Podcasts about anti slapp

Send us a textAnti Libel Chill legislation is a fairly recent change. Libel Chill is the fear of being sued for speaking your mind. An example of this is if a developer wanted to build something in a particular area but a grassroots ratepayer organization formed to oppose it. The developer might hire a legal team to essentially send the message that if people say bad things about the developer say on social media, there will be litigation. You want to say bad things about me, I'm going to make it expensive for you.This kind of strategy has become common, and a name has developed called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or SLAPP. Now a number of Canadian jurisdictions are putting in place Anti SLAPP legislation with a goal to give people peace of mind when they speak their mind.Noble idea, but will the legislation work?Gardiner Roberts website https://www.grllp.com/Email Gavin Tighe gjtighe@grllp.comEmail Stephen Thiele sthiele@grllp.com

   Slam the Gavel welcomes back Cristin Badal, who was last on the podcast, March 6th, 2025, Season 5, Episode 243. Cristin is here to update her case regarding an Anti-SLAPP. An Anti-SLAPP: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. The Anti-SLAPP is devised to protect people from lawsuits that are set out to SILENCE or COERCE people for exercising their unalienable First Amendment right. FREEDOM OF SPEECH.    Apparently, in New Jersey, Attorney Jessica Regno Sprauge wrote a letter to Judge Peter Bogaard with demands. Attorney Jessica Regno Sprauge would rather go on a trip to Cabo, sponsored by the New Jersey Bar. Due to this trip, it is keeping Cristin's seven year-old son from her. This is CHILD PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE (DSM V, V995.51)     Cristin has always told the truth and there is no reason why jurisdiction cannot be moved down to Florida, so she can proceed with 50/50 custody.    Several media outlets have picked up her story. Cristin will be back for an update.To Reach Cristin Badal:  Cristin2024@proton.me and faithfirstjustice@proton.me (under construction)***** Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.comhttps://ko-fi.com/maryannpetri*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution. Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Law Nerd App - https://LawNerdapp.comLaw Nerd Shop - https://LawNerdShop.com Diddy's defense attorney, Ricco, requested to withdraw, after speaking with lead counsel. I go over the other motions that were discussed during last week's hearing for Karen Read and the motions that the judge was not able to get to due to the concerning revelation with the ARCCA experts. Blake Lively files an amended complaint against Justin Baldoni which highlights a potential paper trail of HR complaints against Baldoni. Lesie Sloan files an Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss.Judge in the Bryan Kohberger case denied motion to suppress IGG (Investigative Genetic Genealogy) DNA. I will go more in depth with that this week.RESOURCESLast Tuesday's Hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5p-UrfGKDY Quick Bits Breakdown - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1hnwkjouUY Gwyneth Paltrow Trial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gIlMUdeLtN4mNQCerfWxONy Karen Read Dauberth Hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjU4nGT3TSs Last Koberger Hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nimoYqs4CwM This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Ancaman kriminalisasi terhadap pejuang lingkungan belum juga surut, meski jaminan perlindungan terus diperkuat. Aturan terbaru anti-SLAPP, baru tahun lalu dirilis melalui Peraturan Menteri LHK Nomor 10. Setahun sebelumnya, juga sudah ada Peraturan Mahkamah Agung tentang pedoman mengadili perkara lingkungan hidup. Kasus teranyar menimpa Guru Besar Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB) Prof Bambang Hero Saharjo, yang dilaporkan ke polisi oleh ormas Putra Putri Tempatan Bangka Belitung, dalam kapasitasnya sebagai ahli di pengadilan. Prof Bambang memberikan keterangan tentang kerugian negara dalam kasus timah. Prof Bambang berulang kali diundang sebagai ahli di berbagai kasus terkait kerusakan lingkungan. Berulang kali pula, ia dihadapkan dengan upaya kriminalisasi, padahal aturan perlindungan makin berlapis. Pejuang lingkungan memang banyak menjadi target kriminalisasi. Berdasarkan data WALHI 2024, ada 1.054 orang, di antaranya 28 perempuan dan 11 anak, diduga dikrimininalisasi lantaran memperjuangkan lingkungan serta ruang hidupnya. Mengapa pelaporan pada pegiat lingkungan masih terjadi meski sudah ada berbagai aturan anti-SLAPP? Bagaimana mendorong agar sosok seperti Prof Bambang Hero tak menjadi "langganan" kasus SLAPP? Kita bincangkan bersama Guru Besar Perlindungan Hutan, Fakultas Kehutanan dan Lingkungan IPB, Prof Bambang Hero Saharjo dan Sekar Banjaran Aji, Juru Kampanye Hutan Greenpeace. *Kami ingin mendengar saran dan komentar kamu terkait podcast yang baru saja kamu simak, melalui surel ke podcast@kbrprime.id

Lawyer James Manson brings us up to date on the $290 million lawsuit brought by Ottawa resident Zexi Li and others against the Freedom Convoy. In court on Oct 28, Mr. Manson put forward his arguments in an appeal against the dismissal of his Anti-SLAPP motion that would have ended the lawsuit. It's still early days, he says, but he's already put forward some interesting evidence, like the fact that it was the Ottawa police, and not the truckers, that created the traffic problems in downtown Ottawa back in January and February 2022.Justice Centre, Oct 25, 2024: On Monday, court will hear arguments in $290 million lawsuit against Freedom ConvoyJustice Centre Active Case, Feb 5, 2024: Zexi Li launches $290 million lawsuit against Freedom Convoy participantsJustice Centre, Aug 8, 2023: Update on Anti-SLAPP Motion in Class Action Lawsuit against Freedom Convoy ParticipantsJustice Centre, Feb 7, 2024: Justice Centre in court today opposing application against organizers of Freedom ConvoyOsler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Sep 14, 2020: Supreme Court rearticulates test under Ontario “anti-SLAPP” legislationSuperior Court of Ontario: Best Practices Guide For Class Actions in Ontario Theme Music "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show

