Sounds like TX has a law like CA's Anti-SLAPP law. These laws are supposedly intended to protect free speech by creating a legal cause of action against someone who sues you for exercising your first amendment rights, but I've been seen multiple instances now where they have been weaponized against the actual victims.
Defamation lawsuits have been a concept in our jurisprudence since before we were even a country. Anyone who's accused of defamation should have to first win that case before they can counter sue on Anti-SLAPP grounds.
32 states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
The way anti SLAPP laws work is that they allow you to basically file a motion right at the start of the case that forces a summary judgment procedure immediately where the Plaintiff has to prove his case to some degree.
California's law, which can be obnoxious and abused, is at least generous to plaintiffs because they only have to prove their case has "minimal merit". The Texas law is much worse, requiring the plaintiff show "clear and specific evidence".
Normal attorney fees for a motion like this would be $5k to $20k. But sometimes people ask for stupidly high amounts and here, the judge and now court of appeals granted $250k or so against Vic.
Any competent lawyer could have looked at this case and said "I know this sucks to tell you, but you likely can't win a SLAPP motion under Texas law, and you'll get fucked in the ass by paying the other side's potentially grossly inflated fees."
Write the perfect, most just laws and they will find a way to only apply them to political enemies. Law doesn't matter as much at this point as who is in charge does.
Sounds like TX has a law like CA's Anti-SLAPP law. These laws are supposedly intended to protect free speech by creating a legal cause of action against someone who sues you for exercising your first amendment rights, but I've been seen multiple instances now where they have been weaponized against the actual victims.
Defamation lawsuits have been a concept in our jurisprudence since before we were even a country. Anyone who's accused of defamation should have to first win that case before they can counter sue on Anti-SLAPP grounds.
The way anti SLAPP laws work is that they allow you to basically file a motion right at the start of the case that forces a summary judgment procedure immediately where the Plaintiff has to prove his case to some degree.
California's law, which can be obnoxious and abused, is at least generous to plaintiffs because they only have to prove their case has "minimal merit". The Texas law is much worse, requiring the plaintiff show "clear and specific evidence".
Normal attorney fees for a motion like this would be $5k to $20k. But sometimes people ask for stupidly high amounts and here, the judge and now court of appeals granted $250k or so against Vic.
Any competent lawyer could have looked at this case and said "I know this sucks to tell you, but you likely can't win a SLAPP motion under Texas law, and you'll get fucked in the ass by paying the other side's potentially grossly inflated fees."
Maybe he wouldn't take no for an answer.
Write the perfect, most just laws and they will find a way to only apply them to political enemies. Law doesn't matter as much at this point as who is in charge does.