May 8, 2024

I’VE BEEN SUGGESTING THIS FOR A WHILE, but GWU lawprof John Banzhaf emails this press release on suing protesters who cause illegal harm and disruption:

llegal protests on university campuses have already triggered a number of legal actions, but so far the lawsuits likely to be most successful, and most effective at strongly discouraging similar criminal activity in the future – class actions brought by as few as one student or faculty member – seem to be overlooked, says a class action expert.

Public interest law professor John Banzhaf – who has been called a “King of Class Action Law Suits,” “a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars,” and “The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry,” points out than even one individual student or faculty member harmed by illegal actions by protestors can bring a class action lawsuit against each and every one of the criminal protestors who can be identified (e.g. by cell phone or video camera recordings, arrest records, etc.).

In addition to the serious financial and other burdens of having to hire lawyers to defend against such suits, and the impact on their future credit ratings, each protestor could be found legally liable for the entire amount of all the damages to all of the thousands of class action plaintiffs under the well-established legal doctrine of joint and several liability, says the law professor, who promoted such lawsuits against the January 6th rioters.

Indeed, it’s a legal tactic even the Wall Street Journal (as well as others) has recommended, even for far less serious crimes such as simply temporarily blocking traffic:

If DAs won’t prosecute, victims can sue for false imprisonment

Such class action lawsuits could be brought for familiar torts (civil damage actions) such as assault and battery, false imprisonment, and tortious interference with existing contractual advantage, as well as less familiar ones such civil conspiracy and prime facie tort, says Banzhaf, who has already inspired such public interest lawsuits.

University protestors seem largely undeterred by actual or threatened arrests since in many cases the typically minor criminal charges are likely to be dropped by the university and/or by sympathetic prosecutors. If not, a tiny criminal fine may be seen as a small price to pay by students striving to achieve a major social goal, argues Banzhaf.

Similarly, many universities are likely not to impose serious – if any – discipline on students who exceeded their rights of free speech and expressive activities by engaging in criminal tortious conduct such as:

■ Trespass to land (illegally occupying university property, especially with tents),

■ Civil assault and harassment (which need not involve any touching or actual harm),

■ Civil battery (even the slightest touching which proves to be harmful or even simply offensive)

■ False imprisonment (menacingly surrounding a student or professor, not permitting janitors to leave a building)

■ Tortious interference with existing contractual advantage (preventing students from going to classes and/or the library, from taking exams, experiencing graduation, etc.)

A lesser known but very powerful tort action is a civil conspiracy. It allows a plaintiff to seek damages from two or more parties who agree to commit an unlawful act, or to engage in combination even in a lawful act (e.g. hundreds of protestors all telephone or try to withdraw money from their account at the same time to pressure a bank to take some action) and the plaintiff suffers harm (including disruption and/or delay) as a result of that agreement.

Another very powerful legal tool which has been recognized and utilized in many situations is the prime facie tort. It is generally defined as the “infliction of intentional harm, resulting in damages, without excuse or justification, by an act or series of acts which would otherwise be lawful.”

In other words, in addition to all of the other possible civil actions, once a jury found that protestors knew that their actions would harm other students, and that any of the actions (including but not limited to those which violate the law) were not justifiable, it can issue a verdict holding each and every protestor who participated legal liable for all damages to all students who were adversely affected (and therefore make up the “class” in the class action).

Banzhaf notes that his prior articles and other legal analysis inspired civil lawsuits against “cause” lawbreakers, and that similar suits have sometimes led to very large damage awards which shocked the criminal protestors.

Prosecutorial discretion won’t help them here.

Related: Pushback Works: Campus political violence and the moral and practical aspects of resistance.

Posted at 12:45 pm by Glenn Reynolds

#RESIST: Prison Guard Resigns After ‘Immoral, Dangerous’ Trans Policies. “At the peak of his career as a correctional lieutenant inside the California Prison system, Hector Bravo Ferrel couldn’t take anymore. Things became dangerous and unethical, he said, after the state passed SB 132, a law that required prison guards to transfer convicts from the men’s prison to the women’s prisons. The law also allowed male inmates who identify as women to demand they be searched—in the nude—by female prison staff. Ferrel walked away from his stable, lucrative career to blow the whistle on “backwards” policies inside the correctional world that he says put female prison staff and inmates at risk.”