This Day in Legal History: First Televised TrialOn October 25, 1988, New York marked a significant moment in legal and media history by televising its first-ever courtroom trial—the highly publicized murder case of Joel Steinberg. Steinberg, a disbarred attorney, was accused of the brutal abuse and subsequent death of six-year-old Lisa Steinberg, his illegally adopted daughter. Public outrage and media interest were intense, and the televised trial offered viewers unprecedented access to courtroom dynamics, evidence presentation, and witness testimony. This coverage came as part of an experimental initiative in New York, designed to gauge whether the public's right to access the legal process through television could coexist with the fairness and decorum of courtroom proceedings. The trial captivated audiences and sparked debates over the benefits and pitfalls of televised trials. Advocates argued that broadcasting trials promoted transparency and public understanding of the judicial system. Opponents, however, voiced concerns that television could disrupt proceedings, influence witness behavior, and introduce bias by swaying public opinion. Steinberg's trial ultimately led to his conviction for manslaughter, though the broader implications of the experiment reached far beyond this single case. The success of this experiment paved the way for the launch of Court TV in July 1991, which would go on to cover high-profile cases like those of O.J. Simpson and the Menendez brothers, changing public engagement with the legal system. This development marked a shift toward greater media access in courtrooms across the United States, though the debate over its impacts continues today. The Steinberg case remains a key moment in the intersection of law and media, shaping how future generations would come to witness and understand legal proceedings through their screens.Hollywood studios frequently use California's anti-SLAPP law to counter idea theft lawsuits, claiming free speech protections to halt proceedings and requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate their case has merit early on. The anti-SLAPP statute was originally designed to protect individuals from strategic lawsuits stifling public participation, but it now often benefits large corporations in creative disputes. Once defendants claim free speech protections, plaintiffs face restrictions on discovery, potential delays from appeals, and the risk of paying hefty legal fees for defendants if the motion is successful. Recent court decisions, like Musero v. Creative Artists Agency and Norman v. Ross, have strengthened the effectiveness of anti-SLAPP motions in these cases, making it challenging for creators to bring successful suits. While the Ninth Circuit previously allowed some idea theft claims to proceed in federal court (e.g., Jordan-Benel v. Universal), California state courts have since diverged, making such claims nearly impossible to win in state court. This split between federal and state interpretations creates additional uncertainty for plaintiffs. Attorneys now approach idea theft claims cautiously, noting the costs, time, and complexities due to anti-SLAPP law. Even with valid claims, plaintiffs may struggle against the heavy evidentiary burden, and fewer lawyers are willing to take on such cases in California's current legal landscape.Hollywood Studios Use Free Speech Law to Beat Idea Theft SuitsA bipartisan bill that would provide tax relief for U.S. citizens held hostage abroad is stalled in Congress. The Senate bill, introduced by Senator Chris Coons, seeks to delay tax filing deadlines and waive penalties for detained individuals and their spouses. Supporters argue that wrongful detainees should not face IRS penalties for missed deadlines due to captivity, and inaction would leave affected Americans liable for accumulating penalties. This issue has gained urgency following recent hostage situations, including Americans held in Gaza and other countries.The Senate bill's path forward is complicated by a disagreement over legislative procedure. The Senate agreed to pass the bill without a separate vote if the House sent over an identical version. However, the House Ways and Means Committee chose to advance a different bill, introduced by Rep. Claudia Tenney, which merges tax penalty relief with changes to the process for revoking tax-exempt status for groups linked to terrorism. House Republicans believe the merged bill improves the original, but this approach risks delaying or blocking the legislation entirely, as the Senate is less likely to approve the modified version. If the House does not pass the original Senate bill, the legislation will likely be delayed until the next Congressional term.Relief for Hostages Facing IRS Penalties Bogs Down in CongressLos Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon announced he would recommend parole for Erik and Lyle Menendez, who have served nearly 35 years in prison for the 1989 murder of their parents. Gascon cited new evidence supporting claims that the brothers endured years of sexual abuse by their father, Jose Menendez, which could have influenced the jury's decision had it been available during their trials. Convicted in a high-profile second trial in the 1990s, the brothers argued self-defense, but prosecutors claimed they killed their parents for financial gain.Gascon now believes the brothers, ages 21 and 18 at the time of the murders, have “paid their debt to society,” though he emphasized the severity of their crime and noted opposition within his office. He also acknowledged a recent letter from Erik Menendez describing abuse months before the murders, as well as allegations against Jose Menendez from a former member of the pop band Menudo, raising questions about abuse patterns.The decision to expedite the case follows renewed public interest, driven by a Netflix dramatization and an upcoming court hearing scheduled for November 26. Gascon, facing re-election, denied that political motivations influenced his decision, highlighting his broader efforts to address “over-incarceration” in similar cases. Some Menendez family members support the brothers' release, while Gascon reiterated his office's evolving stance on complex issues of sexual abuse and violence.Menendez Brothers to Get DA Recommendation for Resentencing (1)Prosecutor recommends parole for Menendez brothers in 1989 murder of parents | ReutersThe owners of the cargo ship Dali have agreed to pay the U.S. government $102 million after the vessel collided with Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge in March 2024, causing its collapse and resulting in six fatalities. The Justice Department had filed a $103 million lawsuit against Grace Ocean Private Limited and Synergy Marine Private Limited, both based in Singapore, to recover federal costs for cleanup and debris removal needed to reopen the Port of Baltimore. This operation required over 1,500 responders and substantial resources, with reopening delayed until June.The Dali had reportedly experienced electrical failures leading up to the crash, prompting both a National Transportation Safety Board inquiry and an FBI investigation. Additionally, Maryland state officials are seeking separate compensation from the companies, estimating $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion to rebuild the bridge by 2028. Funds recovered for bridge reconstruction are expected to reduce costs borne by taxpayers.Cargo-ship owner to pay US $102 million over Baltimore bridge collapse, DOJ says | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Strauss II.This week's closing theme features the lively elegance of Johann Strauss II with the first movement of his Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt mit Johann Strauss, a piece that captures the unmistakable joy and sophistication of the Viennese waltz. Known as the “Waltz King,” Johann Strauss II was a composer and conductor who, more than anyone, popularized and refined the waltz into an art form beloved worldwide. Born into a musical family in 1825, he inherited his father's musical gifts and keen understanding of public taste, quickly building on his father's legacy to establish himself as a central figure in Austrian music.Strauss's music became synonymous with the grandeur and charm of 19th-century Vienna. His waltzes, like the famous Blue Danube and Tales from the Vienna Woods, offered audiences sweeping, melodic expressions of life's joyful moments and turned the city into a cultural hotspot. Wiener Klänge, or "Viennese Sounds," presents a selection of these celebrated waltzes, celebrating not only the beauty of the dance but also the rhythmic elegance that Strauss brought to the genre. The piece combines energetic and graceful passages that bring the sparkle of a Viennese ballroom to life.Strauss was known for infusing his compositions with light-hearted elegance and rhythmic sophistication, evoking the sway and energy of couples gliding across a ballroom floor. His work on Wiener Klänge draws listeners into this vibrant world, where each waltz embodies both the simplicity and complexity that made his music timeless. To this day, his works continue to charm audiences worldwide, cementing his legacy as one of Austria's most beloved composers. Ending with Wiener Klänge is a nod to his infectious rhythm and intricate harmonies that encapsulate Vienna's musical heritage—an uplifting conclusion to our week.Without further ado, Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt mit Johann Strauss first movement, enjoy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The evidence after two trials seems clear that Lyle and Erik Menendez murdered their parents in Beverly Hills in 1989. They were convicted after their second trial in 1996. The brothers filed a Habeas petition asking the court to vacate the conviction based on new evidence. On Thursday, 10-3-24, District Attorney Gascon stated there will be a hearing at the end of November. Tupac's family hired Alex Spiro, Alec Baldwin's attorney in the Rust case, to investigate to see if Diddy has any connection with the murder. Now that Diddy is in custody, that investigation may be easier to do. It would be natural to question Keefe D and Suge Knight. I will cover more Diddy updates in this week's podcast.Karen Read's retrial has a new special prosecutor who will be paid up to $75k for the prosecution. Hank Brennan's, who worked on the defense team for Whitey Bulger, has an hourly rate is $250 per hour.Hannah Gutierrez motion for New Trial, Dismissal and Immediate Release was denied by the judge. A decision still hasn't been made in the Alec Baldwin motion to reconsider the dismissal of his case.Jury election for the Sarah Boone case begins on Monday, October 7th. She was arrested in 2020 for the murder of her boyfriend. She said they were playing hide and seek and he hid in a zipped up suitcase. Police found a video in Sarah's phone of Jorge Torres pleading to be released because he couldn't breathe. Sarah has gone through 8 different attorneys. The judge said that she was going to have to represent herself due to her behavior. Boone wrote an advertisement and is now being represented by a private attorney using the battered spouse defense. The court denied the motion to suppress her police statements.Netflix and Fiona Harvey and going through mediation for the Baby Reindeer Show Lawsuit. However, Netflix also filed an Appeal to the Anti-SLAPP denial. I will keep you in the loop. He went into court to formalize the plea and sentencing hasn't happened yet.The headlines are saying that one of the doctors in the Matthew Perry case has plead guilty. This is the same doctor we talked about that took the deal before the case went to court.RESOURCESJudge's Ruling on Hannah Gutierrez's Case: https://www.youtube.com/live/8OfqoJjeWKA?t=1770sThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Use code EmilyBakerClass at https://www.GreenChef.com/emilybaker50 to get 50% off your first box, plus 20% off your next two months!Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code LAWNERD at https://LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod #adGo to https://shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business – no matter what stage you're in.Karen Read's attorneys filed their Opening Briefs to the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts. The prosecution's response is due by October 16th and then Read will have a chance to reply by October 25th. Oral Arguments will most likely be at the end of November 2024 to hopefully get a decision by December 2024. There is a high likelihood that the defense will ask for the retrial to be scheduled further out.The Baby Reindeer Civil Lawsuit has a trial date set for May 2025. Netflix has filed a request for Dismissal and Anti-SLAPP. Netflix provided a Declaration from Richard Gadd including many exhibits proving Fiona Harvey sent Richard Gadd harassing emails, text messages, voice mails, and also accusations of stalking a Member of Parliaments' wife.These exhibits show that Harvey did do the things detailed in the mini series but was not a "beat by beat" recount of what happened. The Judge made a ruling by denying the Anti-SLAPP and dismissed some of the causes of action from Fiona's case; only leaving the Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The line in the Netflix show that said, “this is a true story” was false and can imply malice because it can lead the viewer to believe that all of the things that happened in the series were true when that is not the case. It is likely that the case will go to mediation and settle out of court.Netflix is being sued for defamation by John Wilson for the documentary: Operation Varsity Blues - The College Admissions Scandal. John Wilson had almost all of his convictions overturned on appeal and that was not included in the documentary. Netflix lost the motion to dismiss and will be moving forward with discovery.RESOURCESKaren Read - Affidavit of Juror Doe - https://www.youtube.com/live/3VgRq1V7Wb8?t=18884s The $170 Million Baby Reindeer Lawsuit - https://youtu.be/WJrHwK_48d4Buster Murdaugh Sues Netflix - https://youtu.be/Zan5PlYEeJAThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Aparat Diminta Terapkan Anti-SLAPP untuk Pejuang Lingkungan | KADIN Arsjad Rasjid Gugat Munaslub Versi Anindya ke Pengadilan | Diduga Ada Tembakan sebelum Tujuh Remaja Terjun ke Kali Bekasi *Kami ingin mendengar saran dan komentar kamu terkait podcast yang baru saja kamu simak, melalui surel ke podcast@kbrprime.id

Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan tentang perlindungan bagi pejuang lingkungan akhirnya resmi diundangkan pada 4 September lalu. PermenLHK Nomor 10 Tahun 2024 ini merupakan aturan pelaksana Pasal 66 Undang-Undang 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup. Aturan yang kerap disebut anti-SLAPP itu memang sudah dinanti sejak lama, karena begitu banyaknya kasus kriminalisasi menimpa pejuang lingkungan. Berdasarkan data WALHI 2024, ada 1.054 orang, di antaranya 28 perempuan dan 11 anak, diduga dikrimininalisasi lantaran memperjuangkan lingkungan serta ruang hidupnya, selama dua periode kepemimpinan Presiden Joko Widodo. Dengan terbitnya PermenLHK tentang anti-SLAPP, apakah pejuang atau aktivis lingkungan kini bisa bernapas lega karena bakal terhindar dari ancaman bui? Kita bincangkan bersama Guru Besar Perlindungan Hutan, Fakultas Kehutanan dan Lingkungan IPB, Prof Bambang Hero Saharjo dan Plt. Kepala Unit Manajemen Pengetahuan ICEL, Lasma Natalia Panjaitan. *Kami ingin mendengar saran dan komentar kamu terkait podcast yang baru saja kamu simak, melalui surel ke podcast@kbrprime.id

VLOG Aug 8 Trump mini-trial DDC? Anti-SLAPP win in CDCA, after Inner City Press got transcript unsealed, but reforms needed https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25035485-antislapp1cdcascarsiicp080724 FuboTV v Disney goes long, is DirectTV exec on Tahiti? Impunity: @SierraLeoneUN is a no-show but @StateDept defends

Just when you think it's over, Scandoval makes its way back into the headlines! Although Tom will no longer be following through with the lawsuit against Ariana, we're still covering the highly requested gift that keeps on giving! AKA; the lawsuit between Vanderpump Rules stars, Rachel Leviss vs. Tom Sandoval and Ariana Madix.   What's on the docket?   Life updates, Reddit thread reactions, and podcast reviews   An overview of what has previously been covered in this case   Rachel's response to Ariana's Anti-SLAPP motion   The court's rulings on Rachel's evidentiary objections to Ariana's Anti-SLAPP  Rachel's declaration and interpretation of the infamous screen recording   The objections filed by Ariana in response to Rachel's declaration   Why the court denied Ariana's Anti-SLAPP motion  Tom's countersuit against Ariana, his retraction, and our thoughts!   Access additional content and our Patreon here: https://zez.am/thebravodocket  The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri. 

