Lawfare Explained
What is lawfare?
Here is how lawfare is defined on the internet:
"Lawfare is a term that combines "law" and "warfare" to describe the use of legal systems and principles as a means to achieve a strategic or political objective.
Instead of using traditional weapons or force, lawfare involves using legal tools, lawsuits, or legal threats to weaken, delegitimize, or gain advantage over an opponent."
Unfortunately, lawfare is often employed by governments as a tool to neutralize individuals without appearing to do so openly. It is commonly used against opponents who begin to pose a threat, such as those developing parallel economies or exposing government misconduct.
The objectives of governments in these situations are multiple. First, they seek to demonstrate their power in order to intimidate other potential opponents. At the same time, they aim to avoid negative public opinion by refraining from using overt force. In some cases, individuals who are imprisoned may face fatal outcomes at the hands of other inmates, which allows governments to maintain the appearance of having clean hands.
As mentioned in this article, laws are not designed to protect people but to keep power on them. That's basically designed to serve lawfare.
Here is an interesting neutral article about lawfare.
Why is lawfare a problem?
As stated in the introduction, lawfare is used by governments against their own populations. This is where the core issue lies. Governments present laws as necessary rules designed to protect society, yet when they manipulate or apply these laws selectively to neutralize individuals, it reveals that the law is, in these cases, merely a tool of power.
Moreover, as stated in this article, states are constantly working on lowering populations power.
And notably, the population has no real power over the creation of laws or over how they are applied.
In addition, lawfare is a powerful means of restricting freedom of speech and maintaining control over information. In practice, this means that the population has fewer and fewer ways to access information from media sources that are not under government influence or control.
When people understand that they can be imprisoned without just cause and without public resistance, they are far less likely to challenge or oppose the government.
The Roger Ver case
Roger Ver, often nicknamed “Bitcoin Jesus,” is an early investor and outspoken advocate for Bitcoin and later Bitcoin Cash. Originally from the United States, he became one of the first entrepreneurs to widely promote cryptocurrency for everyday use, investing in major crypto startups and pushing for financial decentralization. Ver is known for his strong libertarian beliefs, his opposition to government control, and his support for economic freedom.
Roger Ver has been targeted by governments due to his position as an outspoken opponent of state control and a strong advocate for individual freedom. Here is a breakdown of what happened:
1) Initial Conflict with Federal Agencies (2002)
Ver faced federal charges for selling fireworks without a license, allegedly because he publicly criticized the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) over the Waco siege. He served 10 months in prison, which is early lawfare: punishment for political dissent, rather than public safety.
2) Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship
Citing ideological and political pressure, Ver renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2014 and became a citizen of St. Kitts and Nevis. He claims this was in part to escape ongoing legal harassment rooted in his criticism of U.S. agencies.
3) Charges of Tax and Mail Fraud
In April 2024, the U.S. DOJ formally indicted Ver on allegations of tax evasion (approximately $48 million) and mail fraud. They contend Ver undervalued cryptocurrency and businesses when leaving the U.S.
4) Persecution for Crypto Advocacy
The true motive for prosecution isn’t financial misconduct—it’s ideological. The charges are a political tool to suppress his criticism of government control over cryptocurrency and financial freedoms. In his own words:
“This is pure lawfare from the Biden administration. They hated crypto and waged a war against any business or person promoting it.”
5) Extradition from Spain and Prison Risk
Arrested in Spain in April 2024 awaiting extradition, Ver has been detained for over eight months. He emphasizes the personal toll, saying,
“Every time the doorbell rings … I’m terrified that this could be my last moment of freedom.”
He faces up to 109 years in U.S. prison—a sentence which is grossly disproportionate and driven by political reprisal rather than justice.
Based on this story, it is clear that Roger Ver was charged with anything the government could find in order to silence him. Laws were extensively used and manipulated to ensure he would ultimately end up in prison. Even after he changed his nationality, the harassment continued. This is a clear example of how governments use lawfare to suppress opponents.
