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 (5774)	3/4/2004 2:02:21 PM
From: peter michaelson	Respond to of 12465

Thanks for your commitment to this issue - it helps us all. Peter

To: dantecristo who wrote (5774)	3/4/2004 5:07:39 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

the justices were interested in whether the lower courts erred in allowing the trial to go forward while the plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion to declare the litigation a strategic lawsuit against public participation, a SLAPP to my non-legal eyes that sounds a hell of a lot more serious than being just an arcane technicality.

To: dantecristo who wrote (5774)	3/4/2004 8:36:22 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Matthew Poppe, an attorney with Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe who represents Varian, played down the significance of the court’s order. He said overturning the entire verdict and ordering a retrial, as defendants are requesting, is “pretty unlikely outcome.” This is like saying "there should have been a sign that read 'bridge closed' but because the police made the car in question continue anyhow, and then it fell off, there's no sense arguing what the ramifications of continuing might have been." And, of course, it totally discounts several years of events that might never have taken place had you succeeded in getting the case deemed a SLAPP! What a specious argument. Poppe predicted the Supreme Court would be reluctant to overturn the results of a seven-week jury trial on a legal technicality when Delfino and Day have never persuaded any court of the merits of their anti-SLAPP motion. Is he kidding? The Supreme Court is not about the merits of the case, it's about the law. Incriminating evidence gets tossed out of court all the time if proven to have been obtained illegally. ”It’s sort of a form of harmless error,” he said. Denying someone due process is "harmless"? He added Delfino and Day were late in filing their anti-SLAPP motion. “it’s supposed to be filed 60 days after the lawsuit,” Poppe said. “In this case, it was filed a year and a half afterward.” According to the CA ant-SLAPP statute: "The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper." I assume because you were allowed to file the complaint that this point would be moot, right? - Jeff