Over 2 Million Butts Love TUSHY. Get 10% off TUSHY with the code LAWNERD at https://hellotushy.com/LAWNERD #tushypod #adAs the hearing for a new trial approaches in the Karen Read case, new filings have emerged, including an affidavit from an anonymous juror requesting an extended order to protect juror anonymity due to significant safety concerns. The judge granted the request by sealing the jury list indefinitely. The Scandoval lawsuit has had several additional motions. Ariana Madix's Anti-SLAPP motion was denied, while Rachel Leviss and her father filed an affidavit detailing the emotional distress and financial costs incurred due to Tom and Ariana's actions.Tom Sandoval filed a cross-complaint against Ariana, seeking the court's declaration on liability percentages for damages. Tom posted on Instagram that he fired the attorney who filed the cross-complaint and rescinded the filing. Ariana Madix and Katie Maloney were sued by Chef Penny of “Their Something About Her Sandwich Shop”. Per the complaint, chef Penny Davidi claims that the duo did not honor the terms of her role as COO and Director of Culinary at the restaurant. Let me know if it is something I should do a deep dive into.Defense attorney Jason Bowles filed a motion for a new trial or dismissal in the case of armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. Bowles alleges that a significant amount of information was withheld from the defense, including two reports from one of the state's weapons experts, a complete interview with Seth Kenney, and 900 pages related to state witnesses.Judge Ural Glanville, presiding over the YSL RICO trial, was ordered to be removed from the case on Monday. A new judge has been assigned and the trial will proceed on August 5th.In a summary judgment, the court found the purported TikTok Psychic liable for defamation against a professor at the University of Idaho. The TikToker filed a motion to amend the filing and remove the judge from the case. Finally, Tom Girardi's federal criminal trial for stealing client funds has been scheduled for early August.This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Send us a Text Message.   Slam the Gavel welcomes guest, Shelly Hart to the podcast. Shelly Hart was last on the podcast Season 5, Episode 123. Shelly resides in the state of California and is a Pro Per (representing herself). No one would ever think renting an apartment could turn into litigation.     Shelly played the tape of a woman trying to get into her bank details. If anyone recognizes this voice please let Shelly know.  We also discussed a letter Shelly received on May 23rd regarding a move out agreement. However, Shelly can't move out until she gets a judgment from her lawsuit.      Shelly  is a Tenant Advocate since 2019. Discussing various court orders and bias she has experienced in the court system, Shelly explains her detailed case and the tactics lawyers use to get a Pro Per to quit, such as an, "Anti Slapp.” Shelly also talked about her settlement and how representing yourself consumes your whole life.     Also, Shelly has written a book, " You'll Never Judge in This Town Again, The Diary of a Mad Pro Per," that will be available early- mid July 2024 and can be found on shellysopinion.com   Shelly is requesting court watchers to come in person on 11-12-2024 to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, California.To reach Shelly: larecalls.com  and  inquire@larecalls.com*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Support the Show.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Dan Schneider, the former executive producer of Nickelodeon, has filed a lawsuit in response to the documentary 'Quiet on Set,' which shed light on alleged abuses within the Nickelodeon network. But does he have a chance? In this episode, Kiki is joined by her go-to pop culture attorney, Kate Watson Moss, as they delve into the defamation lawsuit filed by Schneider. Together they unpack the complexities of slander versus libel, the pivotal role of context in defamation suits, and the nuances of determining public figure status. Plus, what hell is the Anti-SLAPP law? @katewatsonmoss Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Use code EmilyBaker50 at https://www.GreenChef.com/EmilyBaker50 to get 50% off, plus 20% off your next two months!The judge made a ruling in the Scandoval lawsuit. Tom Sandoval's demurrer was denied in the first cause of action as it pertains to eavesdropping and the third cause of action as it relates to the invasion of privacy. A demurrer was granted with the 4th cause of action for the IIED and Rachel Leviss has 20 days to amend the complaint. A decision hasn't been made with Ariana Madix's Anti-SLAPP.I also break down why the judge denied Alec Baldwin's dismissal. A trial date has yet to be set. Lastly, I recap week 4 of the Karen Read trial.This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

The co-stars of Vaderpump Rules - Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval - have responded to Rachel Leviss' lawsuit against them. Ariana Madix has filed an Anti-SLAPP motion requesting the whole claim against her be thrown out and her attorney's fees paid. Ariana states that she never distributed the video to anyone. Ariana also states that she recorded a clip of the video from Tom's phone and sent it to Rachel with a text stating "You are DEAD TO ME".Tom Sandoval filed a Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike. His attorneys claim that the video file he obtained was created by Rachel and sent to Tom by her. Rachel Leviss' attorney has also put out a statement stating that she never created and sent the video to Tom Sandoval and Ariana's account of how she discovered the relationship is false. Rachel has since said that she will continue to pursue the lawsuit.RESOURCESRachel Leviss Sues Ariana Madix & Tom Sandoval:AUDIO: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ariana-madix-tom-sandoval-sued-by-rachel-leviss-sandoval/id1486229281?i=1000648339026VIDEO: https://youtu.be/r3Jw9RQq7gkThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

LA attorney Jeff Lewis is here to explain Rachel Leviss' lawsuit against Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval. He also gets into Ariana's Anti SLAPP suit and what it means. He shares Tom's response and how the two differ. I give my theory as to why Bravo and Andy Cohen are mentioned numerous times but are not defendants. I share about my own latest lawsuit and how Jeff defended me. I also get into The Met pre parties and JLo's dilemma. Britney got in a fight with maintenance man/boyfriend. Bethenny Frankel is single again. A pastor's young wife died by what he said was a self inflicted gun shot but many suspicious factors make us think it was not suicide. Selling Sunset OC has a threesome rumor. RHONJ premiered and social media is driving the storylines.   Go to https://Rakuten.com or download the Rakuten App. Membership is free, and when you sign up and shop today you get an extra 10% Cash Back Boost. Go to https://ProlonLife.com/JuicyScoop to get 10% off their 5-day nutrition program. Shop Juicy Scoop Merch https://juicyscoopshop.com  Get EXTRA Juicy on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/juicyscoop  Follow Me on Social Media Instagram: https://www/instagram.com/heathermcdonald  TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@heathermcdonald  Twitter: https://twitter.com/HeatherMcDonald Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We mark Press Freedom Day by celebrating the Anti-Slapp campaign, which is aimed at protecting journalists who want to expose wrongdoing. A SLAPP is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – a legal case brought, usually by the rich and powerful to intimidate those who want to question their behaviour into silence.   Famous examples include the fomerChelsea owner and Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich who took action against Catherine Belton and her publisher Harper Collins over claims made in Belton's book ‘Putin's People': and attempts by lawyers working for the then Chancellor Nadim Zahawi to gag tax lawyer and journalist Dan Neidle who'd been investigating his.finances.   Adrian Goldberg hears from Susan Coughtrie, co chair of the Anti Slapp coalition and  Lexie Kirkconnell-Kawana, CEO of the press regulator Impress. Produced in Birmingham by Adrian Goldberg.   Funded by subscriptions to the Byline Times. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We mark Press Freedom Day by celebrating the Anti-Slapp campaign, which is aimed at protecting journalists who want to expose wrongdoing.A SLAPP is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – a legal case brought, usually by the rich and powerful to intimidate those who want to question their behaviour into silence. Famous examples include the fomerChelsea owner and Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich who took action against Catherine Belton and her publisher Harper Collins over claims made in Belton's book ‘Putin's People': and attempts by lawyers working for the then Chancellor Nadim Zahawi to gag tax lawyer and journalist Dan Neidle who'd been investigating his.finances. Adrian Goldberg hears from Susan Coughtrie, co chair of the Anti Slapp coalition and Lexie Kirkconnell-Kawana, CEO of the press regulator Impress.Produced in Birmingham by Adrian Goldberg. Funded by subscriptions to the Byline Times. Made by We Bring Audio for Byline Times. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

arbeitsunrecht FM ist ein Radio-Magazin rund um Arbeit, Ausbeutung und Organisierung im Betrieb. Eine Sendung für renitente Beschäftigte, aktive Betriebsräte und solche, die es werden wollen.Eine Stunde voll mit Nachrichten, Interview, Kommentaren und guter Musik.MODERATION: Elmar Wigand__________________________UNION BUSTING-NEWSKommentierte Presseschau: Betriebsratsbehinderung, Gewerkschaftsbekämpfung und Arbeitsunrecht in Deutschland.mit Jessica Reisner► Flughafen Köln/Bonn: Verdi stellt Anzeigen gegen UPS-Beschäftige► Hannover: Arbeiter*innen in niedersächsischen Behindertenwerkstätten demonstrieren – Nicht alle durften frei nehmen► Kreis Segeberg: Pfleger wählt während der Nachtschicht den Notruf – Rettungskräfte versorgen Senioren. Betreiber kündigt Pfleger► Detmold: Palliativkrankenschwester verklagt Klinikum Lippe wegen Nichtbeachtung von Gefährdungsanzeigen► Berlin: Pflegerin wählt Notruf, um Versorgung in Seniorenwohnheim sicher zu stellen► Berlin: Bezirksamt Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg schließt zwei Jugendtreffs weil Angestellte auf einer Demo gegen den Gaza-Krieg protestiert haben sollen► Erfurt: Bundesarbeitsgericht erlaubt bei einem Mangel an Kandidaten auch kleinere Betriebsräte__________________________INTERVIEW ► Streik-Rekord bei SRW Metalfloat in SachsenELMAR WIGAND spricht mit PHILIPP WISSING (Blueprint 4 Free speech / Anlaufstelle No SLAPP).ANMODERATION:Das Wort SLAPP bedeutet im Englischen Ohrfeige. SLAPP ist aber auch eine Abkürzung für Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation -- auf deutsch: Strategische Prozessführung gegen öffentliche Beteiligung.Unternehmen oder einflussreiche Einzelpersonen wollen kritische Stimmen zum Schweigen bringen. Dafür überziehen sie Aktivisten, Journalisten und Autor*innen mit Prozessen, Abmahnungen, Unterlassungsaufforderungen, Schadenersatzforderungen. Mittlerweile gibt es sogar auf EU-Ebene eine Richtlinie, die SLAPP eindämmen soll.Die Aktion gegen Arbeitsunrecht unterstützt Gewerkschafter und Betriebsratsmitglieder, die von Union Busting und auch von SLAPP bedroht sind. Ich spreche mit Philipp Wissing. Philipp ist Soziologe und Politikwissenschaftler. Er ist Projektkoordinator für eine NGO namens Blueprint 4 Free Speech. Philipp koordiniert eine Anlaufstelle für Betroffene, die von SLAPP bedroht sind. Die Anlaufstelle ist in Planung und wird im Laufe des Jahres 2024 ihre Arbeit aufnehmen. FRAGEN:- Was ist das Ziel von SLAPP?- Wie funktioniert SLAPP?- Was tut sich auf europäischer Ebene gegen SLAPP?- Was würdest Du Betroffenen raten, die sich strategisch ausgeführten juristischen Angriffen ausgesetzt sehen?- Welche Aktivitäten sind in Zukunft geplant in Sachen No-SLAPP und Anlaufstelle?_________________________PLAYLISTThe Upside down -- Black RainbowCullah -- The KingNerdicus -- I do my thingTimezone Lafontaine -- Light em up!Luis Lingg and the Bombs -- Breathe outRECHTEWir spielen GEMA-freie Musik unter Creative Commons- oder Public Domain-Lizenz, die ihr für unkommerzielle Zwecke bedenkenlos weiter verbreiten könnt.Die gesamte Sendung kann, darf und soll für unkommerzielle Zwecke frei weiter verbreitet werden.LIZENZ: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-...WER MACHT DIE SENDUNG?Der Verein Aktion gegen Arbeitsunrecht unterstützt renitente Beschäftigte, aktive Betriebsräte und konfliktbereite Gewerkschaften in ganz Deutschland. Wir sind unabhängig und finanzieren uns über Spenden und Fördermitglieder. Helft uns, macht mit!GEBT UNS FEEDBACK!Wenn ihr einschlägige Erfahrungen gemacht habt, wenn ihr kommentieren und mitmachen wollt, schreibt uns eine Mail: kontakt(at)arbeitsunrecht.deWir freuen uns über eure Rückmeldungen!__________________________MEHR INFOS: https://arbeitsunrecht.de/fmIHR FINDET UNS GUT? ► Unterstützt uns mit einer Spende! ►https://arbeitsunrecht.de/arbeitsunrecht-fm-spende/

