In a dramatic turn of events in a case that seems to embody chaos, Alex Jones’s long-time bankruptcy attorney, Vickie Driver, stepped away from his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. This unexpected move has left Jones to navigate his financial troubles under new representation from Shelby Jordan, a seasoned bankruptcy lawyer from Corpus Christi with decades of experience that dates back to the Nixon administration. However, the transition has already sparked a series of bewildering developments that reflect deeper issues in Jones’s beleaguered legal strategy.

Upon taking charge, Jordan wasted no time in launching a lawsuit against a group of parties, including the Sandy Hook parents—a group previously defamed by Jones—and Global Tetrahedron, the parent company of The Onion. This complaint alleges that collusion exists between these entities and Chapter 7 Trustee Christopher Murray, aimed at undermining Jones’s interests while allegedly stealing his intellectual property. Of notable concern is Jordan’s apparent disregard for the Barton doctrine, a legal principle that restricts lawsuits against a bankruptcy trustee without prior court approval.

Jones himself has filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO), asserting that Murray and The Onion engaged in nefarious activities, such as firing employees, stealing assets, and rerouting the company’s website to The Onion’s servers. Adding to the complexities, Jones plans to contest a ruling from October 2023 that deemed most of his debts non-dischargeable due to their origins in defamation—an aggressive willful tort against the Sandy Hook families.

In an escalating saga, First United American Companies LLC (FUAC), a group of Jones’s associates, filed a motion to invalidate The Onion’s bid for Infowars, asserting misconduct by Trustee Murray. This prompted a heated retort from Murray, who threatened to pursue Rule 11 sanctions against FUAC.

During a recent hearing on November 14, Judge Christopher Lopez displayed visible concern over the auction’s structure, suggesting potential disparities favoring certain creditors at the expense of others, even amid The Onion’s lower cash bid. However, after reviewing the latest filings, it appeared that the judge had reached a state of resignation regarding Jones’s antics and the frequent over-dramatizations of his legal team.

Jordan’s lengthy presentation included critiques of the underlying judgments against Jones, invoking the New York Times v. Sullivan standard to argue against the Sandy Hook parents’ standing as bidders—in an assertion that seemed misplaced given the court’s primary focus. Responding to his unfounded claims, Judge Lopez succinctly noted, “We will not be inquiring into the motives of bidders.”

In a rather surreal moment, Jordan attempted to draw links between Jones’s legal defense fund, FightForAlex.com, and a purported cyberattack orchestrated by individuals affiliated with The Onion. While conceding that the Infowars site remained operational and under Jones’s management throughout the week, he appeared increasingly desperate to establish a narrative of victimhood.

As the hearing unfolded, Judge Lopez grew impatient, questioning the rationale behind the TRO request. Ultimately, the judge denied the motion, noting his unwillingness to engage in preemptive measures against the sale and set an evidentiary hearing for early December. He emphasized that motions for reconsideration that arise after a significant delay face substantial hurdles, underscoring the need for concrete evidence over mere insinuation regarding motives.

Amidst this tumult, Jones has attempted to rally support through his media platforms, even alleging an intervention by Elon Musk. However, X Corp. has since clarified its position, stating it does not object to the proposed sale of Jones’s business interests, merely seeking to understand the implications for its ex-Twitter handles.