Got a team here today installing a new AC unit….thankfully my house has two units, so I’m nice and cool downstairs while the upstairs unit is being swapped out. That thing was a beast that ran like a champ for 27 years. ¡Vaya con Dios, hermano!
BUT, that’s not the big news — the big news is this: while I was having lunch, I got an email from the PDJ with a ruling on Jim Lee’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. If you recall, that motion said Jim wins on two issues:
- The claim I violated a court order because, among other things, I published a record showing Laura’s weight (her weight is apparently a matter of national security); and
- My comments about Mata.
Short version of the ruling — Jim Lee’s motion was DENIED as to issue #1, but GRANTED as to issue #2. So that’s it! JIM WINS!!!!!
As to issue #1, the court said there were factual disputes as to the scope of the court’s order (because, among other things, Woodnick filed unsealed pleadings w/ medical information long before I was even involved in the case). So Jim lost that part.
But as for issue #2, the ruling was 1000000000% in Jim Lee’s favor. Per the judge: I have NO First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t exist. The AZ Supreme Court is free to ignore SCOTUS decisions. All case law I cited was wrong. Rude speech is never protected, ever, under any circumstances. Every other court ruling that says otherwise is void. And the AZ anti-SLAPP law? Never heard of it. Wasn’t mentioned at all.
So let me be honest — at first, I saw this as a blessing. The reasons are technical, but the main thing is this came as a HUGE RELIEF. It means (or so I thought) that I could immediately get the heck out of AZ.
But then I re-read the ruling and realized something — it only resolved ONE claim in the case (the part about Mata). There are still five other claims: 1.) the court order thing, 2.) calling 9-1-1 on Marraccini, 3.) calling JFC assholes, 4.) presenting false evidence, and 5.) the appeal. This ruling does not address any of those claims. So those claims are probably still alive.
UGH, so that means I STILL can’t leave…since I still need to defend those claims (even though this ruling makes the PDJ’s views clear — she isn’t going to agree with me under any circumstances).
Then, to make matters even worse, a few minutes ago I got this email:
Oh shoot! Huh? The order was pretty comprehensive, and it certainly didn’t look like a draft (i.e., it doesn’t cut off in the middle of a sentence of something).
I am usually pretty good at guessing what’s going on with stuff like this….but I really don’t have any idea….EXCEPT for this guess — I wonder if the PDJ is going to add something asking/inviting Jim Lee to let the court know if he still plans on pursing the other claims? The first draft order didn’t talk about the other claims (which made me think, at first, that maybe this was intended to be a dispositive ruling on the whole case).
But’s it is clearly not dispositive of the whole case. In fact, because it does not even talk about my anti-SLAPP defense, I can (and will) technically still raise that…both with respect to other claims (the calling 9-1-1 thing is absolutely within the anti-SLAPP law), but also with respect to the single claim about Mata.
Keep in mind — you HAVE to raise legal arguments NOW, even if you know the judge won’t accept them. You can’t raise legal arguments for the first time on appeal, so that means I still need to at least make a good faith effort to bring them to the court’s attention, even though the judge’s mind is made up.
So what’s next? Well, since the judge’s paralegal asked to “recall” the order, I guess that means there technically is no order. I could still share the draft I received, but as a courtesy I won’t. When a new/final order comes in, I’ll post it.
Also, I asked Jim Lee to tell me his intentions regarding the other claims. He can, of course, keep going on those…because this ruling doesn’t address them. Or if Jim is VERY confident his position on the Mata thing is correct, he may choose to drop the other claims. As I’ve said before — this is a death penalty case, and Jim Lee can only execute me once.
NOTE – while I was typing this, Jim responded and said he is NOT dropping anything else. He is still going to pursue all other claims, so that means I will still have to defend them. Of course.
Final comment — while I strongly disagree with the judge, I am actually happy with the context of this ruling…..because the timing will make an appeal MUCH easier for me to win. Keep in mind – Jim Lee moved for judgment on the pleadings offensively; i.e., BEFORE any evidence was provided to the court. The PDJ granted that motion, ending that part of the case. Again, that was based solely on the pleadings, not the evidence.
When I appeal, that means the appellate court (which will be the AZ Supreme Court) will have to apply a standard of review that is extremely favorable to me — they will have to resolve every inference in my favor, they will have to assume all my factual claims were true, and they will have to resolve every doubt in my favor. Because they will only be looking at the pleadings, not the evidence.
If Jim Lee had moved for summary judgment at the close of discovery (or if he moved for judgment as a matter of law at the hearing), the appellate standard of review would have been MUCH tougher. Because at that point, I would at least have been given a chance to present a defense. In that context, because the court would be ruling based on the evidence, not the pleadings, the standard of review would be much less favorable to me.
Here, I was never given any chance to present any evidence in my defense. For that reason, the appellate standard of review will be the most favorable to me possible (and thus, the least favorable to Jim).
Anyway, we keep marching forward…..
P.S. Before you go celebrating, keep a couple things in mind — this ruling isn’t final. It does NOT stop me from practicing law. That won’t happen until (at the earliest) we have the hearing set for the end of June/early July.
After that hearing, the PDJ will issue a final ruling. You can safely assume the death penalty will be imposed.
Now, does THAT finally mark the end of my days as a lawyer? NO, not necessarily — once the PDJ issues a final decision, I can appeal it. As part of that process, I can ask for a “stay” pending the appeal.
In practical terms, if the PDJ issues an order suspending/disbarring me, and if that order it stayed, that means I would be able to continue practicing law until the appeal was resolved. I will also remain licensed in California for a long time…and I am 100% confident the CA bar will not recognize this order because, among other things, it directly conflicts with California law.
I’m really not practicing anymore, and I don’t intend to continue practicing in Arizona regardless of the outcome, but the rule seems to weigh heavily in favor of automatically staying PDJ rulings in most cases. In fact, look at what the rule says:
The application for stay pending appeal shall be granted subject to appropriate conditions of supervision, except when an interim suspension has been ordered or when the hearing panel, in its discretion, determines no conditions of supervision will protect the public while the appeal is pending.
Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 59(c) (emphasis added).
Well, there you have it. This chapter MIGHT be coming to a close sooner than expected. Yes, you can be happy (for now), but keep in mind — I WANT the U.S. Supreme Court to take this case. I can’t ask them to unless/until the AZ Supreme Court says I lose. So we are now one step closer to that final victory.