Today, the head of our Haynes Boone Media and Entertainment Practice Group, Laura Prather, will interview Susan Coughtrie, Co-Founder of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, about the developments in implementing protections against SLAPP suits in the U.K. and how we got here. Laura is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who has litigated against SLAPPs in courts across the country and has advocated for and been instrumental in the passage of Anti-SLAPP laws throughout the U.S. recently returning from a stint as a Fulbright Scholar studying global freedom of expression issues. Susan serves as Director of the Foreign Policy Center and author of the report “Unsafe for Scrutiny: Examining the pressures faced by journalists uncovering financial crime and corruption around the World.” A former journalist, Susan has a strong background in human rights advocacy, and her report swayed public opinion by exposing how reporters face risks to their freedom and security, from vexatious lawsuits (SLAPPs) to violence for exposing wrongdoing. Susan was instrumental in establishing the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and has helped to expose the devastating impact SLAPP suits can have on NGO's, protestors, and others who speak truth to power. 

Meyer, Michael

Mit Rechten reden 2.0? "Welt" lädt Höcke zum TV-Duell | Anti-SLAPP-Richtlinie der EU: Was ändert sich in Deutschland? | Sagen & Meinen: "Starke Frauen" | Baustelle Unterföhring: Wohin steuert ProSiebenSat.1? Wellendorf, Sebastian

Mit Rechten reden 2.0? "Welt" lädt Höcke zum TV-Duell | Anti-SLAPP-Richtlinie der EU: Was ändert sich in Deutschland? | Sagen & Meinen: "Starke Frauen" | Baustelle Unterföhring: Wohin steuert ProSiebenSat.1? Wellendorf, Sebastian

L’Unione europea continua a ribadire il suo impegno a tutela dei giornalisti e di tutti coloro che esercitano la libertà di stampa: con 400 voti favorevoli gli eurodeputati riuniti oggi, martedì 27 febbraio 2024, nell’Emiciclo di Strasburgo hanno approvato le ultime novità sulla normativa anti-slapp, le cause legali strategiche contro la partecipazione pubblica (in inglese […]

Visit https://www.GreenChef.com/60EmilyBaker to get 60% off, plus 20% off your next two months!Get 20% OFF @honeylove by going to https://www.honeylove.com/LAWNERD ! #honeylovepod #adGo to https://shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business – no matter what stage you're in.The Leah Remini v Scientology case was in court last week. The judge has scheduled the Anti-SLAPP hearing at a later date for further argument. Scientology Leader, David Miscavige, continues his efforts to be removed from the case stating he was never properly served. Remini details that her process server made 32 separate visits to 9 different addresses on 16 separate dates from August 2023 to December 2023, costing her thousands of dollars. They will be in court on Valentine's Day to rule on the motion to quash. Lizzo's Anti-SLAPP motion is partly granted. I break down the court's minute order and which portions of case law are moving forward.This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podsights - https://podsights.com/privacyPodscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

