Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan & Champerty

I hate somebody. Virulently. The so-and-so is also breaking the law. I want to teach him a lesson. But I am as poor as a church mouse. Flat broke. What do I do? What would you do?

 

First, desist from litigation just to ‘show him’. It never works. Next, find out what the problem is. Is it a crime, meaning some act or omission found in the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? Or is it a civil offence? If it is a crime, simply inform the cops. They will do the deed for you. No cost.

 

If it is a civil misdemeanour, you need to move the court. That entails a spend. Sure, you need to save the world from that ‘fiend’, at any cost. Two options are open to you. One is to approach the court, declare you are penniless, an ‘indigent’. The court, if it sees merit in your case, will appoint legal help.

 

The other option would be to get someone to finance you. Champerty. It occurs when a third person pays for litigation, usually surreptitiously.

 

You be the judge. 

 

Which of the two would you prefer in your court?

 

Recently, Terry Gene Bollea, aka Hulk Hogan, the WWF star wrestler, had a bone to pick with a muckraking magazine. While not holding a brief for the gutter press, we do question Hulk’s methods. One Peter Thiel, not of normal sexual orientation, had been ‘exposed’, laid bare by the same magazine, some years ago. If the story were true, there was little that Thiel could do then. Thiel bore a grudge.

 

Thiel saw his chance to get back. After all, revenge is a dish best served cold. He financed Hogan. Some say that for champerty to be illegal, the third party must be compensated and get a share of the profits, if any accrue. We hold that even sheer satisfaction, in driving the ‘offender’ to court, is compensation enough. Any benefit is repayment, tangible or not. After all, Thiel is a Facebook billionaire. He needed no money. His holy grail was vengeance. 

 

Hogan won the defamation suit, at $143 million. Whether he paid back Thiel, even the legal fees, is not known, and may never be known. The question that needs settlement is whether Thiel and Hogan are culpable. In the USA, where lawyers are allowed, officially, to take a ‘cut’ of the winnings, the Thiel prop is looked upon as valid. At least, no one has yet taken up cudgels against the assistance, so hated is Gawker, the yellow journal. Reams have been written condemning it, but it is still going strong; it must be widely read.

 

Why, then, are we against champerty (a proceeding by which a person not a party in a suit bargains to aid in or carry on its prosecution or defence in consideration of a share of the matter in suit) ? Firstly, cowards have no place in society. “If you wanna fight, get up and say so.” Pushing dummies forward, to get even, is simply taking up the court’s time; it has enough on its plate. Some unwarranted PILs (public interest litigations) are actually private interest litigations, privately funded. Mercifully, courts have seen through these charades and are coming down heavily on the mischievous, their puppets and the lawyers.

 

Relief is possible through reverse litigation, in the form of malicious prosecution suits. But the puppet is broke. Who would then want to go after a pauper and throw good money after bad? So, unless the bad guy is upfront and showing his face, champerty, sadly, would achieve its ill purpose; that of penalty or harassment. Champerty must be a no-no. 

 

In 1963, in a UK judgement, Lord Denning said, “The reason why the common law condemns champerty is because (of) the abuses to which it may give rise. The common law fears that the champertous maintainer might be tempted, for his own personal gain, to inflame the damages, to suppress evidence, or even to suborn witnesses. These fears may be exaggerated; but, be that so or not, the law for centuries has declared champerty unlawful.”      

 

And the law must continue to do so. Even in America.