probably
expect,
each
of
the
CAC
moderators
brought
an
in-depth
knowledge
of
both
insurance
and
legal
practice
to
the
respective
discussions,
enhancing
the
quality
of
the
panels
alongside
the
warm
hospitality
shown
to
all
of
the
attendees

a
group
15%
larger
than
at
the
initial
CRICON,
providing
further
evidence
of
the
burgeoning
interest
in
contingent
risk
insurance
products
amongst
the
legal
and
financial
communities.

Packing
a
lot
of
content
into
its
relatively-short
running
time,
CRICON
II
offered
a
lot
to
consider
for
IP
litigators
and
their
clients.
To
start,
it
seems
like
we
are
in
a
“best
of
times,
worst
of
times”
scenario
when
it
comes
to
insurance
options
for
IP
owners.
Let’s
explain.

On
the
one
hand,
the
headwinds
in
the
JPI
markets
are
likely
to
blow
steadily
for
at
least
the
next
few
years
as
insurers
work
through
the
winners
and
losers
of
extant
policyholders.
During
that
period, 
claim
limits
for
JPI
policies
can
be
expected
to
be
lower,
premiums
higher,
and
stricter
due
diligence
the
order
of
the
day
for
prospective
policyholders.
For
IP
owners,
in
particular,
the
federal
circuit’s
perceived
unpredictability

or
even
bias
against
large
judgments

presents
a
specific
challenge
for
patent
holders
fortunate
to
have
secured
a
large
judgment
and
in
the
market
for
a
JPI
policy
to
lock
in
some
of
the
expected
gains.
At
the
same
time,
opportunities
to
secure
a
JPI
policy
are
not
going
away

and
it
is
a
sign
of
a
healthy,
maturing
market
when
the
players
are
able
to
assimilate
lessons
from
the
past
to
help
guide
to
a
healthier
future.
As
just
one
example,
insurers
are
now
keen
to
get
an
understanding
of
the
settlement
history
of
a
dispute
as
part
of
their
JPI
diligence.
For
obvious
reasons,
of
course,
but
this
level
of
attention
is
evidence
of
a
more
expansive
approach
to
diligence
that
will
serve
everyone
in
good
stead
going
forward.

So
much
for
the
“worst
of
times”
bit.
On
the
other
hand,
the
possibilities
for
insurance
products
of
interest
outside
of
JPI
policies
are
as
robust
as
ever.
In
part
because
insurers
are
looking
to
offer
portfolio-based
products
with
a
long
time
to
claim
and
many
opportunities
to
get
off
risk.
Whether
that
is
in
terms
of
a
policy
backed
by
a
contingency
law
firm’s
accrued
work
in
progress,
or
an
IP
owner’s
expected
return
from
enforcement
of
a
given
portfolio,
the
dynamic
nature
of
patent
licensing
and
enforcement
revenue
is
a
good
fit
for
the
market’s
current
appetite.
The
demand
is
there,
so
it
will
be
up
to
IP
owners
and
their
lawyers
to
bring
the
supply
of
good
portfolios
to
the
insurance
markets
to
help
get
deals
done
going
forward.
In
order
to
do
so,
working
with
knowledgeable
and
forward-thinking
brokers
like
the
team
at
CAC
will
be
an
essential
element
of
the
process.

Ultimately,
I,
for
one,
remain
excited
to
see
how
things
unfold
and
am
a
grateful
participant
in
trying
to
move
this
piece
of
our
industry
forward.
That
excitement
was
evident
amongst
other
CRICON
attendees
and
I
think
part
of
the
success
of
this
year’s
conference
was
in
energizing
attendees
to
go
forward
and
help
create
the
success
stories
for
discussion
at
next
year’s
event.
Thanks
again
to
the
good
people
at
CAC
Specialty
for
once
again
putting
on
such
a
productive
and
timely
event
and
I
continue
to
hope
that
this
readership
will
continue
to
look
at
how
litigation
finance
and
insurance
can
independently
and
collectively
support
their
practices
and
the
aims
of
their
clients.
It
will
be
fascinating
to
see
how
the
contingent
risk
market
continues
to
flourish
and
interact
with
the
IP
licensing
and
enforcement
market
in
2025
and
beyond.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]

or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub
.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.




Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of




Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC
,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and 
Markman
Advisors
LLC
,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at 
[email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: 
@gkroub.

Alex Jones’s Lawyer Objects To Entering His Client’s Words Into The Record – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Drew
Angerer/Getty
Images)

The
never-ending
Alex
Jones
bankruptcy
story
continues
this
afternoon
in
a
Texas
courtroom.
As
of
this
writing,
the
shitposter’s
lawyers
are
challenging
Chapter
7
Trustee
Christopher
Murray’s
selection
of
Global
Tetrahedron,
the
parent
company
of
“The
Onion,”
as
the
winning
bidder
of
the
auction
for
Free
Speech
Systems.

As
with
most
Jones
productions,
it’s
a
shitshow.
His
lawyer
spent
several
minutes
objecting
to
the
admission
of
documents
Jones
himself
signed
and
submitted
to
the
court

in
this
case
.
Judge
Christopher
Lopez,
who
has
sounded
exhausted
by
the
Jones
cases
for
more
than
year
(and
he’s
been
at
this
shit
since
April
of
2022),
admitted
them,
but
not
for
the
authenticity
thereof.

Jones
recently
fired
his
longtime
counsel
Vickie
Driver,

replacing
her

with
experienced
bankruptcy
lawyer
Shelby
Jordan.
Jordan
immediately
turned
around
and

sued

Murray,
Global
Tetrahedraon,
and
even
the
Sandy
Hook
parents
themselves.

The

complaint

alleged
gross
malfeasance
by
the
trustee,
attacked
the
underlying
state
court
judgments,
and
insisted
that
the
sale
of
the
IP
assets
was
definitionally
illegal:

Mr.
Jones
has
property
rights
in
the
Jones
IP
Rights,
which
he
brings
this
action
to
both
obtain
a
declaration
of
ownership
of,
and
to
protect
through
injunctive
relief
against
anyone’s
unauthorized
use
thereof,
including
without
limitation,
Alex
Jones’s
unique
and
personal
name,
image,
likeness,
unique
voice,
and/or
other
personal
identifying
attributes
associated
with
Alex
Jones
which
belong
to
him
personally
and
cannot
be
sold.
Among
other
things,
consumers
will
suffer
massive
market
confusion
if
his
personal
rights
are
marketed
by
anyone
other
than
himself.

Jordan
made
clear
that
this
claim
extended
to
cover
the
Infowars
back
catalog
to
include
any
recording
that
included
Jones’s
name,
image,
or
voice.
He
also
filed
an

objection
to
the
sale

repeating
his
scurrilous
allegations
against
Murray.

Within
hours
Murray
docketed
a

blistering
response

noting
that
“The
Debtor
does

not
own

the
assets
the
Trustee
seeks
to
sell
pursuant
to
the
Sale
Motion,
they
are
property
of
FSS
and
his
personal
bankruptcy
estate—which
he
notably
failed
to
include
on
his
sworn
Schedules
notwithstanding
being
given
multiple
opportunities
to
amend.”

Specifically,
on
June
28,
2024,
just
after
he
converted
his
case
from
Chapter
11
to
Chapter
7,
Jones
signed
and
docketed
a

schedule

of
all
his
assets
and
debts.
And

when
asked

to
declare
any
“Patents,
copyrights,
trademarks,
trade
secrets,
and
other
intellectual
property,
Examples:
Internet
domain
names,
websites,
proceeds
from
royalties
and
licensing,”
he
checked
the
box
that
said
“no.”

Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property Examples: Internet domain names, websites, proceeds from royalties and licensing

“It
is
beyond
peradventure
that
Jones
was
required
to
schedule
the
FSS
IP
Assets
if,
as
he
contends,
they
are
his
property—and
indeed,
so
personal
to
him
that
they
cannot
be
owned
by
another,”
Murray
argued,
observing
that
“He
takes
a
different
position
now
in
an
unsworn
pleading
because
it
is
expedient
for
him
to
do
so.
Concealment
of
assets
and
such
gamesmanship
is
strictly
prohibited
under
the
Bankruptcy
Code
and
related
laws.”

