the trial court in this matter and this applied this is an participation act even before the supreme court decisions in a right development and sandal but particularly in light of those by the supreme court in a right development that the moving defendants here in must first establish that the statements being complained of were made in connection with a petition for favorable government action there was no showing in the trial court the trial court clearly did not expect defendants to make any such showing and did not find that they made any such showing made in connection with any kind of activity we have cited page eight of our brief the the facts in the record that show that the s p c p and its individuals have not participated in any effort to procure favorable government activity so they can make these statements in public but that alone is not enough it has to be in connection with some effort that's the right development case but we move on to the same home case which just came down last friday in which the supreme court said that the movement must establish that the government action being taken by the defendant is the sole basis for the lawsuit that is it refers to the underlying rationale of the anti slapp statutes as meritless lawsuits directed solely to in response to a petition for government action by the defendant sand home court is very clear in saying that the citizen participation act is not a refuge for tortfeasor if you look at the purpose of the statute and it is not a new privilege against a defamation claim the sent home court very thoroughly analyzed the act and all the the facts and circumstances of that case and found that the defendants they're in did not meet their burden of showing that the plaintiff's lawsuit was soley based on defendant's efforts at procuring favorable government action and i point out that  it was admitted in the san home case that there was an effort at portraying government action and it was admitted at least in part or it was not controversial at least that that was not a genuine effort at government actually sent home case addressed this sham exception that the defendants have have raised in connection with their briefs and points out quite properly that that sham exact exception in this context is kind of a red herring because that addresses the defendant's conduct defendants might well be pursuing a genuine effort at government activity but unless the complaint by the plaintiffs is based soley on that effort it doesn't matter whether the sham exception applies or not the first step you have to look at is the plaintiff's conduct that is the burden of the defendant movement the apple lease here that is a burden that was not even placed on them far less met by the trial court in this case so this case is even stronger than the san home case for reversal because there was no showing in any statement much less all of the statements that are complained of as being defamatory was made in furtherance of government action obtaining government action there's also no showing that the complaint was based in any part much less sole on defendant's efforts to seek government action favorable government action a comment briefly on the attorney's fees point our position before the position here was that there was no showing that the client was obligated to pay the fees we believe that as part of the requirement we believe they had ample opportunity to file an affidavit of the client showing it was obligated not that it had already paid but that was obligated to pay they have not shown that we asked the court to reverse the both sand home and right development make clear that the statues are not limited just to petitioning government ok it applies to suits intended  freedom of speech freedom of so ca sion by individuals in the wake of in the wake of an f d a recall of this company's products and they are talking about that in pursuit of increased compliance with f d a regulations in increase compliance with safety standards which are set by the society  compliance with training certification it's a kin to in the right development case where the person goes to a public meeting and then later after the fact address his comments to a reporter the courts have recognized including right development that communication after the event whether it be to the public at large the electorate which the statute the fines government to include the electric or media channels there is a governmental purpose involved in that and oftentimes people  actually on a letter that one of the plaintiffs sent sent and it was at a record site to a one she writes a letter to rachel ray and she says your show featured a story about nancy fine a woman who suffered from a disfiguring allergic reaction to a permanent makeup product i regretfully manufactured and distributed widely to the permanent makeup community in two thousand and two with the help of the media the f d a and the entire permanent cosmetic community the product was recalled and removed from the market in two thousand and three a bit not before several women were injured it's an example your honor of when something happens in the marketplace and again this is a society that is dedicated towards educating the public and setting safety standards and all the defendants here are members of the society and it's an example by the plaintiff's own admission where people get together and mobilize public opinion that results in a government action in this instance an a recall and certainly and there's a lot of hyperbole in some of these web postings but certainly they were all designed to because there was there was concern about blowback from this that because of one bad apple there was going to be an impact on the rest of the industry and these people were voicing  another thing sure stan home came down friday but it did not overrule walsh it merely construed the act to require an initial inquiry into whether or not the suit is solely based on this kind of exercise of rights that is a good question that i have certainly sure the trial court here that would comply with this