There have always been friendly lawsuits, collusive settlements, weaponized lawsuits. Maybe by shining a light on these abuses, there will develop some guidelines for challenge or even a recognition of their mutually assured destructive power which may act as a restraint. Standing should be broadened and burdens of proof properly allocated. Trump’s actions often function as a stress test for our systems but correction is scattershot.
Gabe did you cover the history of the judgement fund at all? I’d love to learn some context to the fund as originally written and how it has been applied.
One thing I've gathered is that, to receive a monetary award from the Judgment Fund, there must be an adjudicated court case won by the plaintiff(s) who are harmed by the US govt. That is, you are not entitled to a sum of money from the fund simply because an agency of the US govt has caused you harm or financial distress, you have to PROVE it in court and WIN, and the judge assesses a monetary award. It's no surprise and clear to me this "anti-weaponization fund" is a fraudulent, perverted politicization of the intent and purpose of this Judgment Fund. It's exactly what trump always does: turn what he's guilty of doing and use it against his perceived enemies to profit off of.
There have always been friendly lawsuits, collusive settlements, weaponized lawsuits. Maybe by shining a light on these abuses, there will develop some guidelines for challenge or even a recognition of their mutually assured destructive power which may act as a restraint. Standing should be broadened and burdens of proof properly allocated. Trump’s actions often function as a stress test for our systems but correction is scattershot.
I’m curious why you think corrections have been scattershot? Any instances where you feel like a correction has been provided effectively?
Gabe did you cover the history of the judgement fund at all? I’d love to learn some context to the fund as originally written and how it has been applied.
One thing I've gathered is that, to receive a monetary award from the Judgment Fund, there must be an adjudicated court case won by the plaintiff(s) who are harmed by the US govt. That is, you are not entitled to a sum of money from the fund simply because an agency of the US govt has caused you harm or financial distress, you have to PROVE it in court and WIN, and the judge assesses a monetary award. It's no surprise and clear to me this "anti-weaponization fund" is a fraudulent, perverted politicization of the intent and purpose of this Judgment Fund. It's exactly what trump always does: turn what he's guilty of doing and use it against his perceived enemies to profit off of.
I’m very interested to hear which way Congress goes on the fund