The Law is a A$$

My law degree comes courtesy of Matlock and Law & Order, so I'll admit I have not specific information on the legal rules as they relate to Texas. But over my lifetime I have gathered some ideas about the law and will share where Mine differ from this particular author.

Naturally, I welcome anyone who wishes to correct my errors in thinking, especially if they prove the author right.


Scenario: Austin Texas. Heroine receives summons, Hero receives summons(they are on opposite sides of case). Later heroine tells boss that she may receive jail time from this particular case. Once in court, it is shown that Heroine is defendent in court case. She is being sued for several million in damages and a ban on reporting on any celebrity events.


So here is my problem. As I see it, this author is trying to juggle three different legal issues, which would be handled by different "courts"/trials.


The hero is originally referred to as the "prosecution's witness"(as in a criminal case) but the court case is not the state vs. heroine but plaintiff vs. defendent(which indicates civil). Plus, at no time during the actual court case is there any indication that criminal charges have been issued or that jail time might be an outcome. Also a person who is the defendent in a criminal trial would be indicted not summoned a week before the trial begins.


So let us disregard the "criminal" aspect of this trial and look at the "civil" aspect.


Heroine is being sued for being a "distraction" that allowed a stalker to get a shot off in a public venue. She was neither aware of the stalker's existance nor did she provide him access. --yes I know anyone can sue for anything...but I think that this should have been addressed that this is a "nuisance" lawsuit.


So let's look at the third portion which is for an injunction against heroine ever covering celebrity events
1) I don't believe that could be part of the civil "damages" suit
2) if it could be part of the damages suit--I believe an injunction would have to be more specific ie: Heroine cannot cover any event where the Plaintiff is(restraining order?).
3) This blanket injunction would deprive the heroine of her ability to earn a living which certainly would be of greater concern for heroine(and her boss) than is ever demonstrated at any point in the story.



So based on the legal aspects alone(disregarding much other silliness) I have to consider this a badly written story. If a layperson such as myself stumbles over the points of "law" in the story, then I can only feel sorry for any legal professional who might have the misfortune to pick up this book.