From representing Yoko Ono to winning class action lawsuits on behalf of actors and musicians, Neville Johnson and his partner Douglas Johnson (no relationship) have built one of the most interesting and successful entertainment law practices in the nation, specializing in representing “talent” as opposed to the business side of the industry.  Join Rahul and Ben for a fascinating discussion with Neville and Doug, as they describe how they got their start in this practice, recount some of their most interesting cases, and talk about trends in entertainment law resulting from new technologies. About Neville Johnson - Senior PartnerWebsite: Johnson and Johnson, LLP Law Firm | Johnson and Johnson, LLP (jjllplaw.com) Professional Experience:Neville L. Johnson graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California, Berkeley (1971).  He received his law degree from Southwestern Law School (1975), graduating near the top of his class.  He has tried over 28 civil jury trials and over 70 civil trials and arbitrations without a jury. He is a member of the invitation-only American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), and is on the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles (CAALA since 2005), the Board of Directors of the national organization Public Justice, and on the Board of Governors of the Beverly Hills Bar Association 2013-2015 and 2020-2022 (BHBA). Johnson is a long-time member of the invitation-only Los Angeles Copyright Society, and on the Board of The California Society of Entertainment Lawyers. He was nominated for Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2005 by CAALA.  He was Co-Chair of the Entertainment Law Section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association from 2009 to 2011. He has been on the Planning Committee of the USC Entertainment Law Institute since 2011. He has appeared in courts in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In 2020, Mr. Johnson and his team secured a verdict in a Right of Publicity case of over 9 Million Dollars in damages, and over 7 Million Dollars in attorneys fees. Mr. Johnson has litigated and settled countless cases against a wide array of defendants concerning royalty accounting, profit participation, publicity rights, idea theft, copyright infringement, and many other entertainment law matters. He has also served as an adjunct professor at Southwestern Law School since 2012, where he teaches Entertainment and Media Litigation. However, his greatest pride has been in defending the privacy rights of all citizens against the worst malefactors in the media. His work in this field was perhaps best summarized by Professor David A. Elder, a leading expert on the law of privacy, who published the following special dedication in his treatise, Privacy Torts: To Neville L. Johnson… who has led the charge, often successfully (and always creatively and with great passion) in exposing some of the worst outrages of media newsgathering. Neville ranks with Brandeis and Warren as the great defenders of privacy. All America is in his debt. Mr. Johnson has practiced entertainment law and IP law since 1975 [except for 10 months in 1977-78 when he was a Public Defender (juvenile) in Los Angeles County and handled over 100 matters, including two murder trials and one attempted murder trial]. Mr. Johnson has represented many well-known celebrities and entertainment concerns. The firm currently represents Sylvester Stallone in net profit litigation, and many other writers, directors, actors, producers, musicians, models, and JoJo Siwa, the biggest teen star in the world. He and his firm have been lead counsel in many class actions, including pioneering class actions in the entertainment industry against the entertainment unions, major record companies and motion picture companies. The firm has also handled a number of consumer class actions. The firm handles 15 to 20 right of publicity cases a year. Mr. Johnson is a frequent lecturer and written extensively on entertainment, copyright and media and other legal topics, including in London, England  (Entertainment attorneys based in the UK, London Branch of Entertainment Section of BHBA), Cannes, France (MIDEM, the international music convention), New York (ABA Forum on Communications Section, and Entertainment Law Section and New York Bar Assn.: Entertainment Law Section), Nashville (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Las Vegas (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Miami, Arizona State University, Stanford University, U.C. Berkeley, Loyola Law School, Southwestern Law School, USC Entertainment Law Institute annual forum (3 times) as well as the undergraduate school, California Western School of Law, California State University, Northridge, and many times to the Entertainment Section of the BHBA as a panelist or moderator), the Intellectual Property Section of Los Angeles County Bar Assn., and Berklee College of Music (Boston). Johnson & Johnson LLP, based in Beverly Hills, California, is a litigation firm that specializes in complex litigation with a particular emphasis on entertainment, intellectual property, right of publicity, privacy, defamation, consumer issues, and class actions. Mr. Johnson and the firm also negotiate business and entertainment agreements. Representative Matters:Obtained a 9.6 Million Dollar jury verdict after a seven week jury trial for claim of violation of the right of publicity, Hansen v. The Coca Cola Company, the largest verdict for a right of publicity case in the history of the United States. The trial court also awarded 7.4 million dollars in attorneys' fees.Obtained a unanimous landmark privacy ruling from the California Supreme Court in Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, a decision that is included in multiple casebooks and taught in law schools across the country.Obtained a published California Court of Appeal opinion representing fitness celebrity Richard Simmons in right of privacy claims against a magazine and private eye for placing a GPS tracker on a car. Simmons v. Bauer Media (2020)Represented numerous victims (both individually and in a class action) of notorious wiretapper Anthony Pellicano and other liable parties, including obtaining a favorable partial affirmance of a significant sanctions award by the California Court of Appeal in Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, which concerned a law firm's use of Pellicano's services.Pioneered the use of class actions against studios and record labels for improperly accounting to artists regarding royalties and profit participation, obtaining multiple eight-figure settlements therefrom. Represented many individuals in profit participation claims, including Sylvester Stallone, Jack Klugman, Richard Dreyfuss and Mike Connors.Represented the heir of songwriter Gram Parsons in Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, defeating a statute of limitations defense and establishing a fiduciary duty claim against a music publisher.Represented numerous legendary musicians and/or their estates on a variety of contractual, accounting, and intellectual property matters, including John Lennon, Buddy Holly, Michelle Phillips, Rick Nelson, P.F. Sloan, members of Earth, Wind and Fire, Mitch Ryder, Lloyd Price and many others.Obtained a $15 million award in a jury trial business fraud case. Honors:He has been repeatedly selected by Super Lawyers as one of the top entertainment attorneys in Southern California (top 5% of attorneys as voted by peers). In 2020, 2021 and 2022 Super Lawyer and his peers named him one of the top 100 attorneys in Southern California, the only entertainment attorney on the list, he was named one of the top 100 Power Lawyers in Entertainment Law by The Hollywood Reporter every year since, 2008, and in 2020 moved to a new permanent category and designated a “Legal Legend.” He has also been designated numerous times one of the top lawyers in entertainment by Variety and Los Angeles legal newspapaer The Daily Journal. He was nominated as Trial Lawyer of the Year by the California Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. He is a fellow at the American Law Institute (only 2% of all attorneys are members).  In 2020 he was honored as Alumnus of the Year by the Biederman Entertainment Law Institute at Southwestern Law School.   A law review article about his career is Richard and Calvert, “Suing the Media, Supporting the First Amendment: the Paradox of Neville Johnson and the Battle for Privacy,” 67 Albany Law Review 1097 (2004). On June 23, 2015, the Los Angeles Times did a major profile (front page, Business Section) on his career, “Contract Sport, ‘Go-to' L.A. Lawyer Says Hollywood Studios Are Shortchanging His Clients,” noting that Johnson & Johnson is one of the few firms successfully taking on the entertainment establishment on a regular basis. The cover story of the July 2016, issue of Attorney at Law magazine is about Neville Johnson.  The Los Angeles Business Journal profiled him on its first page, “Lawyer Up,” (September 9, 2019). Speaking Engagements:He is a frequent speaker, including in London, England [Entertainment attorneys based in the UK, London Branch of Entertainment Section of Beverly Hills Bar Association (BHBA)], Cannes, France (MIDEM, the international music convention), the Intellectual Property Section of Los Angeles County Bar Assn., and Berklee College of Music (Boston); and the Los Angeles Copyright Society. New York (ABA Forum on Communications Section, and Entertainment Law Section and New York Bar Assn.: Entertainment Law Section), Nashville (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Las Vegas (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Miami, Arizona State University, Stanford University, U.C. Berkeley, Loyola Law School, Southwestern Law School, USC Entertainment Law Institute annual forum (3 times) as well as the undergraduate school, California Western School of Law, California State University, Northridge, and many times to the Entertainment Section of the BHBA as a panelist or moderator),  SInce 2011 he has moderated the panel on ethical issues for the annual Year in Review for the Entertainment Section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. Publications: Johnson & Johnson, “Interesting New Developments About Which All Practitioners Should be Aware,” 31 New York State Bar Assn, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 56 (2020); Johnson, Johnson, Smolla & Tweed, “Defamation and Invasion of Privacy in the Internet Age,” 25 Southwestern Journal of International Law 9 (2019) Johnson & Johnson, “Trouble in Tinseltown, Los Angeles Daily Journal (April 23, 2019); “My Big Mouth,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (March 29, 2019); Johnson & Johnson, “Entertainment Contracts with Minors in New York and California, 30 New York State Bar Assn, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 75 (2019); Johnson & Johnson, “A New Way to Revive a Corporation?,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (October 18, 2016); Johnson & Johnson, “Hollywood Docket: One Sided World,” 27 New York State Bar Assn, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 32 (2016); Johnson & Elder, “Maybe America Needs More Peter Thiels,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (August 8, 2016); “We've Lost Control,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (June 16, 2016); “Talent Agency Act Survives Suit, Clarity Remains Elusive,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (May 10, 2013); “The Man Who Seduced Hollywood,” 36 Los Angeles Lawyer 41(September 2013); “Remedies for Web Defamation,” California Lawyer 36 (May 2013); “To Find Employment as a Lawyer, You Must Market Yourself,” 36 Los Angeles Lawyer 12 (June 2013); “Ten Rules for Success in the Practice of Law, 31 Los Angeles Lawyer 12 (June 2008); Chapter, Johnson & Aradi, “Defamatory Tweeting and Other Name and Likeness Violations” in Building Your Artist's Brand as a Business, International Association of Entertainment Lawyers (2012) (includes a discussion of right of publicity); Chapter, Johnson & Fowler, “Litigation: How to Draft Defensively Without Killing the Deal” in Licensing of Music from BC to AD (Before the Change/After Digital), International Association of Entertainment Lawyers (2014); Elder, Johnson & Rishwain, “Establishing Constitutional Malice for Defamation and Privacy/False Light Claims When Hidden Cameras and Deception Are Used by the Newsgatherer,” 22 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 327 (2002); “New Developments in California Privacy and Defamation Law,” 23 California Litigation 21 (2010); Johnson & Johnson, “What Happened to Unjust Enrichment in California? The Deterioration of Equity in the California Courts,” 44 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 277 (2010); Johnson & Walsh, “The Danger of “Anti-Libel Tourism” Litigation in the United States, 32 Los Angeles Lawyer 44 (December 2009); Johnson, “Privacy and the First Amendment”, California Litigation (2006); co-author “Caught in the Act,” Los Angeles Lawyer (1998) (an analysis of trends in the right of privacy); Johnson & Lang, The Personal Manager in the California Entertainment Industry, 52 Southern California Law Review 375 (1979)(a definitive article on the regulation of talent agents, personal managers, and the interplay of entertainment unions and guilds in that nexus). He co-authored chapters on music publishing and personal managers in The Musician's Business & Legal Guide (2017 5th edition), and wrote the authorized and best-selling biography of the greatest coach in the history of sports, The John Wooden Pyramid of Success (Second Edition 2004). Since 2012, Neville and Douglas Johnson have taught a course on entertainment and media litigation as Adjunct Professors at Southwestern School of Law.  From 2011-2014, he was one of the panelists teaching the Los Angeles County Bar Association new admittees course on class actions; and since 2011 he has moderated the panel on ethical issues for the annual Year in Review for the Entertainment Section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association.  Professional Associations:American Board of Trial Advocates (invitation only)Association of Business Trial LawyersBeverly Hills Bar Association Co-Chair Entertainment Section, 2009-2011Board of Governors, 2012-2015, 2020-2022Consumer Attorneys Association of Los AngelesBoard of Governors, 2005-PresentConsumer Attorneys of CaliforniaLos Angeles Copyright Society (invitation only)Los Angeles County Bar AssociationLoyola Productions [Filmmaking arm of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)]Co-Chair of the Board, 2009-PresentNational Association of Recording Arts and Sciences (Grammy organization)Voting Member (as the recording artist professionally known as Trevor McShane)Public Justice (National organization advocating for consumers and fundamental rights)Board of Governors, 2011-PresentUSC Entertainment Law InstitutePlanning Board, 2011-Present Education:J.D., Southwestern University School of Law, 1975B.A., University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, 1971 Practice Areas:Media LawEntertainment LawEntertainment Class ActionsPrivacy LawComplex Business Litigation Matters, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudRight of Publicity (wrongful use of name and likeness)Copyright Infringement and Theft of Idea casesIssues involving the entertainment unions Admissions:CaliforniaUnited States Supreme Court  About Douglas Johnson - Managing PartnerWebsite: Johnson and Johnson, LLP Law Firm | Johnson and Johnson, LLP (jjllplaw.com) Professional Experience:Mr. Johnson is well known for handling high-profile and high-impact entertainment matters. His clients include producers, actors, directors, writers, production companies, music artists, composers, music publishers, and independent record labels. He is well-known for his successes in royalty disputes, profit participation disputes, right of publicity cases, and theft of idea cases for film and television.  Mr. Johnson also handles invasion of privacy and libel cases, business disputes, and class actions.  Mr. Johnson has been repeatedly named by Super Lawyer as a top intellectual property litigator for more than a decade, representing the top 2.5% of the profession in Southern California. Mr. Johnson also serves as outside general counsel for WorldStarHipHop.com, a popular music and pop culture website, where he deals with cutting-edge copyright, media, and right of privacy issues.  Mr. Johnson has handled numerous copyright infringement lawsuits in Federal Court for Worldstar.   Since co-founding Johnson & Johnson, Mr. Johnson has been at the forefront of developing California's right of publicity laws. He regularly represents celebrities, models, and professional athletes in litigation against defendants who have wrongfully used their images.  He has litigated cases up to the California Supreme Court, advocating for precedent to protect the rights of all Californians from those who would seek to profit from their names, images, and likenesses without authorization. Mr. Johnson's advocacy in this area of law extends to his participation on speaking panels, publication of scholarly articles, and educating law students on the importance of these rights.  Mr. Johnson recently litigated a right of publicity case that resulted in a 9.6 million jury award and an attorney fee award of 7 million against Coca-Cola and Monster Energy for building their Hubert's Lemonade brand around the name of the founder of Hansen Juices, Hubert Hansen.  Mr. Johnson also received a seven-figure jury award in a right of publicity case for an actor/supermodel.   Representative Matters:Handled profit participation disputes on behalf of Sylvester Stallone (Demolition Man, Expendables, and the Rocky Films), Glen Larson (Magnum PI, Knight Rider, Fall Guy, Battlestar Galactica), Ed Weinberger (Amen), Richard Dreyfuss (Goodbye Girl, Mr. Holland's Opus, and Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, and What About Bob?), Raymond Wagner (Turner and Hooch), Jack Klugman (Quincy, Odd Couple), Mike Connors (Mannix), the Estate of Charles Bronson (St. Ives, Telefon), Mort Engelberg (Hot Stuff and Smokey And The Bandit), and the owners of the Friday 13th horror franchise.  Lead counsel in a class action against Sony Music, resulting in $12.7 million settlement and 36% uplift in ongoing foreign streaming royalties in Nelson v. Sony (S.D.N.Y) benefiting thousands of legacy recordings artists; currently co-counsel in similar litigation on behalf of legacy artists signed to Warner and Universal. Lead Counsel defending RatPac inidea theft case over the 2018 Melissa McCarthy movie, Life of the Party. (case dismissed on Motion for Summary Judgment).Lead Counsel representing producer in a dispute over turnaround rights to the film Rush Hour 4.  Lead Counsel for Janet Jackson in a royalty dispute with her label.  Obtained $5.35 million in retrospective relief and an estimated $3.1 million in savings over the next three years in Risto v. AFM & SAG-AFTRA (C.D. Cal.) for non-featured performers who receive royalties from the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund.Obtained a seven-figure settlement as lead counsel in a major talent management dispute for actress Karrueche Tran after successfully freezing all her manager's assets in Tran v. Muhammad (C.D. Cal.)Currently representing the leading production music company in North America on a variety of copyright matters both in and out of litigation-see, e.g., Associated Production Music v. The Vail Corp. (C.D. Cal.)Co-counsel in class actions against major Hollywood studios alleging endemic underpayment on home video and new digital media for pre-1982 movies for writers, producers, actors, and directors.  In those cases, Mr. Johnson handled the settlement with Universal for $25 million, the settlement with Fox for $12.6 million, and the settlements with Sony and Paramount.Mr. Johnson was co-counsel in three class actions against the record industry companies over digital download royalties of underpayments to artists (Temptations/Motels/Ronee Blakely), resulting in eight-figure settlements.  The cases dealt head-on with unresolved points of law as to the classification of digital downloads, and the rights of artists to receive royalties in the face of changing technology. Mr. Johnson has litigated several high-profile libel actions against large media companies, resulting in several mid-seven-figure settlements.  Recently he represented Richard Simmons against In-Touch Magazine. In May 2020, he argued and won an Anti-SLAPP appeal for Mr. Simmons.With his partner, Neville L. Johnson, he settled three class actions against the Directors Guild of America, Writers Guild of America, and Screen Actors Guild of America for tens of millions of dollars of unpaid foreign levies.  Defended blues icon B.B. King in a case seeking declaratory relief regarding the right to produce a film about his life, resulting in dismissal of the lawsuit.Obtained a seven-figure jury verdict in Oregon U.S. District Court on behalf of a music artist and record company in a copyright infringement case.Represented business owner in arbitration in a partnership dispute resulting in a seven-figure award for the client.Wrongful death and civil rights case resulting in reorganization of staffing and training at a county jail. The matter was featured on the cover of the Sacramento News & Review and constituted the largest settlement in the nation at the time for such a case. Thought Leadership:Panelist, CalCPA: Entertainment Industry Conference (June 21, 2022)Panelist, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Year in Review, Ethics (January 13, 2020)Adjunct Professor, Entertainment and Media Litigation, Southwestern School of Law, (2012 to Present)Panelist, “Backend Optics: Profit Participations Through Different Lenses,” Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2018)Panelist, “I'm a Celebrity, You Can't Do That, (Can You?), California Society of Entertainment Lawyers, (2018)Panelist, “Entertainment Year in Review: Entertainment Litigation With Stars Of The Bar,” Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2017)Panelist, “The Right of Publicity: The State of The Current Law,” Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2014)The Ever-Evolving Courtroom Drama of Net Profits, Donald L. Stone's Inn of St. Ives, (2012)Panelist, Right of Publicity: How Much Is Your Client Really Worth?, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2012)Panelist, Current Issues in Right of Likeness, Defamation and Privacy, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2011)Panelist, Injuries Without Remedies, Loyola Law School's Legal Symposium, (2011) Sample Publications:The Troubling Trend of Online Exceptionalism to Copyright's Separate Accrual Rule, New York State Bar Association, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, (Summer 2023)Florida sides with California on delayed discovery in copyright cases, Daily Journal (March 3, 2023)The Second and Ninth Circuits Diverge on Copyright Law's Discovery Rule, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol 33, No. 2 (Fall 2022)The Top 3 Copyright Law Developments of 2022 (So Far), New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, (Spring 2022)Say Goodbye to Back-End Deals, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Fall 2021)3 Music Litigation Developments in 2020-2021, Daily Journal (October 23, 2021)Contract, Fraud, and Libel Damages, Journal of Consumer Attorneys Associations for Southern California, Advocate Magazine (October 2021).  3 Music Litigation Developments in 2020-2021, Daily Journal (September 16, 2021)Recent Developments In Entertainment Law: Defamation Jurisdiction, Copyright, and Talent Contest Agreements (Summer 2021)Black Windows: Scarlett Jo vs Disney, Daily Journal, (July 6, 2021)Recent Right of Privacy Developments, Daily Journal, (July 22, 2021)Developments In Libel, Social Media, Privacy and The Right of Publicity, (Spring 2021)Copyright Developments in 2020, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Sring 2021)Pandemic-era Appellate Rulings Take on Arbitration, Los Angeles Daily Journal (April 22, 2021)Recent Interesting Cases, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, (Spring 2020)Hollywood Docket: Trending: Data Privacy, Copyright Trolling, And A Clause To Keep In Mind, New York State Bar Association, (June 6, 2020)Recent Development In Copyright Law, Daily Journal, (August 2, 2020)COVID-19 And The Return To Film Production In California, Los Angeles Daily Journal, (July 13, 2020)Interesting New Developments About Which All Practitioners Should Be Aware Of, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, (Winter 2020)My Big Mouth, Journal of Consumer Attorneys Association for Southern California, Advocate Magzine, (December 2019)Entertainment Contracts With Minors in New York and California, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, (Spring 2019)Defamation and Invasion of Privacy in the Internet Age, Southwestern Journal of International Law, Volume XXV (2019)When Will Legal Communication Result In Liability? Los Angeles Daily Journal, (Mar 29, 2019)Entertainment Contracts With Minors: Clarification Needed, Los Angeles Daily Journal, (Nov. 27, 2018)Tales and Lessons Regarding the Right of Publicity, USC Entertainment Law Spotlight, Issue 2, (2018)Hollywood Docket: Tales and Lessons Regarding the Right of Publicity, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, No. 2, (Summer 2018)Hollywood Docket: Essential Clauses for Drafting an Ironclad Release and Consent Agreement, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, (Spring, 2018)Before You Sign That Deal At Cannes…Produced By, Producers Guild of America, (April/May 2017)Hollywood Docket: Making the Perfect Pitch, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 27, No.3, (Fall/Winter 2017)Hollywood Docket: One-Sided World, New York State Bar Association, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol 27, No. 2., (Summer, 2016)A New Way to Revive a Corporation, Los Angeles Daily Journal, (Oct 26, 2016)Hollywood Docket: Social Media, the Law, and You, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Fall 2016)What Happened to Unjust Enrichment in California? The Deterioration of Equity in the California Courts, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 44:277 (Fall 2010) Published Cases:Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435Walker v. Geico General Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2009) 558 F.3d 1025Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC (2020) 50 Cal App.5th 1037Education:J.D., University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, 2000, Dean's ListB.A., University of Southern California, 1996, Dean's List Practice Areas:Entertainment LitigationComplex Business LitigationClass Action LitigationIntellectual Property LitigationDefamation, Media, and First Amendment LawRights of Privacy and Publicity Admissions:California   

Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: SIBTF Application Filed 19 Years After DOI May Not Be Too Late. Attorney Incivility During Trial Justifies Reduction in Fees Awarded. Investigation of Employee Complaints is Protected by Anti-SLAPP. O.C. Insurance Agent Faces 27 Felonies for Comp Premium Theft. Court Refuses to Reduce Employer's Comp Fraud Felony Convictions. Sacramento Contractor to Serve 210 Days for $170K Fraud. DIR Raises Threshold for Software Employees Overtime Exemption. NLRB Publishes New Final Joint Employment Status Rule. Fresno Based TPA to Transition to Klear.ai SaaS Platform. JAMA Publishes Study of Traditional Chinese Medicine Compound.

Anti-SLAPP motions are sometimes called early summary judgment motions. But the fact that they are “early” is why they are so powerful: not only do they provide defendants a quick way to defend against claims that involve speech, they force the plaintiff to prove its case without any discovery.On this episode of the California Appellate Law Podcast, we discuss a recent 9th Circuit decision holding that denials of anti-SLAPP motions are immediately appealable as collateral orders. We also discuss:Judge Bress's criticism of the cases treating anti-SLAPP denials as collateral.Anti-SLAPP motions were designed for the powerless, but the City of Inglewood successful used it to strike an employee's retaliation complaint.How you can lose your arbitration if you don't pay the arbitrator fees in 30 days—and “the check is in the mail” doesn't cut it.A judgment issued in a sum not previously noticed is void and may be set aside at any time, but a sanctions order issued without notice is merely voidable, and may be set aside only within 6 months.Filing a notice of appeal in Los Angeles County Superior Court? Now you can pay your fees online. (Finally!)Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Doe v. The Superior Court (D1d3 Sep. 8, 2023) No. A167105 (Tim's writeup).Martinez v. ZoomInfo Tech. Inc., No. 22-35305 (9th Cir. Sep. 21, 2023) (Tim's writeup).In re the Marriage of Jensen (D2d2 Sep. 5, 2023) No. B320565 (nonpub. opn.) (Tim's writeup).United States v. Sapalasan, No. 21-30251, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23820 (9th Cir. Sep. 7, 2023) (Tim's writeup).New payment option for paying $775 appellate feeHow 'Purely Legal' Issues Ruling Applies To Rule 12 MotionsBrown v. City of Inglewood, No. B320658 (Cal. Ct. App. May 31, 2023)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

Today, the head of our Haynes Boone Media and Entertainment Practice Group, Laura Prather, will interview Susan Coughtrie, Co-Founder of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, about the developments in implementing protections against SLAPP suits in the U.K. and how we got here. Laura is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who has litigated against SLAPPs in courts across the country and has advocated for and been instrumental in the passage of Anti-SLAPP laws throughout the U.S. recently returning from a stint as a Fulbright Scholar studying global freedom of expression issues. Susan serves as Director of the Foreign Policy Center and author of the report “Unsafe for Scrutiny: Examining the pressures faced by journalists uncovering financial crime and corruption around the World.” A former journalist, Susan has a strong background in human rights advocacy, and her report swayed public opinion by exposing how reporters face risks to their freedom and security, from vexatious lawsuits (SLAPPs) to violence for exposing wrongdoing. Susan was instrumental in establishing the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and has helped to expose the devastating impact SLAPP suits can have on NGO's, protestors, and others who speak truth to power. 

Today, the head of our Haynes Boone media and entertainment practice group, Laura Prather, will interview Charlie Holt, Founder and Co-Chair of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe about the developments in implementing protections against SLAPP suits in Europe and how we got here. Laura is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who has litigated against SLAPPs in courts across the country and has advocated for and been instrumental in the passage of Anti-SLAPP laws throughout the U.S., recently returning from a stint as a Fulbright Scholar studying global freedom of expression issues. Charlie serves as  Legal Counsel for Campaigns for Greenpeace International and UK Campaigns Manager for English PEN. He has a strong background in human rights advocacy and a thematic expertise in freedom of expression and the right to protest. Charlie was instrumental in establishing the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and has personal experience through his work at Greenpeace in the devastating impact SLAPP suits can have on NGO's, protestors, and others who speak to power.

