this case can be determined on a single issue because john kerry those lawsuit constitute a slap in the answer to that is no it does not the reason why was first set out in the illinois clear three prong tests to determine if a lawsuit constitutes a slam and was consequently fall under the act now the circuit court in this case and its ruling on the motions to dismiss determine only the first pro that test and the first prong is whether the defendant's acts are in furtherance of their right to petition or participate in government action to taint favorable government action and here that just because those acts are the type that the act intends to attack doesn't mean that the plaintiffs suit constitutes a slap and doesn't mean that it is subject to dismissal under the act the second prong is whether defendants have proved that the plaintiffs claims are solely based on or solely related to the defendant's acts and further it's now said in another way by the  plaintiffs claims genuinely seeking relief for the damages that were incurred and therefore not subject to dismissal the defendants have not met their burden in this case and in fact evidence exists in the record that shows the contr this claim was filed in retaliation the reason why is the timing of the filing despite this lawsuit was filed nearly two weeks after the election in this case it was not by all during the to do this so in a way that would be attributed it was but that's not the case and that that leads me to my next factor during the campaign plaintiff sent defendants letters informing him of the false statements in inviting communication in the form of a response as she wide statements were faults that was the action that was taken during the campaign and not the filing of law suit where it could have been very well available to mr grunow to file a lawsuit at the time he chose not to so the timing is a factor something only factor but it's one of the factors to be considered and whether or not it was filed in retaliation there wasn't very much time for  television ads work began middle of march when the the actual letter was a perfect so there was a two week approximate two week period of time when action could have been taken if he chose to do so during the election and you chose not to help others in the time of the filing what other arguments you have as far as retaliation the intervening action that the letters were sent as opposed to filing a lawsuit during the election the amount of damages claimed because the damages in this case are not representative of a traditional or hallmark slapp action where those seek damages in the millions in this case the damages were reasonable given the nature well the damages that were calculated at the time that the suit was filed were damages that were anticipated or expected as a result of the defendant's a favorite toy statements which included damages reputation and character as a fellow member of our legal community as he is a lawyer as a police officer and as a member of the community those are damages that can reasonably be proved up in this in this case if i'm going to ask you he lost legal business and he's a he's a lawyer and receives his business through word of mouth by referral and being disparaged and defamed in his community he's lost that source of business as a lawyer he's just because the statements don't charge the the player with committing a specific criminal offense with the precision of an indictment it doesn't mean that being accused of sept of action susceptible to corruption is not harmful provide undisputed facts that show a lack of merit in this case now just askin him instead you ruled that other affirmative defenses either under two six fifteen or two six nineteen a cannot be to transfer a total of one thousand dollars did stand to make one point four million dollars right well the contribution that gentle reader received from one gay time he said was an individual countries it was his friend he did not receive money from a record who that was in fact the plaintiff we brought forth evidence in our response motion our response to their motion to dismiss who that company was receiving an individual contribution from a person that mr published they published the statement that he took money from the parking meter company he took money from the company that brought the parking meter deal to the city and they also published a false statement that he would write to city pensions of elective that is not true job there isn't an agreement on that issue what the source of the defendant cited to substantiate that allegation that claim against mr greedo was an article that stated retire from one job drop a paycheck from another city job or county job that was the gist of the article that the defendant cited to you so they were referencing you retire you start receiving a pension from one job and then you receive a paycheck from another and that in no way supports the allegation that time greta would receive two city pensions or double dip and take two times amount of tax dollars from the residents of the city or taxpayers of the city so you're  no but the defendants made that statement in the context of it being corrupt or they were stealing that somebody would be silly or taking taxpayers dollars that insinuation the inference that  the defense were making was that john greedo wanted to be an older and just so that he could have two pension just so that he could double dip and take two taxpayer to taxpayer pensions from the shot that was for monetary gain the other issue on the merits of the case is that there is a dispute fact whether or not these defendants published the statements with malice whether they knew statements were false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth the evidence that despite that the defendants claim that they did not act with malice that they believe the statements were true and they publish them because of that but you evidence to the contrary they say to sources that don't support the statements and as i stated earlier in the case of one's for vs right back the defense and that if the defendants investigated facts with the resources and they were either insufficient information to substantiate a good basis for the claims or that somehow show a substantial doubt as to the truth that can be considered with this regard that's what we have in this case the defendants knew from john d tos that he didn't receive money from the leadership institute class that was the extent of the donation the defense can even say i wish through their sources and through these articles who brought the parking meter deal to the city or the monterey security even if they were able to make that connection which they did not that minor security brought the parking meter deal to the city in addition there as i just say to their article on the pensions does not support that he would receive to pay pensions so they they listed these sources they didn't support the statements but they published statements anyways further evidence of malice is the fact that they received these letters after they published the statements stating that the information was false requesting that they'd stop publishing inviting and type of response as to from the defense as to why and they continued to publish anyway as there's also evidence in the record your honour's that there is collaboration by all of these defendants to publish the same or substantially similar statements that were defamatory and cite the same two sources there is even an admission by one of the defendants in their affidavit in support of their motion to dismiss nineteen affirmative matters opinion substantial truth and innocent instruction those factors should not be considered when analyzing whether the case has merit under the c p a then there has been even so the circuit court recognized that in the briefing of the issues chris and home there were missed material there were disputed issues of material fact in dismissing the case with those disputed issues of material fact was improper at that time now determine that it needs to to get to that point but we submit that it is not case quite differently and i do want to respond to some of the interesting questions that were raised let me start out the book by saying i'm really following up on just assignment as this case was being pleaded and  this was sort of a sort of hope being held over our heads we didn't know what spam court would say we were really but they could have struck the whole statute down when it