No Standing for Aggressors

Intent

To deny aggressors the opportunity to use the legal system to further harm their actual victims, intended victims, or witnesses.

Proposal

An aggressor does not have standing to sue the victim or intended victim or witnesses of their aggression, for any reason related to the actual or intended crime.

A plaintiff who is discovered to be an aggressor suing with no standing shall be charged with felony misdemeanor and shall be responsible for all court costs related to the matter and shall be responsible for the costs of the defendants in the matter including attorney fees, filing fees, related travel expenses such as to court hearings, and financial damages such as lost income or wages due to time spent away from their occupation due to the matter.

Definitions

An aggressor is a person or legal entity that violates the rights of others, or initiates a conflict with the intent to violate the rights of others. This status is decided by the judge.

Related means connected directly or indirectly. This is decided by the judge.

Discussion

This principle prevents frivolous lawsuits by an aggressor from even starting and thereby harming the victim or intended victim or witness by draining their time, energy, and money.

The abuse of the legal system to harm someone is sometimes called “lawfare”. This is where an aggressor uses the legal process itself to harm the victim by draining their time, energy, and money and is initiated even if there is strong likelihood or even certainty that the legal action will fail because the intent is to harm the victim via the legal process. It is a narrower use of the more general definition of “lawfare” which is the use of legal systems and institutions to achieve political or military objectives or the manipulation of laws to gain advantages in conflicts.

When an investigation is pending, the aggressor is generally a suspect in the investigation.

When a prosecution is pending, the aggressor is generally a defendant in that prosecution.

The status of aggressor is not dependent on the outcome of the prosecution. An acquitted defendant may still be considered the aggressor if this is established by the facts of the case.

This proposal does NOT diminish the aggressor’s rights and ability to press charges against anyone, including a victim, or intended victim, or witness of a prior incident, who later violates the aggressor’s own rights in a separate incident.

Examples

A burglar is walking on the roof of a house they intend to enter. The burglar falls through a glass ceiling, or slips on a roof tile, or is injured by some other accident. The resident hears the commotion and calls the police. The burglar is arrested and charged with burglary or trespassing. The burglar then sues the homeowner for their rooftop injury. Because the burglar is the aggressor in this situation, the burglar lacks standing to sue the victim of their trespassing.

A thug tries to rob a person walking on the street. The pedestrian successfully defends themselves and injures the thug during the altercation. The thug then sues the pedestrian for the injury. Because the thug is the aggressor in this situation, the thug lacks standing to sue the victim of their robbery attempt.

A man is accused of rape by a woman. The man is tried and found not guilty. The woman appeals and loses the appeal. The woman then continues to publicly state the man raped her. The man then suffers financial harm due to being rejected from jobs or being rejected by clients due to the reputational damage done by the continued accusations. The man sues the woman for defamation for the continued accusations levied after the acquittal. In this situation the man does have standing to sue because it is for actions initiated by the woman long after the alleged crime which was resolved in court.

A skilled worker has a contract with a business person to renovate an office space. The worker makes the agreed-upon renovations. The business person refuses to pay the worker. The worker gets angry and punches the business person in the face, injuring their hand in the process. The business person sues the worker for assault and battery. The worker sues the business person for failing to pay for work done in accordance with the contract. Failing to fulfill an obligation in a contract is a tort, not a violation of rights. Punching someone in the face is a violation of the right to life. By becoming an aggressor, the worker loses the standing to sue the business person for injury to their hand. However, not being paid for work done is a separate matter and the worker can still sue the business person for not paying in accordance with the contract.