Today’s tasks: finishing the new tile in the master shower, and dealing with more childish BS from Mr. James D. Lee, Esquire.
Guess which project is more fun?
When doing complicated work involving lots of cuts, I like to lay the tiles out first, cut each as needed, then mark them prior to installation. This means once the mortar is applied, I don’t need to stop for each new cut.
So what’s the new Jim Lee BS? Two things:
Randazza thinks I should ask for sanctions. He’ll learn.
Remember — this is a SLAPP action (technically, a SAAPP action, but that name is lame).
The point of a SLAPP action is never to win. NEVER. The point is to harass the victim, forcing them to waste as much time as possible. The process IS the punishment (which is why SLAPP actions are illegal).
So, in the spirt of endless bad faith, Jim wants the PDJ to take my anti-SLAPP motion, strike it, and make me re-file it as a TWO separate things. Because that would be SO much more efficient, right?
It would also be INCONSISTENT with the rules, Jim, and we KNOW how much the PDJÂ LOVESÂ to follow the rules.
Let me remind you what Civil Procedure Rule 8(e)(2) (which specifically is incorporated into Supreme Court Rule 48) says:
(2)Â Alternative Statements of a Claim or Defense. A party may set out two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.
Most courts I’ve dealt with have local rules that specifically prohibit the filing of separate dispositive motions. If you want to ask the court to resolve a case, you must file a single pleading, even if you have different/alternative arguments to raise. You don’t file multiple motions; you just combine them into a single one.
Anyway, whatever. If the PDJ wants me to file two different identical motions, one that cites the summary judgment rule and one that cites the anti-SLAPP law, that’s fine. Two identical motions will be so much easier to deal with than one.
Also, Jim’s never-ending shenanigans got me thinking about what happened 50 years ago in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). That case is SUCH a clear harbinger of what’s to come in my case. It’s also a fascinating case study of the constant fight between those who hate the First Amendment (Jim Lee) and those who support it (me & Randazza).
It’s worth re-visiting Bates because it’s such a striking example of how far we have come, and also how easy it is to fall backwards.
The issue in Bates was simple — at the time, there was an ethical rule that said lawyers were NOT allowed to advertise….because this was considered “unseemly” (i.e., sleazy).
A couple of lawyers decided to challenge the rule, so they ran this “sleazy” little ad in the paper (JIM — trigger warning — shield your delicate eyes):
The State Bar of Arizona saw the ad and decided they simply couldn’t tolerate this shocking violation of professional decency, so the bar filed charges against the two lawyers. Not surprisingly, the lawyers LOST at step 1 (a hearing before a bar judge).
The lawyers appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and guess what? They LOST. The AZ Supreme Court said:
Respondents urge that DR 2â101(B) should be declared null and void as a violation of the First Amendment. We disagree. Restrictions on professional activity, and in particular advertising, have repeatedly survived constitutional challenge. The legal profession, like the medical profession, has always prohibited advertising since it is a form of solicitation deemed contrary to the best interests of society.
We find no First Amendment violation.
Matter of Bates, 113 Ariz. 394, 398 (1976).
As we know, the United States Supreme Court then took the case and reversed. Because DUH. It’s not 1957 anymore, and the First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to place a heavy hand over the mouths of people simply because they are lawyers.
But here is what I found extremely interesting — I went into Westlaw so I could pull the AZ Supreme Court’s decision in Bates (which was thrown out by SCOTUS). As I was doing that, I noticed there were something like 30 amicus briefs filed…and that was just at the AZ Supreme Court level.
I can’t seem to find the SCOTUS docket for the case (the Internet didn’t exist in 1976, of course), so I don’t know how many people filed amicus briefs there. You can bet it was a lot more than 30.
The bottom line is that the First Amendment does still matter. Technically, in addition to protecting my right to speak, it also protects other things including your right to go to church. Imagine Jim Lee or someone in his position tried to punish you for going to church, or going to the wrong type of church. Would you think that’s OK? I wouldn’t, and I’m an atheist.
So yeah, we continue marching forward. I know with 100% certainty I am going to lose at Step 1 (like Mr. Bates). But that’s fine…we will then proceed to the AZ Supreme Court, and if they agree with Jim Lee, then it’s off to Washington, D.C.
1976, 2026, or 1776? Hard to tell the difference….
