Ted Rall vs. LA Times: Here’s Rall’s Appellate Brief Challenging the Times’ Nasty, Abusive “anti-SLAPP” Motions

Yesterday my attorneys filed, and California’s Court of Appeals accepted, our Appellate Brief in my defamation and wrongful termination lawsuit against the Los Angeles Times et al.

I sued in 2015. The Times filed three anti-SLAPP motions against me, halting the case because they’re scared of facing a jury and want to intimidate me. In 2017 a lower-court judge ruled for the Times, ordering me to pay them $350,000 in the Times’ attorneys fees. This document is our appeal of the 2017 decision.

If successful, the $350,000 judgement will be vacated and I can build my case to take to a jury.

If not, the $350,000 stands, plus more fees for the Times defense of this appeal. And my case dies. And Californians who work for media companies will have no recourse in the courts if their employer discriminates against them, even if they do so for racist or sexist or homophobic reasons.

Please read our brief below; it’s an interesting read. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and reactions. Thank you for your incredible support!

 

Ted Rall vs. Los Angeles Times: anti-SLAPP Appellate Brief by Ted Rall

5 thoughts on “Ted Rall vs. LA Times: Here’s Rall’s Appellate Brief Challenging the Times’ Nasty, Abusive “anti-SLAPP” Motions

  1. Ted,

    It took me a helluva lot longer to read through that than I would have liked, but I made it!

    It appears to me that your attorneys have covered all the angles, and the fact that the appellate court must view it “with fresh eyes” is a blessing. I’m optimistic at this point that you will be victorious.

    I’m expecting an invitation to the victory party!

    😀

  2. Ted,

    I just finished reading the whole Appellate Brief and it is far better than I imagined it could possibly be. You are right about it being an interesting read. It keeps on getting better as it goes on.

    Congratulations to you and your team for the great work on this appeal, and good luck.

    About the recording:

    In the 1970s during Mardi Gras I was standing on a sidewalk in front of a bar leaning against the wall among many others doing much the same thing.

    A group of police officers, about a dozen in number, were gathered in the middle of the street in front of me when about three or four of them walked directly toward me and, without saying a word, picked me up and deposited me in the midst of this assembled dozen.

    Knowing better than to resist one officer of the law, much less a dozen, I gave them the attention they demanded from me, and they explained to me that there was an architectural ledge on the wall about butt high that no one was to make themselves comfortable on, and that I had violated their special rule.

    The language used by both parties to this incivility was never betrayed by any audible hint of hostility but the threat to my physical well being was, without any doubt, conveyed to me.

    I say this to express my understanding of why abuse may have been so little evident in the purported audio recording of your police encounter. Sometimes a simple verbal response to a police provocation is a good way for them to justify escalation of abuse. See YouTube videos of police yelling “Stop resisting!” while their victim lies passively receiving a beating.

    Also, not “hearing” any complaint seems to have worked well for very long for women’s predators. I like the way that that issue was shown to have relevance in your appeal.

  3. I’ll get back to you, Ted, after I’ve plowed through that lengthy document ( knew karma would get me in the end) ! Let me here just express my agreement with Michael’s sentiments above….

    Henri

  4. The LA Times wrote that they investigated and found you were a liar. You have a tape that proves you were telling the truth. (I read the first 25 out of 105 pages.) That used to be called ‘libel’, but who knows what the law is today (the rich are always right?).

    I wish you the very best of luck. I hope you win!

    I first heard of you from the New York Times when they thought they wanted a hard left cartoonist to balance their stable of a far right, a middle right, and a middle right (but called called middle left) cartoonist. And after the Times realised they did NOT want a hard left cartoonist, I’ve continued to follow you, thanks to the Internet.

    I know you deserve to win by every standard of law and justice. For whatever that’s worth.

Leave a Reply