As far as I knew, the general definition of "Lawfare" was,


Quote:

The use of legal systems and principles to achieve a goal, often politically motivated, that would normally be accomplished through other means, such as military or direct action. It often involves the use of lawsuits, legal actions, or legal mechanisms to intimidate, burden, or financially deplete an opponent, or to achieve a particular political or strategic outcome.

However, we've seen "Lawfare" used to describe many other things, from private business partnerships or arrangements to boost tourism or even a coroner reporting on the preventable deaths of people in the care of the state or a curfew being put in place to help restore law and order. 

This apparent new application of the concept of lawfare has been on display recently, especially when it's being applied to events involving Indigenous Australians.

Does it have a different definition to the above when Indigenous Australians or those who advocate for them are involved?

An expanding process currently under review by Grappler University (The Free University and The Real U) Department of Social Resurrection/Archaeology, and which will require an extended period of study and data accumulation and analysis before we publish our findings...

Roughly, any use of any legally approved prerogative or of any direct law to impose an unwarranted will upon any individual or group - the corollary is that when this is by government in its endless pursuit of absolute hegemony over The People, using the People's money to whip them and to intimidate them into not entering any legal objection - that us of funds is itself a component of lawfare.

Like most such things - it is a complex issue currently under massive review with a view towards Reform (a dangerous word in politics), and the early stages are time-consuming enough without fools running interference from the sidelines...  or back seat drivers who have never driven lawfare and know not the road rules.

An interesting side window into lawfare is the way certain high profile cases, regardless of outcomes in courts and the old concept of double indemnity, have recently been repeatedly put to courts in an effort to obtain a conviction one way or another - and it is not so odd that such things are operating in the same arena as the Deuce accusations... it is lawfare to repeatedly go after an individual using a flimsy pretext of law..... so I ask again - what did Deuce do to someone?  Why is he being treated like a dissident or rebel or simply someone outspoken against a regime in some honky banana republic and loaded up with charges constantly and sent broke and/or imprisoned or even executed?

Why was Jarryd Hayne subjected to trial after trial before being finally acquitted?  Well - simple really - because he is a well-known person and the move is on and has been on to engage lawfare in order to create an environment in which certain allegations by certain groups will be taken at face value and convictions be automatic upon denunciation.... something utterly foreign to our way of life and democracy, and totally reminiscent of Nazism and Stalinism and all the other Real Great Satans.

Lawfare in this example is a direct assault upon the foundations of Law itself...... and the walls finally held firm this time..... but what about Deuce?  Also now well-known and once in a responsible position....... fair game for copy cat performances ... and lest we forget - there's money in it!!  Told you about me Abo mate who was sitting in the slammer for months because his live-in decided there was money in saying he'd 'kidnapped' her and was holding her by force - he and she actually waved once to one of the prison officers, he said.... in the street... that's how captive she was ... victim's compensation then was around $50k ... she figured that was a good deal... buy a house up there then ....

I would prefer it if the Idiot's Union left us to go our own way in peace..... I don't want war .... but if Australia marches - I march with her!!  Lawfare must be stopped at the gates lest the barbarians be loose in the town......

The national corruption watchdog has been asked to consider whether foreign donors ­behind the Environmental ­Defenders Office may have adversely affected the conduct of public officials.

Opposition resources spokeswoman Susan McDonald has sent a letter to the National Anti-­Corruption Commission urging it to investigate the taxpayer-­funded EDO following a Federal Court judgment.

Judge Natalie Charlesworth earlier this year threw out a legal challenge that the EDO had brought against Santos’s plans for a new gas pipeline in the Timor Sea on behalf of a group of Tiwi Islanders after finding a series of failures and concerns in the conduct of the EDO and the academics it recruited as experts.

Senator McDonald flagged in late November that she would consider referring the EDO to the NACC, given the watchdog’s capacity to investigate the recipients of commonwealth grants.

The letter, dated December 5, draws attention to Justice Charlesworth’s judgment that the senator said showed how the EDO and its employees and subcontractors distorted and manipulated material before a court, coached witnesses and confected and constructed evidence during the Santos matter.

“Arguably, the purpose of the above conduct was to both intentionally and dishonestly mislead a court, and to also intentionally and dishonestly mislead the commonwealth government’s own regulatory authority, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, which is, in part, ‘responsible for integrity and environmental management for all offshore energy operation[s]’,” Senator McDonald wrote.

The senator noted Justice Charlesworth’s findings that a cultural heritage expert and EDO lawyer had engaged in the “subtle coaching” of Tiwi Islanders to effectively propel their traditions into the sea and the vicinity of Santos’s pipeline.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/coalition-seeks-corruption-watchdog-probe-on-edo/news-story/dd5633264fd548d8d5aa4448a0756ffd

Academic, legal and activist ­figures in the failed Environmental Defenders Office bid to scuttle a $5.8bn gas field near the Tiwi ­Islands concocted a rainbow ­serpent and crocodile man ­songline map based on guesswork and minimal consultation with ­Indigenous leaders, according to court documents.

Federal Court documents ­obtained by The Australian reveal academic and cultural experts ­exchanged emails and text ­messages coaching each other on how to use the Ampiji (mother serpent) and Jirakupai (crocodile man) to block gas company ­Santos’s Barossa project in the Timor Sea.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/inside-lawfare-plot-to-block-santoss-58bn-barossa-gas-project/news-story/a07d34d96f7101a2810f5cb99ddebe01

SadKangaroo wrote on Jul 8^th, 2024 at 4:20pm:

As far as I knew, the general definition of "Lawfare" was, Quote: The use of legal systems and principles to achieve a goal, often politically motivated, that would normally be accomplished through other means, such as military or direct action. It often involves the use of lawsuits, legal actions, or legal mechanisms to intimidate, burden, or financially deplete an opponent, or to achieve a particular political or strategic outcome. However, we've seen "Lawfare" used to describe many other things, from private business partnerships or arrangements to boost tourism or even a coroner reporting on the preventable deaths of people in the care of the state or a curfew being put in place to help restore law and order.  This apparent new application of the concept of lawfare has been on display recently, especially when it's being applied to events involving Indigenous Australians. Does it have a different definition to the above when Indigenous Australians or those who advocate for them are involved?

There's nothing mysterious about "lawfare's" evolving definition even if it is retrospectively applied.

What would you call, say, US health insurance companies that have deployed the strategy of 'delay, deny, defend' for decades?

The warfare you have when you don't have the power to impose your ideas by any other means.

The definition is broad and all encompassing - anything that can be sought as an imposition on others through any legal process or legalised process is Lawfare.

I can see clearly why some fools don't want to see that and prefer instead to attempt to bog discussion down over their inability and unwillingness to view simple realities as they occur - actually looking at issues opposes their silent approach to gaining things behind other people's backs and like the vampyres they are in reality - these 'causes' hide from the full light of day.

Desperate ditch by ditch attempts to stave off the inevitable failure of their 'causes'... they're all going down one by one....

Washington Has Fallen ..... The Voice Has Fallen ... 'gender affirmation' butchery Has Fallen ..... Darwin Has Fallen .... Brisbane Has Fallen .... The Blue Striped Bee Dreaming Has Fallen ... all the rest will fall behind them......
             
and LO!  I beheld a Fifth Horse - and He who sat upon him was named JUSTICE ..... and Lo - he cometh darkly to all purveyors of lies ... and all of reason shall follow upon his passing ....