And
that
schedule is
the
document
Jordan
objected
to
entering
into
evidence
at
this
afternoon’s
hearing
during
Murray’s
direct
examination
on
the
topic
of
how
he
structured
the
assets
for
the
sale.

Incidentally,
Murray
testified
that
The
Onion
agreed
to
take
Alex
Jones’s
personal
handles
out
of
the
auction
so
they
could
stop
wasting
time
on
this
dumb
issue.
And
the
lawyers
for
Ex-Twitter
said
yesterday
that
the
dispute
over
the
sale
of
the
personal
social
media
handles
had
been
resolved
by
stipulation
(dashing
the
hopes
of
the
Infowars
fans
who
had
been
led
to
believe
that
Elon
Musk
was
going
to
ride
to
the
rescue).

This
evening,
Jordan
will
get
to
yell
at
Murray
for
a
couple
hours
on
cross.
And
then


god
willin’
and
the
crick
don’t
rise!


this
nonsense
will
be
over.
Drink!


Alexander
E.
Jones
and
Official
Committee
Of
Unsecured
Creditors 
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Alex Jones’s Lawyer Objects To Entering His Client’s Words Into The Record – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Drew
Angerer/Getty
Images)

The
never-ending
Alex
Jones
bankruptcy
story
continues
this
afternoon
in
a
Texas
courtroom.
As
of
this
writing,
the
shitposter’s
lawyers
are
challenging
Chapter
7
Trustee
Christopher
Murray’s
selection
of
Global
Tetrahedron,
the
parent
company
of
“The
Onion,”
as
the
winning
bidder
of
the
auction
for
Free
Speech
Systems.

As
with
most
Jones
productions,
it’s
a
shitshow.
His
lawyer
spent
several
minutes
objecting
to
the
admission
of
documents
Jones
himself
signed
and
submitted
to
the
court

in
this
case
.
Judge
Christopher
Lopez,
who
has
sounded
exhausted
by
the
Jones
cases
for
more
than
year
(and
he’s
been
at
this
shit
since
April
of
2022),
admitted
them,
but
not
for
the
authenticity
thereof.

Jones
recently
fired
his
longtime
counsel
Vickie
Driver,

replacing
her

with
experienced
bankruptcy
lawyer
Shelby
Jordan.
Jordan
immediately
turned
around
and

sued

Murray,
Global
Tetrahedraon,
and
even
the
Sandy
Hook
parents
themselves.

The

complaint

alleged
gross
malfeasance
by
the
trustee,
attacked
the
underlying
state
court
judgments,
and
insisted
that
the
sale
of
the
IP
assets
was
definitionally
illegal:

Mr.
Jones
has
property
rights
in
the
Jones
IP
Rights,
which
he
brings
this
action
to
both
obtain
a
declaration
of
ownership
of,
and
to
protect
through
injunctive
relief
against
anyone’s
unauthorized
use
thereof,
including
without
limitation,
Alex
Jones’s
unique
and
personal
name,
image,
likeness,
unique
voice,
and/or
other
personal
identifying
attributes
associated
with
Alex
Jones
which
belong
to
him
personally
and
cannot
be
sold.
Among
other
things,
consumers
will
suffer
massive
market
confusion
if
his
personal
rights
are
marketed
by
anyone
other
than
himself.

Jordan
made
clear
that
this
claim
extended
to
cover
the
Infowars
back
catalog
to
include
any
recording
that
included
Jones’s
name,
image,
or
voice.
He
also
filed
an

objection
to
the
sale

repeating
his
scurrilous
allegations
against
Murray.

Within
hours
Murray
docketed
a

blistering
response

noting
that
“The
Debtor
does

not
own

the
assets
the
Trustee
seeks
to
sell
pursuant
to
the
Sale
Motion,
they
are
property
of
FSS
and
his
personal
bankruptcy
estate—which
he
notably
failed
to
include
on
his
sworn
Schedules
notwithstanding
being
given
multiple
opportunities
to
amend.”

