EL or NN could attempt to get federal authorities to pursue criminal charges against people for a variety of things, but I have a hard time believing that many prosecutors would be moved by their arguments or pleas. Their remedies are purely civil, and I am quite certain that they will continue to pursue them, probably with increased vigor if they believe that it's in their financial interest to do that.
I'd probably be annoyed if someone started asking me a million questions about my area of expertise in my time off, too.
I guess that's more what I worry about. Not that they'd be successful with criminal charges, but that they'd financially ruin a lot of people via frivolous litigation.
As with the case of that Disney mayhem, that would end up as a civil case, not a criminal case. Could EL or NN come after the sellers for loss of profit and duping their research? Maybe, but they haven't really yet, so I would say they don't have a case or don't care enough.
They certainly have the financial resources to ruin plenty of people and businesses, but that comes at a cost to them, as well. The real goal is to frighten everyone and discourage people from doing things that will hurt them financially.
I mean despite the whole "we will bankrupt you in court costs" mantra shtick, you do actually need to have a legitimate case against someone to even start a civil suit.
I do not know, I could probably google, but I will just say I have literally never heard of anything like that ever. We have some stupid Citizen's Arrest bullshit, but that shit never actually holds up.
Private prosecutions under federal law are allowed under certain federal acts, but they are still rare. Many states have banned private prosecutions by law or through case law, but some states still allow some concept of private prosecution, which actually just means that a person can file a complaint, affidavit or other such document with a magistrate who can then decide whether it should proceed. Even then, a public prosecutor then takes over and can do whatever with the case, including tossing it. So, the simple answer is: Mostly no, not in a meaningful way and only in a few rare instances.
Good to know! Sort of similar here. They pretty much never went anywhere but I guess, at least here, someone could throw spaghetti at the wall and try a private prosecution related to glp1s (and likely fail lol).
Literally the worst. And I went up against pro se individuals all the time and I just absolutely dreaded it. So painful.
That’s pretty embarrassing for the lawyer!
Good job. A friend of mine, a nonlawyer, defended himself in a civil case. He "lost" in that the plaintiff, represented by the biggest and most expensive law firm in town, managed to secure a verdict for a small amount in damages but a large amount in attorney fees. My friend then represented himself on appeal and managed to have the attorneys fees award overturned. It's rather embarrassing when the biggest law firm in town loses on appeal. In defense of the law firm that lost, I'll acknowledge that my friend was an unusually bright person in a great number of areas including law.
Pro se inmates are a PITA to litigate against, not because their claims have merit, but because they bring pure chaos by throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks -- and you still have to respond to it.
A lawyer representing themselves has a fool for a client, as they say.
The laws prohibiting the sales, distribution, and importing of unapproved drugs are designed to protect the users. Even Eli Lilly will acknowledge that the law against use of unapproved drugs is for the purpose of protecting the users, not Eli Lilly. It is frequently the case that victims of crimes have done something to encourage it. Nonetheless, they generally cannot be prosecuted for the crime even under a conspiracy theory. A victim of statutory rape, even if the initiator, cannot be prosecuted based upon conspiracy law. See In re Meagan R. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 17, 19; People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 722-723. Nor may a person who pays a ransom to secure the return of a family member be prosecuted for conspiracy. The Mann Act punished the transportation of women for purposes of prostitution. Could a woman who was transported, with her consent and knowledge of what she was expected to do, be punished a conspirator to the crime? The United States Supreme Court said no. "[C]riminal transportation under the Mann Act may be effected without the woman's consent as in cases of intimidation or force (with which we are not now concerned). We assume, therefore, for present purposes . . . that the decisions last mentioned do not in all strictness apply.[Fn.] We do not rest our decision upon the theory of those cases, nor upon the related one that the attempt is to prosecute as conspiracy acts identical with the substantive offense. [Citation.] We place it rather upon the ground that we perceive in the failure of the Mann Act to condemn the woman's participation in those transportations which are effected with her mere consent, evidence of an affirmative legislative policy to leave her acquiescence unpunished. We think it a necessary implication of that policy that when the Mann Act and the conspiracy statute came to be construed together, as they necessarily would be, the same participation which the former contemplates an an inseparable incident of all cases in which the woman is a voluntary agent at all, but does not punish, was not automatically to be made punishable under the latter." Gebardi v. United States (1932) 287 U.S. 112, 122–123.
I've seen many cases involving imported and adulterated foreign pharma products; those matters are not pursued by the "legit" pharma companies but by regulators in some other context.
