anti-SLAPP Hearing Dates Are Set in LA Times Case

The hearing dates for the LA Times’ anti-SLAPP motion against me will run over the course of three days: February 28, March 1 and March 8, 2017 at LA Superior Court.

These will be public hearings.

This trio of anti-SLAPP hearings is a pivotal point in my lawsuit against the LA Times for eight counts, including defamation, blacklisting and wrongful termination as their editorial cartoonist as a favor to Charlie Beck, the sleazy chief of the LAPD, whose pension fund was the biggest shareholder of the Times’ parent company.

The Times, part of a half-billion corporation named Tronc, is abusing California’s anti-SLAPP statute – designed by the legislature to protect individuals from deep-pocketed corporations trying to censor whistleblowers – to try to prevent me from getting my day in court. They are arguing that the First Amendment gives them the right to publish two articles calling me a liar and a fabulist, even though they knew they were wrong and solid proof had emerged that I was accurate.

In legal terms, they will try to convince the judge that my suit is a “SLAPP” (strategic lawsuit against public participation) designed to harass them and deprive them of their First Amendment rights. If the judge agrees, my case will be dismissed and I will be ordered to pay the Times’ legal fees to date, which they estimate at $300,000.

If the judge denies the Times’ anti-SLAPP motion, the Times can appeal once, to the Court of Appeals. Given how ruthless the Times and its lawyers have been so far, we expect them to appeal. If the Times wins the appeal, I would owe the $300,000 plus whatever additional fees their lawyers ran up in that stage.

The Times paid me $300 per week. I would be forced to declare bankruptcy.

Although in its filings the Times has backed away from its now debunked allegation that I lied and Tronc fired then-publisher Austin Beutner (he was behind my ouster), it has not approached us about settling. I have requested a retraction, apology, and my job back.

I will not, and cannot, settle for the usual hush money deal: no admission of wrongdoing, a gag order, they cut me a check, amount undisclosed. The Times set out to destroy me and my reputation. They allowed themselves to be corrupted by the police. They used me to send a message to Southern California journalists: don’t mess with the police. This is about me, yes. But, more importantly, it’s about freedom of an independent press and the reasonable expectation of citizens that what they read in the paper cannot be dictated by thin-skinned government officials with an authoritarian mentality.

The Times must be held to account in a public forum.

Even if I am financially ruined, I will never regret the difficult decision to defend myself against this vicious corporation.

It seems obvious that the Times is pulling out all the stops to prevent this case from coming to court. They know that if a jury hears the facts of the case, they will probably lose. That’s why they’re stalling, resorting to abusive legal tactics like the anti-SLAPP motion and their move to force me to post $75,000 cash bond just to continue. Thanks to the amazing people who raised that bond and who have supported me throughout this important case, however, I remain confident that we will prevail in anti-SLAPP, at trial, and the future appeals to which the defendants plan to subject the court system.

For a quick overview of the case, click here.

I will not sell out.

15 Comments.

  • I do hope you can roll that stone over the hill ~

    DanD

  • Best of luck Ted. You said it yourself, “The Times must be held to account in a public forum. “

  • Maybe Rall fans, and others who recognize that this trial is about so much more than just Ted, could help make this public hearing more “public” by providing a big presence to attract media coverage of this outrage.

    Of course, Ted’s future is on the line and Ted’s request with respect to whether or not his supporters should show up en masse should be respected (if he decides to take a public position on this).

    • Yes, Glenn, public support/presence/activism would be most welcome.

    • «Maybe Rall fans, and others who recognize that this trial is about so much more than just Ted, could help make this public hearing more “public” by providing a big presence to attract media coverage of this outrage.» I hope Glenn, that you people in the United States – and in particular, those who reside in the LA area – who value the work that Ted is doing and who also understand what is at stake here exceeds even that work (as you so perceptively put it : «[t]he lesson the powerful want to teach us is that even with a nominal win against them, the win will be tantamount to a Pyrrhic victory») will turn out to show their support for his case….