Specifically,
on
June
28,
2024,
just
after
he
converted
his
case
from
Chapter
11
to
Chapter
7,
Jones
signed
and
docketed
a

schedule

of
all
his
assets
and
debts.
And

when
asked

to
declare
any
“Patents,
copyrights,
trademarks,
trade
secrets,
and
other
intellectual
property,
Examples:
Internet
domain
names,
websites,
proceeds
from
royalties
and
licensing,”
he
checked
the
box
that
said
“no.”

Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property Examples: Internet domain names, websites, proceeds from royalties and licensing

“It
is
beyond
peradventure
that
Jones
was
required
to
schedule
the
FSS
IP
Assets
if,
as
he
contends,
they
are
his
property—and
indeed,
so
personal
to
him
that
they
cannot
be
owned
by
another,”
Murray
argued,
observing
that
“He
takes
a
different
position
now
in
an
unsworn
pleading
because
it
is
expedient
for
him
to
do
so.
Concealment
of
assets
and
such
gamesmanship
is
strictly
prohibited
under
the
Bankruptcy
Code
and
related
laws.”

And
that
schedule is
the
document
Jordan
objected
to
entering
into
evidence
at
this
afternoon’s
hearing
during
Murray’s
direct
examination
on
the
topic
of
how
he
structured
the
assets
for
the
sale.

Incidentally,
Murray
testified
that
The
Onion
agreed
to
take
Alex
Jones’s
personal
handles
out
of
the
auction
so
they
could
stop
wasting
time
on
this
dumb
issue.
And
the
lawyers
for
Ex-Twitter
said
yesterday
that
the
dispute
over
the
sale
of
the
personal
social
media
handles
had
been
resolved
by
stipulation
(dashing
the
hopes
of
the
Infowars
fans
who
had
been
led
to
believe
that
Elon
Musk
was
going
to
ride
to
the
rescue).

This
evening,
Jordan
will
get
to
yell
at
Murray
for
a
couple
hours
on
cross.
And
then


god
willin’
and
the
crick
don’t
rise!


this
nonsense
will
be
over.
Drink!


Alexander
E.
Jones
and
Official
Committee
Of
Unsecured
Creditors 
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Alex Jones’s Lawyer Objects To Entering His Client’s Words Into The Record – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Drew
Angerer/Getty
Images)

The
never-ending
Alex
Jones
bankruptcy
story
continues
this
afternoon
in
a
Texas
courtroom.
As
of
this
writing,
the
shitposter’s
lawyers
are
challenging
Chapter
7
Trustee
Christopher
Murray’s
selection
of
Global
Tetrahedron,
the
parent
company
of
“The
Onion,”
as
the
winning
bidder
of
the
auction
for
Free
Speech
Systems.

As
with
most
Jones
productions,
it’s
a
shitshow.
His
lawyer
spent
several
minutes
objecting
to
the
admission
of
documents
Jones
himself
signed
and
submitted
to
the
court

in
this
case
.
Judge
Christopher
Lopez,
who
has
sounded
exhausted
by
the
Jones
cases
for
more
than
year
(and
he’s
been
at
this
shit
since
April
of
2022),
admitted
them,
but
not
for
the
authenticity
thereof.

Jones
recently
fired
his
longtime
counsel
Vickie
Driver,

replacing
her

with
experienced
bankruptcy
lawyer
Shelby
Jordan.
Jordan
immediately
turned
around
and

sued

Murray,
Global
Tetrahedraon,
and
even
the
Sandy
Hook
parents
themselves.

The

complaint

alleged
gross
malfeasance
by
the
trustee,
attacked
the
underlying
state
court
judgments,
and
insisted
that
the
sale
of
the
IP
assets
was
definitionally
illegal:

Mr.
Jones
has
property
rights
in
the
Jones
IP
Rights,
which
he
brings
this
action
to
both
obtain
a
declaration
of
ownership
of,
and
to
protect
through
injunctive
relief
against
anyone’s
unauthorized
use
thereof,
including
without
limitation,
Alex
Jones’s
unique
and
personal
name,
image,
likeness,
unique
voice,
and/or
other
personal
identifying
attributes
associated
with
Alex
Jones
which
belong
to
him
personally
and
cannot
be
sold.
Among
other
things,
consumers
will
suffer
massive
market
confusion
if
his
personal
rights
are
marketed
by
anyone
other
than
himself.