Anti-SLAPP denials are appealable in the 9th Circuit, but Judge Bress says they shouldn't be. Jeff proposes two SLAPP reforms:Judges should issue more sanctions against frivolous SLAPP motions.The Legislature should amend the statute so that SLAPP denials are reviewable only by way of writs.Jeff tries to stump Tim on a SLAPP appeal quandary—if the defendant won on prong one but lost on prong two, what happens if the defendant fails to re-argue prong one on appeal? (Answer: forfeiture.)Next, we wonder why appellate courts insist on an oral record even for hearings where there is no testimony and nothing remotely interesting going on.Discovery sanctions awards may be appealable, but for other discovery awards—even those made on the same basis as the sanctions award on appeal—don't count on it. Courts hate them.A litigant failed to timely request a statement of decision before the end of a short trial.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Anti-SLAPP denials are appealable in the 9th Cir., but they shouldn't be, says Judge Bress Salveson v. Kessler (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 2023) 22-55472 (nonpub. opn.).Oral record on appeal was required to review the validity of a trustee notice to beneficiaries Kendrick v. Wyckoff (D1d3 Mar. 21, 2023 No. A165494) 2023 WL 2592029 (nonpub. opn.).Use a settled statement to fill gaps in your record (but don't try to rewrite the record) Rok Mobile, Inc. v. Brannon (D2d2 Mar. 24, 2023 No. B308642) 2023 WL 2621771Jury released from duty could not be reconvened to make a remaining finding People v. Jones (D1d5 Apr. 4, 2023) No. A163558$37k in discovery sanctions appealable, but not the related issue sanctions Deck v. Developers Investment Co., Inc. (D4d3 Mar. 24, 2023 No. G061287) ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___When do you have to request a statement of decision? Atlantic Richfield Co. v. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (D3 Dec. 5

Welcome back to THE Sports Law Podcast! We keep you up to date on everything at the intersection of sports and the law! In this episode, The Dans reunite to take the reins to discuss the Brett Favre defamation lawsuits. The lawsuit centers around three different plaintiffs, Pat McAfee, Shannon Sharpe, and Shad White. While the first two names are fairly recognizable, White has been brought into this case for his role as a Mississippi auditor. Favre claims that these parties defamed his name through statements they made related to the alleged theft of public funds that Favre has been connected to in the state of Mississippi. Favre is currently facing a welfare fraud lawsuit brought by the Mississippi Department of Human Services. The Department connected Favre to alleged misappropriation of funds. (10:12) This included public appearances, speeches, and autograph sessions. The allegations also included that Favre attempted to use some of the public funds to build a volleyball facility for the University of Southern Mississippi, his alma mater. Dan Lust breaks down the legal basis by outlining the legal definition of General Defamation. (20:20) Brett Favre, in this case, will be held to the higher standard of a public figure. Because of this status, he will have to prove actual malice in the statements made by the three parties being sued. The Dans make sure to differentiate each claim and note the important differences between the claims that could lead to different outcomes for each defendant. (54:52) They also point out the way that Favre bringing these claims could cause a further investigation into whether or not these allegations are true. Dan Wallach breaks down the doctrine of a liable proof plaintiff and how he believes that this will not be applicable to this case. (59:02) Citing a Mississippi case he notes that this doctrine cannot be used pretrial, meaning this doctrine would have to come in once the case reaches a jury. The Dans also break down Anti-SLAPP statutes. (1:01:32) These statutes are in place to allow someone who believes they are facing a frivolous lawsuit to counter claiming that this suit was brought to wrongly suppress free speech. If successful, the damages can cover lawyers fees and other damages amounting to quite a lot. *** Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ConductDetrimental.com. Let us know if you want to join the team. Dan Wallach (@WallachLegal) | Dan Lust (@SportsLawLust) | Mike Lawson (@mike_sonof_law) | Justin Mader (@MaderLaw) Twitter | Instagram | TikTok | YouTube | Website | Email --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/condetrimental/support

In this video, we're going over the most recent filings submitted to the docket to get an understanding of what's happened with the court's decision-making process for Brian Warner's p/k/a Marilyn Manson's Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery. Where does this place the litigation? What does it all mean? We'll go over it all to demystify it for you. Come join!! FOR CONTEXT: Over the years since 2016, Evan Rachel Wood began speaking publicly about domestic violence, saying she had been abused by two unnamed men. On February 21, 2021, Wood named Brian Warner as one of her abusers, alleging that he abused her physically and emotionally during their romantic relationship which lasted between 2006 and 2010. On the same day, a handful of other women also made statements claiming to be victims of Warner's abuse. His alleged victims include Ashley Morgan Smithline, Esme Bianco, and Ashley Walters. In March 2022, Brian Warner, p/k/a Marilyn Manson, filed a lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood and Ashley Gore aka Illma Gore. In the lawsuit, he alleges four causes of action: defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of computer hacking laws, and violation of laws barring impersonation over the internet. WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE: In April/May 2022, Wood and Gore filed Anti-SLAPP motions to try to dismiss the bulk of Manson's claims. Filing this kind of motion essentially "freezes" the case until the court decides on the issue. This means the parties cannot serve discovery requests on each other, except by specific request. So in July, Manson filed a Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery, asking to depose five witnesses--including Wood and Gore--arguing that he needs this discovery to oppose the Anti-SLAPP motions. Last week, Wood and Gore filed Oppositions to Manson's Motion. On 8/11/2011, Manson filed his Replies to both Oppositions. The Anti-SLAPP Deep-Dive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6GDfGoPXaw More thoughts on anti-SLAPP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fowRepZaJog&t=2s Marilyn Manson's Discovery Motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIGu4BLBieA Wood and Gore's Oppositions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhzMEkuDsQc Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJvDEmKLft6F2MxhuNUMwag/join -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this live stream, we're going over the Replies filed yesterday by Brian Warner p/k/a Marilyn Manson in response to Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore's Oppositions to his Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery. Come join us! FOR CONTEXT: Over the years since 2016, Evan Rachel Wood began speaking publicly about domestic violence, saying she had been abused by two unnamed men. On February 21, 2021, Wood named Brian Warner as one of her abusers, alleging that he abused her physically and emotionally during their romantic relationship which lasted between 2006 and 2010. On the same day, a handful of other women also made statements claiming to be victims of Warner's abuse. His alleged victims include Ashley Morgan Smithline, Esme Bianco, and Ashley Walters. In March 2022, Brian Warner, p/k/a Marilyn Manson, filed a lawsuit against Evan Rachel Wood and Ashley Gore aka Illma Gore. In the lawsuit, he alleges four causes of action: defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of computer hacking laws, and violation of laws barring impersonation over the internet. WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE: In April/May 2022, Wood and Gore filed Anti-SLAPP motions to try to dismiss the bulk of Manson's claims. Filing this kind of motion essentially "freezes" the case until the court decides on the issue. This means the parties cannot serve discovery requests on each other, except by specific request. So in July, Manson filed a Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery, asking to depose five witnesses--including Wood and Gore--arguing that he needs this discovery to oppose the Anti-SLAPP motions. Last week, Wood and Gore filed Oppositions to Manson's Motion. On 8/11/2011, Manson filed his Replies to both Oppositions. The Anti-SLAPP Deep-Dive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6GDfGoPXaw More thoughts on anti-SLAPP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fowRepZaJog&t=2s Marilyn Manson's Discovery Motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIGu4BLBieA Wood and Gore's Oppositions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhzMEkuDsQc Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJvDEmKLft6F2MxhuNUMwag/join -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom and Kevin discuss a lawsuit filed by the former head of the South Shore Convention and Visitors Authority Speros Batistatos and LOCPOD being listed as one of the defendants; Tom considers filing an Anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Speros; Senator Todd Young's video he posted while visiting The Region is discussed; poll results for Tom's race against Senator Young are in; Sarah Palin loses her election.

Norm opens the show with the announcement that the defamation suit against Alex Jones will proceed in Connecticut on Thursday, August 18, 2022. Norm is of course defense counsel to Alex Jones and will be in the arena with Jones as the court allows a jury to assess damages in a manner similar to that of the Texas jury.  Norm then reads a letter from a listener admonishing Norm to play fair when it comes to his criticism of President Donald Trump.  What is a strategic lawsuit against public participation and what does that have to do with Rachel Maddow? Norm unpacks the legal concept associated with speech and the creature of statute known as Anti-SLAPP law across the United States.  A listener calls in and poses the question: a lot of these shows are news and commentary—how is one to tell the difference? A great question, indeed. The lines between comedy, journalism, news, and commentary are quite blurred in current American media. How is a court to competenly analyze the 'totality of the circumstances' in any given case? And how might the Connecticut court precedent impact the Jones defense in then coming days and weeks? Less than you might think. Recall that the court entered a default judgment against Jones for failing to comply with discovery orders. Thus, Jones' defense will not be permitted to defend against the merits of the plaintiff's defamation case against him; a finding of liability will simply be assumed. And so the jury will only decide the question of damages.  Still, Norm discusses the mechanics of defamation with a caller but stops short of giving any details of how he will defend Jones at trial out of respect for ethical considerations attendant to out of court statements.  What are the best used bookstores in Connecticut? Well, Whitlock Farm's Bookstore in Bethany, Connecticut, has been voted #1 in Connecticut. Listeners of LAL will recognize the name. That's Norm's store!  Like, share, and subscribe! Norm is live every weekday from 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter!

Norm opens the show with the announcement that the defamation suit against Alex Jones will proceed in Connecticut on Thursday, August 18, 2022. Norm is of course defense counsel to Alex Jones and will be in the arena with Jones as the court allows a jury to assess damages in a manner similar to that of the Texas jury.  Norm then reads a letter from a listener admonishing Norm to play fair when it comes to his criticism of President Donald Trump.  What is a strategic lawsuit against public participation and what does that have to do with Rachel Maddow? Norm unpacks the legal concept associated with speech and the creature of statute known as Anti-SLAPP law across the United States.  A listener calls in and poses the question: a lot of these shows are news and commentary—how is one to tell the difference? A great question, indeed. The lines between comedy, journalism, news, and commentary are quite blurred in current American media. How is a court to competenly analyze the 'totality of the circumstances' in any given case? And how might the Connecticut court precedent impact the Jones defense in then coming days and weeks? Less than you might think. Recall that the court entered a default judgment against Jones for failing to comply with discovery orders. Thus, Jones' defense will not be permitted to defend against the merits of the plaintiff's defamation case against him; a finding of liability will simply be assumed. And so the jury will only decide the question of damages.  Still, Norm discusses the mechanics of defamation with a caller but stops short of giving any details of how he will defend Jones at trial out of respect for ethical considerations attendant to out of court statements.  What are the best used bookstores in Connecticut? Well, Whitlock Farm's Bookstore in Bethany, Connecticut, has been voted #1 in Connecticut. Listeners of LAL will recognize the name. That's Norm's store!  Like, share, and subscribe! Norm is live every weekday from 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter!

