A twitter follower brought Remember Dean v Maddow? on LeClair Ryan's D.C. Anti-SLAPP Law blog to Bluestem's attention. You may remember that toxic metal Christian pastor Dean sued Rachel Maddow and local journalist Andy Birkey, as well as their venues for defamation after they reported things that he said on his radio show.
The defendants considered the filing to be "strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition," as Wikipedia defines the practice.
According to a brief filed in the DC Court of Appeals in early July, Andy Birkey was dismissed from the lawsuit by the Superior Court, and his employer at the time of the alleged smear, the Minnesota Independent, was never served although it was named in the complaint.
UPDATE: Dean is fundraising for his legal expenses using an patricularly hyperbolic pitch. Read about it in Bradlee Dean claims what Maddow did much worse than Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case. [end update]
Leslie Machado has been following the case ("here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here"). He sums up the background in his latest post, Remember Dean v Maddow?:
Just days before the Superior Court was set to decide the motions, the 3M v. Boulter federal court issued its decision, holding that the anti-SLAPP act could not be applied in federal court. Dean promptly filed his suit there, and sought to voluntarily dismiss it in the DC Superior Court.
That’s when all the fun started. The DC Superior Court judge held that, if Dean wanted to forum shop, he could so do, but he needed to reimburse the defendants for the fees they incurred in the Superior Court action (as long as that work could not be used in the federal court action). In the interim, Judge Leon stayed the federal court case until resolution of the Superior Court action.
Dean protested that he was the master of his forum, and could elect to bring his suit in federal court. He refused to pay the fees that were ordered by the Superior Court judge as a condition for being allowed to pursue his claims in federal court, and instead moved to have the judge recused, alleging that she was biased. She denied that motion and dismissed his suit with prejudice for his failure to pay the fees, meaning that it cannot be brought again.
Dean, represented by Larry Klayman--who himself is now suing local cartoonist Ken Avidor and City Pages for blogging about a judge's ruling in an unrelated case--is appealing the case on grounds that have little to do with the anti-SLAPPact:
The case has now found its way to the DC Court of Appeals. At this point, it has very little to do with the DC anti-SLAPP act, and instead focuses on whether the Superior Court judge properly conditioned the dismissal on the payment of fees; whether the fees were reasonable; and whether the judge should have been recused. You can read Dean’s opening brief here, and the defendants’ opposition brief here.
Bluestem will let you know how that works out.
Photo: Bradlee Dean delivering his infamous (and redacted from the record) prayer in the Minnesota House that questioned President Obama's faith.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Comments