Popehat Sends Up The Anti-SLAPP Signal

Print This Post

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. John Kindley says:

    I know you know this, but sometimes Anti-SLAPP is itself Anti-Public Participation. I should know.

  2. Landru says:

    You totally need a popehat-shaped spotlight beacon.

  3. VPJ says:

    You totally need a popehat-shaped spotlight beacon.

    Excellent idea…and seems the Popehat art division staff agrees!

  4. Tom says:

    I was curious about MD's anti-SLAPP law and when I googled it I got your popehat post about the ACORN suit from 2009. In that post, you said that there was only one citing case and it held that AZ law applied.

    I just checked again, and there's now two cases holding that different states' laws applied, one case from NJ using MD code as an example of Anti-SLAPP laws, and a case in federal court that for weird procedural reasons was treated like a summary judgment motion and denied because there were disputed issues of material fact.

    And. . . there was one case taking two pro se litigants to task for, get this, not citing any case law interpreting the statute. Ha!

  5. JohnB says:

    I'm in Maine. Pass my email along when they start to raise funds. I can't give much but I will help twist arms. Can you tell us more?

  6. Amy Alkon says:

    Ken, you're a force for good in the world, and I sure appreciate it.

  1. November 1, 2011

    [...] A request for anti-SLAPP lawyers in Maine and Maryland [Popehat] [...]