- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:32 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:32 pm to David_DJS
quote:
If you want to curb it, penalize the attorneys willing to take nonsense cases to the court.
The nonsense part is the issue though. That goes back to the legitimacy that I made in a future post.
Take one that's concluded. Rudy admitted to defaming those workers and never produced his evidence. He was found liable. Was that legitimate? Nonsense?!
If it's legitimate, which it seems to be, can it be lawfare?
2
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The nonsense part is the issue though.
Of course. Maybe the courts handle it the way prosecutors do. Make a few huge examples out of attorneys that did nothing many others didn't do in order to "send a message."
Everybody has to deal with the courts system being such an area of shades of gray. Attorneys can be expected to deal with that, too.
Whether it's suing a rival for patent infringement just to learn more about their technology (knowing you have no infringement case) or keeping a presidential candidate too busy to campaign, courts are too easily used/played for reasons not about actual law.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 5:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Of course something can be legitimate and still lawfare.
If it's legitimate, which it seems to be, can it be lawfare?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News