Since most media outlets are heavily controlled, they tend to present Roger Ver as guilty rather than as merely a suspect.
If you want to learn more about Roger Ver, here is an interview of him.
The Ross Ulbricht case
Ross Ulbricht is the creator of Silk Road, an online marketplace known for enabling anonymous transactions, including the sale of illegal goods. Driven by strong libertarian beliefs and a desire to promote free markets outside government control, Ulbricht openly challenged the state’s authority over individual choice and financial freedom.
Ross Ulbricht has been targeted by governments also, due to his position as an outspoken opponent of state control and a strong advocate for individual freedom. Here is a breakdown of what happened:
1) Overly Harsh, Symbolic Sentencing
Ross Ulbricht was sentenced in 2015 to life in prison plus 40 years without the possibility of parole for non-violent charges connected to creating Silk Road. His sentence was significantly harsher than those given to similar offenders, sending a clear message to anyone who might challenge government control of online markets or financial freedom.
2) Targeted for His Ideology
Ulbricht openly supported libertarian ideals, voluntaryism, and free markets without government interference. His trial focused not only on his actions but also heavily criticized his political beliefs. This positioned him as a dangerous ideological opponent in the eyes of the state, making his punishment a form of political suppression rather than just legal enforcement.
3) Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence
During the trial, the government withheld key information, including evidence that two federal agents involved in the Silk Road investigation were corrupt, stole Bitcoin, and manipulated the investigation. This critical omission undermined Ulbricht’s right to a fair defense.
4) Denied a Proper Defense
Ross Ulbricht’s legal team was prevented from presenting alternative explanations or suggesting that other operators might have been behind the Silk Road marketplace. This legal strategy seemed focused on ensuring conviction, not establishing the full truth.
5) Media Framing and Public Opinion
Much like in Roger Ver’s case, the mainstream media largely portrayed Ulbricht as unquestionably guilty, rarely referring to him as a suspect or focusing on the gaps in the prosecution. This media alignment supported the state’s narrative and helped justify the extreme sentence.
6) Continued Legal Harassment
Even after his conviction, Ulbricht’s case was kept under strict legal pressure. His appeals were consistently denied, despite growing public support and petitions arguing his sentence was unjust. His situation became a symbol of the dangers of unchecked government power.
To summarize, Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison essentially for running a PHP-based website. He did not personally sell any illegal goods; he simply administered the platform that others used for their transactions. Additionally, federal agents who acted illegally during the investigation—stealing funds and manipulating evidence—were not seriously held accountable or subjected to fair judgment.
Here is a blog dedicated to this case.
The John Mcaffee case
John McAfee was a British-American entrepreneur, best known as the creator of McAfee Antivirus, one of the first widely used cybersecurity programs. Beyond his success in technology, he became famous for his outspoken libertarian views, his criticism of government surveillance, taxation, and financial control, and his strong support for cryptocurrencies as tools of individual freedom. McAfee frequently challenged state power and promoted personal sovereignty, which made him a persistent target of legal actions by U.S. authorities.
1) Targeted for Speaking Out Against the State
John McAfee, became a vocal critic of government overreach, surveillance, taxation, and centralized power. He openly promoted cryptocurrency as a way to escape state-controlled financial systems and frequently warned about the loss of individual freedoms. His outspoken stance made him a visible threat to governments.
2) Criminal Charges as a Political Weapon
McAfee was repeatedly targeted by legal actions, particularly by U.S. authorities who accused him of tax evasion, fraud, and securities violations. Supporters argue that these charges were exaggerated and strategically used to silence his anti-government messages and prevent him from continuing his activism.
3) International Legal Pursuit
Even after leaving the United States, McAfee was pursued across several countries. His arrest in Spain in 2020, based on U.S. extradition requests, shows how lawfare can extend beyond borders to maintain pressure on political opponents. Despite not being a violent criminal, he was treated as a high-priority fugitive.