      The powerful hire others to do their work for them 24/7/365, thus they are can wait for fatigue to strike, as it inevitably does, ordinary people when they protest….

      Henri

  • If the judge agrees, my case will be dismissed and I will be ordered to pay the Times’ legal fees to date, which they estimate at $300,000
    I will not, and cannot, settle for the usual hush money deal
    Even if I am financially ruined, I will never regret […]

    From the perspective of the company, clearly they are dealing with a deranged person who values something else above money. Perhaps they should think about mounting an insanity offense, like the famous Catch 22: if we regard selfishness and greed as normal (duh), nobody in their right mind would fight such as case out in court. As only sane people have standing in court, technically they should be quite immune from wrongdoing. I mean, who would argue against personal gain = sanity? Like biggest rock is best rock – it seems obvious to me. 😉

    Unless… taking this to court is a strange move that cannot be expected in normal business operations and as such is fundamentally unfair. They must be dealing with an exceptionally shrewd and imaginative operator who is out to inflate the value of the inevitable settlement. In this case they are morally allowed – nay obliged – to use every dirty trick in the book, but may eventually lose against this masterfully perfidious gambit of introducing a moral fiber to a market transaction. Wicked.

    Thus, while they won’t give Ted his old job back, in recognition that Ted’s shrewd bargaining skills are wasted in a mere menial position (“he was actually drawing things with his hands, how quaint”), they may offer him a upper-level management position instead ;-). Unless they don’t want to deal with such unpredictable personality aspects as not trusting the police or denying that the boss is always right. But – the boss is always right. I know, I know… frankly, it seems obvious to me.

    • I found myself in a situation similar to Ted’s. I was thoroughly screwed by the company I worked for, badly enough that it had a severe impact on my career.

      I sued. The facts were overwhelmingly in my favor, yet the company spent far more money fighting me than it would have taken just to settle. The way they see it, if they don’t fight tooth and nail then other people might get the same idea. Even worse, they might be forced to treat their employees properly.

      And of course, both our adversaries have far deeper pockets than we do. It’s like playing poker without a set buy-in. The guy with the most money is most likely to win even if he’s not that great a player.

      • This sounds just like the reason for the U.S. dropping 8,000,000 tons of bombs on little Vietnam.

        I didn’t matter if the war would be won or lost, what mattered was that any other country would think of the cost of displeasing the imperium before resisting the will of the imperium.

        That’s the same reason for all of the attempts to assassinate Castro.

        The lesson the powerful want to teach us is that even with a nominal win against them, the win will be tantamount to a Pyrrhic victory.

  • alex_the_tired
    December 9, 2016 8:27 PM

    Ted,

    Please be careful. I wouldn’t put it past the police to arrest you for jaywalking when you get to L.A.

    And that is not a joke.

    Have your attorneys with you at ALL times.

  • Slapping down little guys is what the big guys – whether they are called Tronc or Trump (or Clinton) or the US government – do, so as to disabuse the former from the weird notion that they have any rights that the latter (the heirs to Mr Taney’s «white man» were bound to respect….

    Who do you think writes the laws – and at whose behest – and who sits on the bench ?…

    Mondo cane….

    Henri

  • I’m going out on a limb here and pointing out that the GoFundMe account that allowed Ted to make the bond is still active, and the link is in the upper right of the page:

    https://www.gofundme.com/tedrall

    Additionally, I started an account to assist with his legal fees a few months before that one:

    https://www.gofundme.com/9w3cezxg

    If you want to support him in this matter, you may contribute to either.

    Thanks!

  • Here’s a recent precedent in your favor:
    http://courthousenews.com/appeals-court-lets-producer-sue-cnn-on-bias-charge/

    It seems that you will have your day.

    DanD

    • Ted, the above blue-link’d case is functionally a mirror of your own. Your case is happening in L.A. Superior Court, and the Second Appellate District is just about 3 or 4 blocks southwest from the SC’s Hill Street.location.

      Your lawyer can now file for a summary adjudication in your favor.

      DanD

    • Just happened yesterday! Go at ’em, Ted!

      😀

Comments are closed.

css.php