This post is apolitical and I’m merely commenting on the state of things. I have evidence for both parties in this bi-partisan state (United States) having used Lawfare.
It seems in recent news, the term Lawfare is gaining rise.
Lawfare is essentially using the legal system to wage warfare based on laws and policies or litigating.
In most cases this is represented as a form of legal bullying or harassment to those that can’t defend themselves either due to a lack of money or resources.
The term has recently appeared in Political Circles due to the persecution of the recent two 2024 presidential candidates, RFK junior and Donald Trump. It appears from their testimonies, that the Democratic Machine worked in tandem with the laws to make legal hurdles to get their names on ballots in many states. During the RFK junior withdrawal from states in order to support Trump, the Democratic party used lawyers to keep his names on ballots as well.
In another case, of the January 6, 2020 issue, the Lawyer Stefan Passantino received many legal attacks and BAR complaints from the BAR association based on claims and signatures from people he’s never personally met. He claims that it’s a coordinated effort on an interview with Tucker Carlson.
In the year 2000, the Republican Party used Lawfare over the contested Florida votes to secure a Bush win over Al Gore. The Republican Party’s legal team, led by figures like James Baker, sought to stop the recounts in certain Florida counties. The case ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in a 5-4 decision that halted the recounts and effectively awarded Florida’s electoral votes—and the presidency—to George W. Bush.
Would the Democrats win had the votes been recounted? We will not know.
Lawfare as a term is apolitical, and is used by both parties, but is ultimately used by the rich or well connected.
Lawfare can also be used on both sides of a legal matter. Where one will find a ruling, issue an appeal, while filing lawsuits on the offensive to target other issues or areas of a person. Essentially turning the use of law into a personal issue.
From a Social Justice Perspective
From a social justice perspective, people of color were targeted for their skin and racial bias based on this justice system.
So many people criticize system and the justice system for being a strong arm of ‘systemic racism’.
It is often a stereotype that law enforcement will shoot or racially profile people based on the color of their skin. It is further perpetuated that the lawyers and judges are a part of a club that watches and protects each other, seeing as they are indeed in some capacity ‘coworkers’, it’s not a far stretch to be disillusioned to the idea of justice in the justice system.
There are plenty cases far and many of the wrongful indictments and persecution or racially motivated persecution and this has happened as long as ‘Jim crow’ laws and beyond.
In a Classist Perspective
Most people can’t afford litigation and lawyers, in fact most people don’t know what having a Lawyer on Retainer even means. Combined with the fact that Lawyers and lawsuits cost money.
Often times people are quiet or forced to lose based on their economic status of being too poor to afford a lawsuit.
Many have aptly stated that the justice system views justice as those who are rich are just. From Might makes right, as an extension of wealth as power in might. “The only sin or crime is being poor”
In Worker compensation cases, an army of lawyers from a corporation will seek to either squash any claims, or bury claims with lawsuits resulting in people never seeing compensation or settling for much less.
To be said, any corporation worth billions will have a whole suite or team of lawyers for all sorts of issues, not just employee and employer issues. There is a lot of lawfare in corporations when it comes to mergers and acquisitions, stocks and equitable securities markets, and patents and trade secrets.
For instance, the Corn Farmers that sued for genetically patented corn pollen making it to other people’s farms. That’s a form of lawfare. (Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms).
Lawfare is used, and it is in everyone’s best interest to be as equally armed as everyone else in the event that you have to defend or use it. It’s arguably a form of second amendment rights, the right to bear lawfare arms.
But on the other hand, people are using lawfare as an aggressive means to persecute or bury others in a form of litigation. Death by a thousand lawsuits is an awful way to die, especially if the average person can barely handle a single offensive lawsuit costing upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The System of Law
The Lawyers and the BAR association are a club that encompasses people. There are lawyer unions that advocate and lobby on behalf of their groups interest to maximize different forms of gain including monetary gain. Maximizing fees and the process to best benefit the interests of their groups and their clients that they represent.
It’s tribalistic human nature to act in this way, sadly it causes some problems to people who aren’t ‘allowed’ to practice law or have the resources to hire such ‘practitioners’.
But this issue isn’t new.
The History of Lawfare
In the days of kings and monarchs, there were some kingdoms where the word of the King was law. Thus the King was a living law. By their words, is their will, and by their will, shall their knights and entourage carry out their will.
Even if the will is a joke, like “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” -a quote attributed to King Henry II of England during a dispute with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, resulting in his knights taking care of the Archbishop as they misinterpreted his expression as an indirect order to execute the priest.
Knights and Nobles were given land and territory to govern and rule, their words also carried weight. Often times, a knight would be a judge and executioner to disputes between people.
The modern term of ‘esquire’ is related to ‘knights’ and ‘squires’. An esquire is a shield, in a symbolic sense, esquires and lawyers are those that hold up and defend the institution of law and the legal system.
International Law
Lawfare has been used to regulate trade disputes between nations, resulting in economic forms of war and economic sanctions.
The Geneva Convention was also a rule of law to issue a template and a framework to live in a post World War Atrocity world. To create more rules and conduct for how a people and nation should act.
Petitions for violation of international law and war crimes reach the ears of the United Nations and other large alliances such as NATO. Condoning or condemning actions is but an opinion on an international stage, and the recourse requires an international court or tribunal to also issue demands and restructuring.
In another sense, the lawfare of the end of World War 1, the treaty of Versailles, created such an economic burden to Germany, that pushed them to the results of World War 2. Grossly simplifying it, the law and sanctions there after made the debt too crushing, resulting in them just giving up on ever paying it back. That is a very gross simplification, but it’s not necessarily wrong.
International Lawfare is a matter of decorum and negotiations, it works in tandem with other forms of warfare and leveraging arms between nations, to include data, cyber security, financial and economic, and military warfare.
Epilogue;
Lawfare is war using law.
If the other party doesn’t have the means to defend and is ‘basically’ defenseless or without legal council, it could be viewed as a form of bullying.
Perhaps if Lawyers were social workers, and perhaps if social workers were more valued, we’d have a better society.
But I don’t have a solution, and I am not here to espouse political policies, merely a commentary on a word or phenomenon that exists.
Afterall,
Words Mean Things
Words Mean Things 
Leave a comment