Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dantecristo who wrote (1424)	5/1/2001 11:40:42 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Mary, in the Business Wire lawsuit against us BW went a step further claiming the Internet itself was not a public forum! If you want, I can send you a copy of our reply. - Jeff

To: dantecristo who wrote (1424)	5/1/2001 8:14:48 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 12465

Mary, this is the text to which I was referring. Perhaps it might be of some use (both Zhao and Briggs are cited by Varian): ----- Although some California appellate courts previously held that the statute only protected acts closely related to "behavior protected by the Petition Clause" (Zhao v. Wong, 48 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1124 (1996)), the California Supreme Court recently rejected this view. In Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity 9 Cal.4th 1106 (January 21, 1999), the Court held that: Even assuming, for purposes of argument, that plaintiffs accurately have characterized ECHO's activities as constituting neither self-interested nor general political speech, we cannot conclude such activities thereby necessarily fall outside the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. Contrary to plaintiffs' implied suggestion, the statute does not require that a defendant moving to strike under section 425.16 demonstrate that its protected statements or writings were made on its own behalf (rather than, for example, on behalf of its clients or the general public). We agree, moreover, with the court in Braun v. Chronicle that "Zhao is incorrect in its assertion that the only activities qualifying for statutory protection are those which meet the lofty standard of pertaining to the heart of self-government." (Braun v. Chronicle, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1046-1047.) In short, where 1) defendants have any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, each cause of action concerning those communications must be stricken unless 2) the Court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. webnode.com (see section IIB) - Jeff

To: dantecristo who wrote (1424)	5/9/2001 7:01:02 PM
From: dantecristo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

Meet the Grande Dame of SLAPP herself! Lynne Charlotte Hermle Employment Defense; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe: Menlo Park, CA "With more than 15 trials and no losses under her belt, Lynne Hermle has established a reputation for being a take-no-prisoners employment lawyer who makes every attempt to knock out parts of a case before they reach a jury. "If you aren't ready to do battle the second you file a complaint against her, you are at a disadvantage," warns San Mateo plaintiffs attorney Paul J. Smoot. "Right out of the gate, before she's even filed a responsive pleading , she's already preparing her motion for summary judgment." Hermle says that her career path--from small-firm attorney in the early 1980s, when most employment claims were administrative, to in-house counsel at AT&T, and finally to the employment litigation department at Orrick--engendered the aggressive style that has become her trademark. "I saw a lot of what I thought was bad handling of employment litigation," she says. "I see a lot of cases that are not aggressively handled, and some cases that are overly aggressively handled with respect to syle and not substance. In employment cases the emotional issues are intense, and those emotional issues push the clients toward wanting a very aggressive response." Hermle, has handled jury trials for corporate clients, which have included Macy's, Apple Computer, and IBM. Adam Pomerantz, who manages half of IBM's employment litigation nationwide, says he saw Hermle educate a judge who lacked familiarity with certain aspects of employment law and procedure. "Without diminishing the talents of our judge, Hermle taught the judge pertinent aspects of California employment law, and I know the judge thought very highly of her both during and after the trial," Pomerantz says. Pomerantz also reports that Hermle is "particularly useful when we have a male attorney on the other side. She turns them into putty as far as I can tell." Louisa Holzschuher, senior counsel of human resources law at Apple Computer, is another fan. She says that Hermle is legendary at Apple for her courtroom performance, and Holzschuher notes one employment case in particular: "She actually had the plaintiff's lawyer throwing up in the bathroom every morning, he was so freaked-out about the case, and this happened day after day, through all the motions. The plaintiff and her lawyer actually agreed to withdraw from the lawsuit after Hermle's opening statement." Gators - a dozen litigators with bite, California Lawyer, May 2001 geocities.com

To: dantecristo who wrote (1424)	5/16/2001 8:53:34 PM
From: dantecristo	Respond to of 12465

Appellant DAY's Reply Brief in CA Court of Appeals: "While more artfully drawn than previous briefs filed by Respondents in this matter, the position they take in opposition to DAY’s Opening Brief remains the same. That is, they fail to point to a single posting made by MARY DAY (hereinafter “DAY”), prior to August 13, 1998. They fail to point to a single posting by DAY that is defamatory, rather, they point to a mass of postings made by Appellant, DELFINO. They fail to point to any credible evidence of any conspiracy and they ignore the undisputed facts and evidence presented to the trial court. Respondents consistently mischaracterize, misstate and fail to state relevant facts and evidence presented to the trial court. They consistently miscite authority for propositions for which that authority does not stand and finally, and most telling, they lump Appellant, DAY with DELFINO and attribute acts only carried out by DELFINO to DAY. Respondents argue that DAY was involved in a conspiracy and then go on to argue that DAY committed the acts which would constitute formation of the conspiracy are attributable to her because of the conspiracy. That is, they make a circular argument which falls by its own weight upon scrutiny." geocities.com

To: dantecristo who wrote (1424)	6/15/2001 11:21:47 PM
From: dantecristo	Respond to of 12465

Defendant Delfino's APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF in CA Court of Appeals: "But even more telling in Varian’s “blackmail” argument is that it ignores the very underpinnings that the legislature found to be the basis for creating the anti-SLAPP statute. It was the reoccurring blackmail by corporate America, using all of its power, wealth and legal legions to blackmail private citizens into either stop speaking, or spend their life earnings and precious time defending themselves against the vicious legal onslaught. Be silent, be still, and sacrifice your First Amendment rights, and we (corporate America, i.e., Varian) will let you live another day. In other words, who is blackmailing whom here? " geocities.com