This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If I'm understanding correctly, the allegation is that the court is actively helping him avoid being served in a lawsuit regarding his actions on jan 6th.
As a lawyer who represents clients who get sued almost weekly, I can assure you that avoiding service isn't an effective strategy to defend a lawsuit. It's not like the case gets dismissed if they take too long or can't find you after three tries. What really happens is they document their attempts and go to court to get permission for alternative service which, depending on the jurisdiction, could amount to nothing more than running an ad in the paper. In the meantime, you've been turning your life upside down to avoid the process server, and you've been so successful that while you were hiding in your friend's basement you got legally served and didn't know it. In the meantime, the case has proceeded and resulted in a default judgment against you. Now you get to go to court yourself to try and convince the judge that there was a good reason you didn't get served and he should throw out the default judgment. If you're successful, the best case scenario is you get to go back to the position you would have been in had you just accepted service in the first place, excepting for all the money you spent on attorneys to get the default judgment overturned. I don't know how the idea that it's a good idea to avoid service became a thing.
Are you sure on that? Usually it’s the complaint that controls time for statute of limitations purposes, but under federal rules plaintiffs only have 90 days to serve a defendant before they must show cause or have the complaint dismissed without prejudice. That lets them start over again, but it means starting over again.
For sophisticated plaintiffs going after unsophisticated targets, it doesn’t usually matter — you don’t let things get close to running the clock, and know exactly what is to dot to demonstrate necessary attempt of service — but I don’t think that’s the case here.
Right, so he's being sued by someone that doesn't even know how to attempt service? Or hire it out to a reputable one?
Because, as you say, if he's sued by anyone competent then they are gonna demonstrate that they made sufficient efforts.
Since "sufficient efforts" are whatever the court thinks they are, if the court wants to decide that things which would normally be sufficient aren't in this case and just dismiss for lack of service, they will.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh. I suppose the plaintiffs must be powerless to serve him at his home or definitely-not-federal job, then.
Is he there?
Maybe? On one hand, he was allegedly living off the grid after receiving enough death threats. On the other, 60 minutes had that location.
yes, but I would imagine the difficulty of finding him would ramp up in inverse correlation with the notoriety of the person doing the searching. Not unlike someone ducking loan collectors but being readily available to go to the pub with friends.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link