This is my blog, and since no one reads it anyway, I figure I have a perfect right to write about two unrelated things in one blog post. So, here goes.
As a still licensed, though retired lawyer, I’m interested in the series of lawsuits that have been filed against, Fox, Giuliani, and their ilk by the voting machine companies. During the time I practiced I had only some tangential experience in an actual libel case, but I think I’m up on the law, and it seems to me that these cases are slam dunks from a legal perspective, even if the plaintiffs qualify as “public figures”. There is no question that those spreading these lies knew or should have known that they were untrue, and knew or should have known of the potential harm to those they were libeling.
So, this makes me wonder. If these cases don’t settle, and the plaintiffs win at trial, what will the Supreme Court do if and when the cases reach it? As I’ve noted before, we are now burdened with a deeply dishonest Supreme Court, which may be motivated to give Fox and Friends a get out of jail free card. After all, this sort of lying works best to motivate the right wing base that helped get them their jobs in the first place. Without a license to lie, it’s doubtful that Trump could have won in 2016, and the worst of the worst would not be on the court now. There’s probably no way to rule in favor of the defendants in these cases without rendering the libel laws a dead letter, but the court would want to preserve plausible deniability so far as that outcome is concerned. The trick is to do it in such a way that you leave an opening to stick it to the libs should one of them end up at the defense table in one of these cases. That would take some fancy wordplay, but remember what they pulled off in Bush v. Gore. We’ll see how it all plays out, but in the meantime I would really enjoy watching Dobbs, Giuliani, Baritomo, Pirro, Powell, and their ilk being cross-examined by a competent lawyer.
Okay, so on to the next topic, which at least has a bit of a legal angle to it. It appears that Kyle Rittenhouse, who traveled across state lines to murder BLM protestors, who is out on $2 million dollars bond, has gone to parts unknown. His attorneys know where he is, but they’re not telling, as they’re pretending he’s in danger. This, as I understand it, is a no-no, but then he is a white guy, and it’s not like he wants to vacation in Mexico.
$2 million dollars is a lot of money, but it’s not really that much if not a dime of it is your own. The purpose of bail is to provide an incentive for the defendant to actually appear in court when required. Otherwise, he or she runs the risk of forfeiting whatever amount has been put up as bail, and, in many cases, earn the wrath of a bail bondsman who might make sure you come back. Some states even allow bounty hunting. None of these incentives apply, however, if the money that’s been put up is not your own, and if no one will be in a position to take umbrage if you skip out. That’s precisely the case in Rittenhouse’s case. His bail was raised on line from other right wing whackos, who will never see their money again, in any event, and even if they are supposed to get their money back at some point, none of them will be in a position to do much about it if they don’t. In other words, the prospect of forfeiting bail holds no fear for Rittenhouse.
The solution to this is fairly simple. If on line sites like GoFundMe won’t do it voluntarily, it should simply be made illegal to raise funds for someone’s bail on line. Sitting judges might also condition release on proof that the funds being used as bail are derived either from the defendant’s (or his family’s) personal funds or from a bail bondsman to whom the defendant is personally liable. It is to be hoped that Rittenhouse will rot in jail for a good part of the rest of his life. If he forfeits the bail and is then re-arrested that might be even better, as it would put $2 million dollars into the coffers of the State of Wisconsin and enhance his eventual sentence, assuming his likely all white jury votes to convict.
Afterword: A reader may notice that this was posted while the Super Bowl was happening. At least I think it’s happening. I take a certain amount of pride in saying that I have learned the Super Bowl result from the newspapers more often than not in the last 20 years or so, and when I’ve learned it in other ways, it was entirely by happenstance. I have no television, but even if I did, I wouldn’t tune in. I do hope Tom Brady loses, but other than that, I really don’t care.
Post a Comment