4) Media Framing
Mainstream media often depicted McAfee as reckless, unstable, or criminal without focusing on the political implications of his persecution. This portrayal helped shape public opinion to support the legal actions against him, rather than question their underlying motivations.
5) Harassment Beyond Legal Boundaries
Throughout his later years, McAfee reported that he was constantly surveilled, blocked from participating in public platforms, and harassed by law enforcement, even while in exile. He claimed that the charges against him were designed not for justice, but to remove him as a voice of opposition.
6) His Death and the Lingering Questions
John McAfee was found dead in a Spanish prison in 2021 in what was officially ruled a suicide shortly after his extradition was approved. His family and supporters strongly dispute this conclusion, suggesting that his death is part of a broader pattern of silencing government critics. Many view his story as a tragic example of the extremes lawfare can reach.
John McAfee’s story shows how governments can use the legal system, international cooperation, and media influence to pursue and neutralize individuals who openly challenge their authority. His case is widely seen as lawfare: not the fair application of justice, but the strategic use of the law to silence political enemies and suppress dissent.
Many mainstream articles about John McAfee do tend to reflect a strong pro-government narrative, often emphasizing his legal troubles and eccentric behavior while downplaying or ignoring the political context of his activism and anti-government stance.
This is actually a key aspect of lawfare: Not only is the legal system used to neutralize opponents, but the media often plays a supportive role in shaping public perception to justify those actions. When the media consistently portrays someone as guilty, dangerous, or unstable—without questioning the underlying motivations—it effectively helps governments discredit dissenters without the need for transparent debate.
General examples
To complement the three cases we discussed earlier, here are some quick examples of how lawfare is used around the world:
Spain : Prosecution of Catalan independence leaders and recent investigations targeting Prime Minister Sánchez’s family, often seen as politically motivated.
Russia : Abuse of Interpol Red Notices to pursue political dissidents abroad, forcing exiled opponents to face arrest threats in other countries.
China : Use of maritime law and aggressive legal claims in the South China Sea, as well as pursuing overseas dissidents through international legal channels.
France : Marine Le Pen accused courts of political persecution after being found guilty in a European funds case, calling it a form of lawfare.
Brazil : Former President Lula da Silva’s imprisonment later widely recognized as politically driven, with the case canceled due to judicial misconduct.
Turkey : Systematic use of terrorism charges against journalists, academics, and opposition politicians to silence dissent after the 2016 coup attempt.
Venezuela : Legal harassment and disqualification of opposition leaders from running in elections, using court rulings to maintain power.
Philippines : Targeting of journalist Maria Ressa with multiple lawsuits, widely seen as government retaliation for her criticism of President Duterte.
Saudi Arabia : Harsh legal action against women’s rights activists and dissidents, using anti-terror laws to justify prolonged detentions.
Israel : Use of military and civilian courts to prosecute Palestinian activists and suppress protests, often criticized by international observers.
Conclusion
As we can see, lawfare is a widespread tool used to silence opponents of the state. What is particularly striking is that it is often carried out openly, without much effort to conceal it, and populations generally seem to accept it or remain indifferent. One of the most ironic aspects of lawfare is that governments who actively use it against their own or foreign opponents are often the first to denounce it when another state employs the same tactics against them.
Once again, it becomes clear that laws often serve to protect governments rather than the populations they claim to defend. This is why governments continuously pass new laws that gradually restrict individual freedoms, typically justifying these measures with the language of security and public protection.
In most cases, when lawfare is used against individuals, it is closely tied to two key factors: when the economy is threatened and when government control is challenged. These are precisely the areas where opposition must remain most vigilant and focused. For those interested in exploring how to effectively address and navigate these issues, you can find valuable advice in the following article.
Suggest changes
Crabmeat 2025-07-08
Donate XMR to the author:
89aWkJ8yabjWTDYcHYhS3ZCrNZiwurptzRZsEpuBLFpJgUfAK2aj74CPDSNZDRnRqeKNGTgrsi9LwGJiaQBQP4Yg5YtJw2U