In part three of our freedom of expression law interview with Abbas Kassam, we chat about the role of the public interest in the decisions of anti-SLAPP motions   Full Episode Transcript HERE ✨  Learn more about the episode law on the Lawyered website ✨ Help to declutter the law on the Lawyered crowdfunding page  

H.L. Mencken had it that “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”In two recent opinions, California courts gave the people what they voted for by enforcing two California voter initiatives: one that is tough on criminal defendants, and another that is favorable to criminal defendants.Enforcing the tough-on-crime Three Strikes law, the Los Angeles appellate court handed DA George Gascon a loss on his assertion of prosecutorial discretion to refuse to enforce Three Strikes.But the court also enforced the softer-edged Prop 57, the law that requires all criminal charges against minors be tried in juvenile courts. The Supreme Court held Prop 57 was retroactive, with the rather unsettling result that a now-40-year-old who murdered his mother at 16 (he stabbed her 45 times) may soon be released.Then we turn to some anti-SLAPP news: Another dissent in the 9th circuit arguing that Anti-SLAPP denials should not be immediately appealable.Then on the expert witness front: A state appellate court holds exclusion of expert opinion is structural error on appeal requiring automatic reversal.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Tim Kowal's Weekly Legal Update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:CaseText.com/CALP1999 Judgment Not “Final,” 40-Year-Old Murder Convict Must Receive Juvenile Hearing Under Proper 57The Ass'n of Deputy Dist. Attorneys for L. A. Cnty. v. GasconAnti-SLAPP Denials May Not Be Appealable Much Longer in the 9th CircuitExclusion of Expert Opinion Held Structural Error on Appeal Requiring Automatic ReversalFocus letters coming to First District. Via Ben Shatz's SCAN blog.Delays in the 3rd District: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article262077357.html. Disciplinary Statement by Commission of Judicial Performance: https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2022/06/Raye_DO_Pub_Admon_6-1-22.pdfIs a bumble bee a fish? Almond Alliance of CA v. Fish and Game Comm'n

In today's episode, reporter Brian Maffly talks to Grant Burningham about an “anti-SLAPP” motion — or a strategic lawsuit against public participation — with the Utah Lake dredging project. And reporter Saige Miller discusses an advance that might help cut down the amount of water needed for crops in the state.

This Episode of “Trust Me” is Part 2 of a multi-episode series, which features an interview with Ryan Szczepanik and Ciarán O'Sullivan, the co-authors of the article: “When They Don't Clap for Anti-SLAPP.” The article appeared in the California Trusts and Estates Quarterly, Volume 28, Issue 1, published in 2022 by the Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the California Lawyers Association (“TEXCOM”). In our first episode with Ryan and Ciarán, we covered the general use of SLAPP lawsuits and anti-SLAPP motions. In this episode, we discuss the application of anti-SLAPP motions in trust and estate disputes, policy considerations and potential legislation concerning anti-SLAPP motions in trust and estate cases, and practical tips for handling anti-SLAPP motions in the probate court. About our Guests:Ryan J. Szczepanik, J.D., is a California Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law. He is a Member of TEXCOM.Ciarán O'Sullivan has litigated the entire range of trust and estate related disputes since 1998. He is a Member of TEXCOM, and is the current chairman of its Litigation sub-committee. He is a frequent writer and presenter on topics of interest to Trusts and Estates litigators, and has published articles in the Trusts and Estates Quarterly, the Daily Journal, and elsewhere on trial and appellate procedure.    About our Host:Kevin Bryce Jackson represents fiduciaries and individuals throughout California in a wide range of trust and estate matters. He is the New Lawyers Section's liaison to TEXCOM.If you have questions, comments, and/or suggestions for future topics, please email Anna Soliman at asoliman@ftci.com Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra Studios www.thefoleymarrastudios.comThank you for listening to Trust Me!

This Episode of “Trust Me” is Part 1 of a multi-episode series, which features an interview with Ryan Szczepanik and Ciarán O'Sullivan, the co-authors of the article: “When They Don't Clap for Anti-SLAPP.” The article appeared in the California Trusts and Estates Quarterly, Volume 28, Issue 1, published in 2022 by the Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the California Lawyers Association (“TEXCOM”). In our first episode with Ryan and Ciarán, we have a conversation about the general use of SLAPP lawsuits and anti-SLAPP motions. Later in the series, we discuss the application of anti-SLAPP motions in trust and estate disputes, policy considerations and potential legislation concerning anti-SLAPP motions in trust and estate cases, and practical tips for handling anti-SLAPP motions in the probate court.  About our Guests:Ryan J. Szczepanik, J.D., is a California Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law. He is a Member of TEXCOM.Ciarán O'Sullivan has litigated the entire range of trust and estate related disputes since 1998. He is a Member of TEXCOM, and is the current chairman of its Litigation sub-committee. He is a frequent writer and presenter on topics of interest to Trusts and Estates litigators, and has published articles in the Trusts and Estates Quarterly, the Daily Journal, and elsewhere on trial and appellate procedure.   About our Host:Kevin Bryce Jackson represents fiduciaries and individuals throughout California in a wide range of trust and estate matters. He is the New Lawyers Section's liaison to TEXCOM.If you have questions, comments, and/or suggestions for future topics, please email Anna Soliman at asoliman@ftci.com Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra Studios www.thefoleymarrastudios.comThank you for listening to Trust Me!

In this live stream, we're going over Johnny Depp's latest Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) to deny Amber Heard's argument for immunity under Virginia's Anti-SLAPP Statute, Va. Code. § 8.01-223.2. It was filed on March 11, 2022 and just came up on Virginia's online docket on March 15, 2022. We'll go over Virginia's Anti-SLAPP statute, what's happened so far in this case with regard to Anti-SLAPP arguments, and we'll go over the MSJ and my thoughts on it and what might follow. See the MSJ for yourself: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-plaintiff-memo-summary-judg-3-11-2022.pdf --------------------- In order for Amber Heard's statement to be granted immunity under Virginia's Anti-SLAPP statute, two things need to be true: (1) The statement must be made regarding *solely* matters of public concern, and (2) she must have made it with a mental state that is less culpable than *actual malice* (aka she *cannot* have made it knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement). Do you think her WaPo op-ed statements fall under Virginia's Anti-SLAPP immunity? Let us know in the comments!! See the full video on YouTube: https://youtu.be/1GemylX_g4E --------------------

In this episode, Anne Champion walks us through legal protections for the press and publishers, including Anti-SLAPP statutes, and the “actual malice” standard adopted by the Supreme Court in the famous First Amendment case of New York Times v. Sullivan.  Along the way, we hear about Anne's representation of Mary Trump in two lawsuits, including one brought by former President Donald Trump, relating to Mary Trump's book Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man.  We also discuss the recent libel case brought by Sarah Palin against the New York Times. Then, we get garrulous with Anne about something more personal.  Twenty-five years ago, a high school friend of hers, Laura Van Wyhe, was found almost lifeless by the side of a road, apparently the victim of foul play.  Laura died at a hospital soon thereafter, and the case has remained unsolved all these years.  More recently, Anne has made it a personal mission to uncover new leads and solve the case.  The intertwined stories of Laura's death, and Anne's pursuit of the truth, has recently been the subject of a gripping podcast called Bonaparte.  We'll talk to Anne about the making of that podcast, and her continued hunt for clues to the untimely death of her friend. MORE FROM OUR GUEST Anne Champion's bio: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/champion-anne/ The Laura Van Wyhe case:  https://championforlaura.com/ Bonaparte: https://podcasts.apple.com/gr/podcast/bonaparte/id1587714904 CONNECT WITH THE SHOW Visit our website: http://thegarrulousgavel.com The Garrulous Gavel on Twitter: https://twitter.com/garrulousgavel  The Garrulous Gavel on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/garrulousgavel Contact us: garrulousgavel@gmail.com More about Jon Tycko:  https://www.fraudfighters.net/people/jonathan-tycko/

Another busy news week and America's cartooning sweethearts are here to break it down for you. Conservative cartoonist Scott Stantis and progressive cartoonist Ted Rall are best friends who agree to disagree. Kyle Rittenhouse looks like he's about to walk on charges of shooting three people at a Black Lives Matter protest in Wisconsin last year. The Steele Dossier has completely collapsed but media organizations won't admit they published garbage. Donald Trump shakes off yet another of his alleged sexual assault victims using America's corporate-backed anti-SLAPP statute. Biden passed infrastructure but his numbers are still tanking and we know why.

We welcome attorney Melody Petitt to the Texas Family Law Insiders podcast. Ms. Petitt is a graduate of Baylor University School of Law and has been a family law attorney for over 20 years. She is a partner at Hargrave Family Law. Today we sit down with Melody to talk about the Texas Citizens Participation Act which is often referred to as the “Anti-SLAPP law.” Additionally, we discuss: Anti-SLAPP lawsuits in a family law context  The truth about Anti-SLAPP suits, social media, and the First Amendment Key strategies for defending an Anti-SLAPP claim Her one piece of advice for young family law attorneys And more

We begin Episode 32 with the discussion of how Morris & Stone just defeated an anti-SLAPP motion. I reveal the common (and fatal) mistake made by defense counsel when they pursue anti-SLAPP motions. And on the topic of mistakes, based on my prior article, we turn to the three cases that counsel almost always cite […] The post SLAPP032 – The 3 Most-Often Miscited Anti-SLAPP Cases appeared first on California SLAPP Law.

In Episode 31, in addition to an anti-SLAPP case, we examine another example of how opposing counsel blew an opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment, by being unaware of the procedure rules. The limit for the memorandum of points on a typical motion is 15 pages, but a motion for summary judgment is a […] The post SLAPP031 – A Gambler Bets Wrong on the Anti-SLAPP Statute appeared first on California SLAPP Law.