Lawfare establishes new form of slavery

Involuntary servitude was limited with the ratification of the 13^th Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

By stealth over decades, a compromised judicial system laid the foundation for ever-increasing punitive damages to be imposed on corporations through civil actions by claimants.

Defamation may be emotionally or economically harmful

The concept of awarding restitution for physical harm inflicted by proven purposeful action of individuals or corporate entities has ballooned into penalizing average citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights.

It’s gone even farther than that when prosecutors make it their job to fund governmental agencies by inventing crimes in order to extort individuals for the same reason. Where else do the millions and billions of dollars levied as fees and damages go in state sponsored legal action? Government slush funds. The real criminality is in government exacting its “pound of flesh” from wealthy entrepreneurs who don’t use state sanctioned speech.

Criminal activity by individuals and corporate entities is defined by the release and application of products and procedures (as in medical, agricultural, recreational, etc.) that have been proven to cause physical harm to individuals and their property.

Defamation may be emotionally or economically harmful, but it requires a much higher standard of proving provocation and effect that has been ignored by politically motivated courts and counsel. Lawfare is more than an identifier of legal pressure tactics, it’s a plan of attack levied against any whom administrative agencies and their proxies deem a threat to their policies and power.

Amount of damages have grown exponentially with the intent of completely subjugating the accused

For this reason, the list of targets has widened from publicly recognized individuals like Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Alex Jones and sundry other conservatives, to include private citizens conscientiously praying on the sidewalks, and, during unconstitutional Covid lockdowns, in their own churches.

As the attacks have escalated, the amount of damages have grown exponentially with the intent of completely subjugating the accused. In so doing, the judiciary has endorsed involuntary servitude and economic slavery to the claimant.

When criminal guilt has not been proven – that means no clear charges were brought or correctly adjudicated in a criminal case against the accused – there is no constitutional basis to penalize a losing party in a civil case with a lifetime’s worth of financial indenture.

Read the 13^th Amendment again. There must be a criminal charge (not an illegally concocted facsimile, or hearsay ‘he said, she said’ case) for which the accused must have been convicted. Criminal conviction may lead to incarceration, i.e. involuntary servitude, but there is another application of ‘involuntary servitude’ that is being instituted.

Whether or not a judge or jury in a case despises the defendant (why jurors are supposedly not seated for bias), an actual crime must be proven in order to strip that individual of their current wealth and, as is being seen, virtually all their future earnings to placate someone’s bruised ego, sanction improper assessment of facts, or reward false witness.

Legal counsel can “judge shop” to locate a court and jurist that is sympathetic to their client’s claim 

It’s gotten to the point where legal counsel can “judge shop” to locate a court and jurist that is sympathetic to their client’s claim or cause, whether it’s a government official (as in AG Letitia James), uncorroborated accuser (E. Jean Carroll), or a couple of poll workers caught on video counting fraudulent ballots. These examples are politically motivated lawsuits incurred to cripple and silence the accused, in which none of these cases were any convictions rendered in an appropriate criminal proceeding.

Trump and Giuliani are victims of judicial misconduct in purposeful attempts to make them slaves to the State of New York and an individual in the first instance, and, in the second, to a pair of women inaccurately claiming defamation. Also, in these cases, there was reliable evidence that the defendants were being wholly truthful, which is the one defense that holds weight in court, and that Giuliani was denied the ability to present, while it was ignored in the Trump cases.

The same is true for the $1.5 billion dollar judgment against Alex Jones for expressing an opinion about the Sandy Hook shooting, which he later retracted. As much as the parents have truly suffered from the loss of their children in the tragic shooting, there was no criminal act for which Jones was legally convicted. Yes, his words caused them emotional pain, but he made no claim against them of “committing a crime or accusing [them] of a corrupt act.” Nor did he express his initial opinion with intended malice toward the parents. (Cornell Law)

Giuliani, Trump and Jones, each of them were denied a defense…

As in the cases of Giuliani, Trump and Jones, each of them were denied a defense…

“Complete Defenses

Truth is widely accepted as a complete defense to all defamation claims.

An absolute privilege is also a complete defense to a defamation claim. Among other examples, this includes statements made by witnesses during a judicial proceedings.(sic)

Qualified Privilege

In the defamation context, a qualified privilege permits someone to make a statement that would typically be considered defamatory, but because of particular circumstances, a particular statement made would not be considered to be defamatory. However, if the statement is made with actual malice, then the speaker will no longer be entitled to the qualified privilege.” (Also Cornell Law)

Jones was in court, June 14, 2024, being forced to liquidate his assets to partially satisfy egregiously inflated damages rendered in an unjust ruling. It may be characterized as ‘unjust’ because the court trampled the rights of the accused, Jones, by not allowing him to offer a defense.

The 13^th Amendment is consistently being flaunted by courts across the nation

Where, then, is the legal standard for stripping Jones of all he’s accumulated over decades, including what he’s likely to earn for the rest of his life? Thus, he becomes an indentured servant, which comes under the umbrella of ‘involuntary servitude’ and is unconstitutional.

“What they have done is conscripted every penny #AlexJones may be able to earn for the rest of his life. Do S.H. parents deserve that for a person's commentary? No one, however much words may hurt them, has the right to make the individual who uttered them into their slave.” --(Source)

The 13^th Amendment is consistently being flaunted by courts across the nation, as are 4^th and 5^th Amendment protections. Whether imprisoning January 6 suspects without trial (Jake Lang and others) or unconstitutionally depriving individuals of their possessions and freedom to provide for themselves and their families without due process, denying the accused a defense, or even a trial, comes under this heading.

Law is being improperly used, abused in actuality, to silence dissention from that of administrative agencies, media, and consenting individuals controlling the narrative. Confiscation of wealth in some of these cases go directly to state coffers, protected individuals, and millions to lobbying non-profits.

Lawfare is subjecting American citizens to financial slavery to individuals and organizations that have not proven their case.