Couldn't you sue for damage after that? It seems like you got a great damage and it was proven in court that it's been caused by a lie
In the context of contract law, debt collection and civil litigation, the term judgment proof is commonly used to refer to defendants or potential defendants who are financially insolvent, or whose income and assets cannot be obtained in satisfaction of a judgment.[1]
Being "judgment proof" is not a defense to a lawsuit. If sued, the defendant cannot claim being "judgment proof" as an affirmative defense. The term "judgment proof" instead refers to the inability of the judgment holder to obtain satisfaction of the judgment.[1]
If a plaintiff were to secure a legal judgment against an insolvent defendant, the defendant's lack of funds would make the satisfaction of that judgment difficult, if not impossible, to secure.[2]
Even if they can't collect, wouldn't there be some significant value to the judgement, making it less of a he said/she said thing? When confronted with the allegation, it could be rebutted with the facts that you 1) sued, 2) prevailed, and 3) and are owed a lot of money.
Plus a series of judgements does a good job of illustrating to others that all allegations were false, and were looked at by a court (possibly multiple times) to determine if they had any validity.
3 judgements in your favor is a good rebuttal if it ever comes up again...
You'd end up costing yourself money, just in the sheer time it would take to do it.
If you want to change that, men have to hold themselves accountable for protecting themselves against women.
You might not like that reality, it’s not a good one, but it’s true.
How do you define sexism or any other ism if not a social and or judicial issue???