Hoofing it down to court this afternoon…
After seeing the court’s order today (here) I had a quick call with my attorney, the inestimable Marc Randazza. As a lawyer, I have represented countless clients. It is extremely rare for me to be the client, so it feels weird to talk about “my lawyer”…
But anyway, Marc was extremely happy about the judge’s decision today. It shows she is taking this seriously. It also shows she wants to give me a shot to prove my position is correct before stripping me of my esquire appellation. That’s all I ask, so we’re seeing this as a really good sign.
Now, the PDJ only wants me to give her 10 pages. Fair enough. My pleadings are often too long.
BUT, as part of my effort to educate the court, I need to let the judge know — this is not as much a matter of first impression as it appears. As I mentioned before, the AZ anti-SLAPP law is relatively new, but it is being HOTLY contested in court….because it is THAT damn important. We are talking DEFCON Level One important.
But don’t take my word for it…recognize the name?
See, I am a big fan of NOT reinventing the wheel. So when the PDJ said she’d like some briefing on the anti-SLAPP law’s constitutionality, the first thing I thought was — hey, that same issue was just litigated in State v. Koert. Let’s go pull some pleadings from that case to see what everyone said. We know the court held the law WAS constitutional (ruling), but I could only access the court’s order, not the pleadings that generated it.
So, I did some digging and found these things online:
Those pleadings were helpful, but I wanted more. Unable to find all the briefs online, I went on down to the Maricopa County Superior Court and pulled some things:
- Defendant’s Response to Petition for Special Action
- Amicus Brief of Media Association
- Amicus Brief of Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
Friends – Koert was a trespassing case. In the world of crime, trespassing is kind of like a parking ticket. Yes, parking laws are important, and parking tickets are annoying, but parking laws don’t usually generate headline news.
This case did. Because it should. Just like my friend Matthew Kelley argued — the anti-SLAPP law is a critical tool for protecting the First Amendment and the Arizona constitution’s right to free speech (which is even broader than the First Amendment). The law does this by giving victims an express lane for junk, harassing actions to be thrown out quickly.
Of course, some bad guys don’t like this result, because it would deprive them of a tool they need to harass victims. But the Arizona legislature wisely chose to tip the balance in favor of protecting free speech, and punishing those who seek to suppress it.
So, rather than reinventing the wheel, I just need to whip up another Request for Judicial Notice, to which all these pleadings will be attached. Then when I file my brief with the PDJ, it will simply say: here, read this.