stuff while section  address that your honor the trial court did not specifically address that issue but ok it is clear from the complaint here ok that this this claim is objectively meritless if you look at the defamation claims in particular in the complaint as a general they say they're all based on comments made between two thousand and six and two thousand and eight there's no way given the one year stats limitations that anyone can bring a mere tourist defamation case in fact this very complaint was filed in florida in two thousand and eight the case it was dismissed and then lead was given to amend in the florida complaint the plaintiff joined everybody but not a single florida resident initially that's the second factor that shows that this is a near it let's complaint what the were doing here was suing defendants in far off jurisdictions to punish them ok there's not a mirror tori's claim here they filed stale defamation cases are other reasons right two six nineteen allows you to  the time was it not first of all while we do have other defenses to this complaint right we could five hundred to six one thousand to six fifteen because a lot of the statements here protected first and then that and that opinion but the fact of the matter is the c p a is was passed to address the situation where a plaintiff in order to punish the fence for exercising their constitutional rights  objective persons who have recently expected to procure a favorable government outcome through a public keepin like the defense campaign against the planet so is it rational would an objective person looking at made up names and just blocks under false names attacking what was what was said in this case what we were objective person us decide yes yes that's a good way to get government action against people who suit was based soley upon comments made by the defendants and that it lacked merit then you go to the so called sham exception where the plaintiff would have to offer clear convincing evidence that our conduct was not genuinely aimed to bout at bringing about governmental action and i think it is because i mean i don't think the plaintiff a deuce any such evidence because and that happens a lot whether it's you're talking about the deepwater oil spill in the golf or a recall of a controversial product or comments post made  in a public meeting about whether a developer should be entitled to develop a project people speak out in order to educate the electorate their colleagues their sympathizers all to mobilize conduct to bring about governmental change and that's why i think the statute which by its terms is supposed to be liberally concert construed talks about you that that well i i can't reconcile the fact that dismissal of a lawsuit in the assessment of attorneys these is addressed agreement i can't reconcile that with the liberal construction i don't know that the court was saying there fore you shouldn't give a liberal construction as i said walsh right development versus walsh is still good law and it says that that the act is to be liberal a construed so i don't think that this would be a drastic measure and i think the court has to focus in the court can focus on the complaint in order to n y c is this really a legitimate claim to recover damages as the sand home court required and i think there's just no way you can sue in two thousand and ten for statements that were made in two thousand and six and so you're arguing that if you have other if they have legitimate other defenses other than the might be had motive is that right i think the court the san home court says there's got to be an initial inquiry into whether or not this is baseless and i think from the face of the was a petition for fees and a hearing are for our fee petition i think was in the neighborhood of sixty six thousand dollars that included a deposition that was taken at the request court reduced the field ward from the sixty six thousand to the eighty one hundred we asked on what basis that that was done and the court did not articulate any basis so i  think our position is that therefore we're dealing with not an abuse of discretion but rather than over a review and at the very least the case are to be remanded for determination on what are i don't recall which justice asked the question you acker question is where is the effort to procure favorable government action if counsel's correct all you have to do is be commenting on a matter of public policy there is no defamation action anybody can say i was commenting on a matter of public policy the point of the statute is to protect my right to petition government for some favorable action and not to be sued soley because i am petition that government for they will actually if i make comments to other people electorate reporter in connection with that petition that still would be protected speech that's not what we have here well incent home as you still went to at where he couldn't be clearer they were seeking a firing by the government agency of a government employee and that was insufficient in the eyes of our supreme court to apply the act and say it's immune exactly because they said it has to be the sole basis for the complaint that if you have a legitimate tort action and you can't look at other defenses because the point is to look at the slap statute by itself we haven't briefs or argued or a discuss details or the defenses i will offense go that is a form of defense that's way bill so that doesn't mean it's america's complaint to begin with if the stats limitations applies or not applies where over the complaint does say continuing through to to date starting two that the s p c was not pursuing favorable government action it was commenting on things as a matter of public policy in its view but it was not pursuing any favorable government action wasn't pursuing any government action at all wasn't lobbying it wasn't asking the federal government to adopt any guidelines it was not asking any federal state legislative body to set any standards all those are cited a page in the brief and reflect what's in the record