Posted at 12:44 pm by Stephen Green

NO, THEY’RE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE: THE CAMPUS INTIFADAS ARE NOT ANTI-WAR PROTESTS.

Related:

Also: Hezbollah Leader Praises Campus protesters.

And: Why Are Pro-Palestine Protesters Heckling Holocaust Survivors? “The question answers itself, no? This isn’t about a two-state solution or some formula for mutual accommodation. These protesters want Israel annihilated. They aren’t pro-Palestinian, they are pro-Hamas. And that’s precisely what they should be called too, especially when targeting Jews like this.”

Plus:

Unconditional surrender is the only way.

Posted at 12:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds

DECOUPLING: US revokes some export licenses for China’s Huawei.

The move comes after the release last month of Huawei’s first AI-enabled laptop, the MateBook X Pro powered by Intel’s (INTC.O), opens new tab new Core Ultra 9 processor.

The laptop launch drew fire from Republican lawmakers, who suggested the Commerce Department had given the green light to Intel to sell the chip to Huawei.

The revocations come after a years-long review of the U.S. policy on what U.S. goods and technology could be shipped to Huawei, a flagship Chinese company viewed as a national security threat.

They could hamper Huawei’s recently resurgent revenue, and also hurt U.S. suppliers that have been allowed to do business with the company.

Nobody ever said decoupling would be easy, cheap, or fun.

Posted at 11:42 am by Stephen Green

SOMEBODY GETS IT:

The funny part is that Code Pink made and posted this video as if it’s some kind of burn on Mast.

Posted at 10:40 am by Stephen Green

BUT THEY’RE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY WERE HERE TO HELP: Chemicals in car interiors may cause cancer — and they’re required by US law.

Approximately 124 million Americans commute each day, spending an average of an hour in their cars.

By federal law, the interior of these vehicles are required to contain flame retardants, or chemicals that make it harder for them to combust in a crash.
These chemicals have been a legally mandated part of modern cars since the 1970s, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) passed a law requiring their use.

It’s arguable how effective this protection is.

Patrick Morrison, of the International Association of Firefighters, said in a statement on the study that these chemicals do little to prevent blazes — but instead simply make them “smokier and more toxic.”

What the study conclusively demonstrates is that any such protection comes at a price… All three chemicals are linked to reproductive and neurological problems — particularly because they don’t stay in the fabrics they’re woven into.

“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs,” the wise man once wrote. The problem with the government’s heavy hand is that it mandates simple solutions while ignoring complex trade-offs.

Posted at 9:38 am by Stephen Green

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEFING: Stormy Weather — Merchan No Longer Biggest Sleazebag in His Courtroom. “I can assure you that tawdry isn’t a regular part of my vocabulary. In fact, I don’t think it’s ever even popped into my head unless I’ve just read it somewhere. These perverters of justice who are going after Trump are some major league scumbags, though.”

Posted at 9:07 am by Stephen Green

HMM: Warren Buffett’s $56 Billion Silent Warning to Wall Street May Portend Trouble for Stocks.

Although Warren Buffett has consistently shied away from offering negative takes on the U.S. economy and/or stock market during his nearly six-decade tenure as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, $56 billion of net-equity security sales over an 18-month stretch speaks volumes without the Oracle of Omaha having to say a word.

The culprit for this consistent net-selling activity looks to be a historically pricey stock market and the irrational behavior of some of its participants.

In Buffett’s annual letter to shareholders that was released in February, he had this to say about the “casino-like behavior” he wants no part of:

“Though the stock market is massively larger than it was in our early years, today’s active participants are neither more emotionally stable nor better taught than I was in school. For whatever reasons, markets now exhibit far more casino-like behaviors than they did when I was young. The casino now resides in many homes and daily tempts the occupants.”

At the end of the day, Warren Buffett and his team want a fair deal on a great business, and they aren’t willing to waiver from this ideal. As the S&P 500’s Shiller price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio shows, there simply aren’t many good deals at the moment.

There’s nothing wrong with buying into a bubble, provided you know when to get out. Buffett has exited to the tune of $56 billion.

Posted at 8:36 am by Stephen Green