Jordan
made
clear
that
this
claim
extended
to
cover
the
Infowars
back
catalog
to
include
any
recording
that
included
Jones’s
name,
image,
or
voice.
He
also
filed
an

objection
to
the
sale

repeating
his
scurrilous
allegations
against
Murray.

Within
hours
Murray
docketed
a

blistering
response

noting
that
“The
Debtor
does

not
own

the
assets
the
Trustee
seeks
to
sell
pursuant
to
the
Sale
Motion,
they
are
property
of
FSS
and
his
personal
bankruptcy
estate—which
he
notably
failed
to
include
on
his
sworn
Schedules
notwithstanding
being
given
multiple
opportunities
to
amend.”

Specifically,
on
June
28,
2024,
just
after
he
converted
his
case
from
Chapter
11
to
Chapter
7,
Jones
signed
and
docketed
a

schedule

of
all
his
assets
and
debts.
And

when
asked

to
declare
any
“Patents,
copyrights,
trademarks,
trade
secrets,
and
other
intellectual
property,
Examples:
Internet
domain
names,
websites,
proceeds
from
royalties
and
licensing,”
he
checked
the
box
that
said
“no.”

Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property Examples: Internet domain names, websites, proceeds from royalties and licensing

“It
is
beyond
peradventure
that
Jones
was
required
to
schedule
the
FSS
IP
Assets
if,
as
he
contends,
they
are
his
property—and
indeed,
so
personal
to
him
that
they
cannot
be
owned
by
another,”
Murray
argued,
observing
that
“He
takes
a
different
position
now
in
an
unsworn
pleading
because
it
is
expedient
for
him
to
do
so.
Concealment
of
assets
and
such
gamesmanship
is
strictly
prohibited
under
the
Bankruptcy
Code
and
related
laws.”

And
that
schedule is
the
document
Jordan
objected
to
entering
into
evidence
at
this
afternoon’s
hearing
during
Murray’s
direct
examination
on
the
topic
of
how
he
structured
the
assets
for
the
sale.

Incidentally,
Murray
testified
that
The
Onion
agreed
to
take
Alex
Jones’s
personal
handles
out
of
the
auction
so
they
could
stop
wasting
time
on
this
dumb
issue.
And
the
lawyers
for
Ex-Twitter
said
yesterday
that
the
dispute
over
the
sale
of
the
personal
social
media
handles
had
been
resolved
by
stipulation
(dashing
the
hopes
of
the
Infowars
fans
who
had
been
led
to
believe
that
Elon
Musk
was
going
to
ride
to
the
rescue).

This
evening,
Jordan
will
get
to
yell
at
Murray
for
a
couple
hours
on
cross.
And
then


god
willin’
and
the
crick
don’t
rise!


this
nonsense
will
be
over.
Drink!


Alexander
E.
Jones
and
Official
Committee
Of
Unsecured
Creditors 
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Alex Jones’s Lawyer Objects To Entering His Client’s Words Into The Record – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Drew
Angerer/Getty
Images)

The
never-ending
Alex
Jones
bankruptcy
story
continues
this
afternoon
in
a
Texas
courtroom.
As
of
this
writing,
the
shitposter’s
lawyers
are
challenging
Chapter
7
Trustee
Christopher
Murray’s
selection
of
Global
Tetrahedron,
the
parent
company
of
“The
Onion,”
as
the
winning
bidder
of
the
auction
for
Free
Speech
Systems.

As
with
most
Jones
productions,
it’s
a
shitshow.
His
lawyer
spent
several
minutes
objecting
to
the
admission
of
documents
Jones
himself
signed
and
submitted
to
the
court

in
this
case
.
Judge
Christopher
Lopez,
who
has
sounded
exhausted
by
the
Jones
cases
for
more
than
year
(and
he’s
been
at
this
shit
since
April
of
2022),
admitted
them,
but
not
for
the
authenticity
thereof.

Jones
recently
fired
his
longtime
counsel
Vickie
Driver,

replacing
her

with
experienced
bankruptcy
lawyer
Shelby
Jordan.
Jordan
immediately
turned
around
and

sued

Murray,
Global
Tetrahedraon,
and
even
the
Sandy
Hook
parents
themselves.

The

complaint

alleged
gross
malfeasance
by
the
trustee,
attacked
the
underlying
state
court
judgments,
and
insisted
that
the
sale
of
the
IP
assets
was
definitionally
illegal:

Mr.
Jones
has
property
rights
in
the
Jones
IP
Rights,
which
he
brings
this
action
to
both
obtain
a
declaration
of
ownership
of,
and
to
protect
through
injunctive
relief
against
anyone’s
unauthorized
use
thereof,
including
without
limitation,
Alex
Jones’s
unique
and
personal
name,
image,
likeness,
unique
voice,
and/or
other
personal
identifying
attributes
associated
with
Alex
Jones
which
belong
to
him
personally
and
cannot
be
sold.
Among
other
things,
consumers
will
suffer
massive
market
confusion
if
his
personal
rights
are
marketed
by
anyone
other
than
himself.

Jordan
made
clear
that
this
claim
extended
to
cover
the
Infowars
back
catalog
to
include
any
recording
that
included
Jones’s
name,
image,
or
voice.
He
also
filed
an

objection
to
the
sale

repeating
his
scurrilous
allegations
against
Murray.

Within
hours
Murray
docketed
a

blistering
response

noting
that
“The
Debtor
does

not
own

the
assets
the
Trustee
seeks
to
sell
pursuant
to
the
Sale
Motion,
they
are
property
of
FSS
and
his
personal
bankruptcy
estate—which
he
notably
failed
to
include
on
his
sworn
Schedules
notwithstanding
being
given
multiple
opportunities
to
amend.”

Specifically,
on
June
28,
2024,
just
after
he
converted
his
case
from
Chapter
11
to
Chapter
7,
Jones
signed
and
docketed
a

schedule

of
all
his
assets
and
debts.
And

when
asked

to
declare
any
“Patents,
copyrights,
trademarks,
trade
secrets,
and
other
intellectual
property,
Examples:
Internet
domain
names,
websites,
proceeds
from
royalties
and
licensing,”
he
checked
the
box
that
said
“no.”

Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property Examples: Internet domain names, websites, proceeds from royalties and licensing

“It
is
beyond
peradventure
that
Jones
was
required
to
schedule
the
FSS
IP
Assets
if,
as
he
contends,
they
are
his
property—and
indeed,
so
personal
to
him
that
they
cannot
be
owned
by
another,”
Murray
argued,
observing
that
“He
takes
a
different
position
now
in
an
unsworn
pleading
because
it
is
expedient
for
him
to
do
so.
Concealment
of
assets
and
such
gamesmanship
is
strictly
prohibited
under
the
Bankruptcy
Code
and
related
laws.”

And
that
schedule is
the
document
Jordan
objected
to
entering
into
evidence
at
this
afternoon’s
hearing
during
Murray’s
direct
examination
on
the
topic
of
how
he
structured
the
assets
for
the
sale.

Incidentally,
Murray
testified
that
The
Onion
agreed
to
take
Alex
Jones’s
personal
handles
out
of
the
auction
so
they
could
stop
wasting
time
on
this
dumb
issue.
And
the
lawyers
for
Ex-Twitter
said
yesterday
that
the
dispute
over
the
sale
of
the
personal
social
media
handles
had
been
resolved
by
stipulation
(dashing
the
hopes
of
the
Infowars
fans
who
had
been
led
to
believe
that
Elon
Musk
was
going
to
ride
to
the
rescue).

This
evening,
Jordan
will
get
to
yell
at
Murray
for
a
couple
hours
on
cross.
And
then


god
willin’
and
the
crick
don’t
rise!


this
nonsense
will
be
over.
Drink!


Alexander
E.
Jones
and
Official
Committee
Of
Unsecured
Creditors 
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.