came down we breathe a sigh of relief and then when we see the two power cases actually authored by that panel we think we still we strongly urge we start with a very strong case that deserves a formants understand home under ryan under august and then i want to get into those reasons we have to still look at the basic purpose of the slap act which is a strategic lawsuit intended to chill participation in government or to stifle political expression there seems in our opinion no doubt that that's what it is what plaintiff is saying is no no no this is a case about getting compensated for damage to our reputation it's not a is it better or is it about shutting us up teaching us a lesson showing our rights getting even more slapping back we think the record is very clear that this is what went on prior and the reason that we can reach that conclusion and we urge this court and that's you know when they tell a scorpion cheated their brief you know what when they say there was no connection between this company and the parking meters it's clear page seven ten of the other record it is clear monterey was a minority subcontractor according to the article and we have every right to believe the articles factual accuracy monterrey was a minority subcontractor all the way as and every one of those companies is bringing this this deal to chicago we have a right to say that i think what the plaintiff wants is that we put out mailings that say mr greedo received a contribution from a police officer friend who then owns a company who then became a minority subcontractor to another company that had a very controversial arrangement on and putting meters that's not realistic and that's something this court ought to really strive mightily to avoid you do not want to be right we believe that the record is very clear that we have shown it by the record that we put in about the article from the sun times the article from fox news i should add by the way if you x we have to we have no choice and we have to accept our burden to do this how else to do it but to come forward with a published article that that i think there is no get well first of all under maggie the other side will have to always show malice i this is a public figure it's not the high school coach of sample but then when you couple that with the article from fox and from the sun times we  will be eligible i believe a year will be i would need to check the exact language of justice o'connor's i certainly we do have the right we have every right to say that he is eligible is not will be but is eligible for a second pension when he starts doing this because should he serve the ten years he will get that pension if you know feet if you resigned in a year no of course he's not going to get it  issues here first of all we think that relationship with meritless and as i've used incredibly strongly for retaliatory that that these are pretty garden variety allegations when you talk about both the pension and the so called corruption that we never accused a mob and then certainly we disproved their complaining about the second meters so no merit speed of suit that it was brought ten days after the election was over and i should add we wish the damage here how could he even know what damage there is as a police officer or damage in the community in general none of which is pled i understand work setting the complaint but none of which is pled as to how he could have been damaged in those ten days out he moved fast because he slapping back as he's in a basically i would suggest an angry unsuccessful political candidate in the spotlight this is a political figure who chose to to come in here and you know move very quickly because he was disappointed that he lost angry that he was finally damages  way but certainly we read it to say this is about future intentions of the candidate is a candidate who's run twice we think you'll be running again there is a real interest in telling the unions you cannot speak out in telling comcast you you must listen when i send you a letter and if you don't you'll pay for it and that's that's the retaliation i one just am damages we do approach very closely the high tel numbers because the three hundred thousand dollars times three counts that's nine hundred thousand dollars there's the unspoken number in the punitive damages why it would be punitive when there's no evidence of malice in this case i do not understand and finally attorney officer lawyer because he wants to scare us off and we're asking this court to not allow that to happen to find but the standard for thirty six when i was often said that you've set the merits of the claim but if you go to this course decision and i have spell it because i can pronounce it t k a c z versus wiener and it's three sixty eight eleven thirty six ten it is in the papers it's in our section on well i  believe it is in our papers but the court this court says the term affirmative matter is used once in two six one itis been defined as a type of defense that either negates in a rush cause of action completely early feuds crucial allegations of wall or conclusions of material fact the unsupported by allegations of specific facts so this court has said that when  no false statement in the advertisements that comcast is accused of running comcast is not on the hook for every advertisements case there is a single advertisements it was shown by comcast paid for by sci you comcast also ran a with ass from greedo it's a neutral party here and that ad said that mr greedo took a contribution from a company making millions from the parking meter deal that is true me well there's a sun times article says that it was reported in the city that monterey security had already received hundreds of thousands of dollars and stood to gain more  n if you read the articles it says in two thousand and nine so the inference is that it was going to make more money in future years so there's no false statement that's been affirmatively disproved sent you dislike her and this letter informs you that the ad was false i urge the quotes look at the letter the letter does not articulate any of the reasons that he's now come forward and articulate in his complaint the theory in th campaign contributor he could submit a declaration to that effect that we did we came for with evidence and that was our courts yes yes but that's the question is is there a trial issue effect on that and the only evidence is one way on that issue defendants met the burden on that in contest case they say the this specific advertisement communicated by implication it plaintiff argued that the c k wouldn't apply if her claim earth his claims had merit and so defendants met that burden they said if comcast in particular said we don't agree that's the wall we turned out to be wrong but even if it is the law here's our evidence that his claims lack merit on top of that damages there's no case whatsoever that a losing candidate can recover damages in this type of situation now question of rather the facts submitted to the trial court create a triable issue affect is a question of law that this court reviews all the time in review summary judgment motions that's that's that's a question of all they submitted a robust presentation in response to to defendants motions to dismiss they put on their best case they submit a declaration for mr greville setting forth and damaged they try to imply that monterey security didn't actually profit from the parking meter deal than that it wasn't in pretty of contract and in that they put everything they could into into their case defendants put on their formative evidence shown here by the absence of a triable issue of fact that would preclude the entry of judgment as a matter of law this that there's this is not a case that's worth trying because point of can't show damages we've we've demonstrated that the last election damages are not recoverable defendants have demonstrated that the claims of the the advertisements in particular that the allegations in the sci you television advertisement are claim in chief they had a basis the basis for the advertisements was cited right in the advertisements which were members of the complaints part of the complaint part of the record and i would just urge thank you for  reasons in the record that this judgment the judgment of dismissal can be affirmed with two six one five two six one nine the record demonstrates that these claims have merit nothing is going to change below the only thing that possibly might change if the court finds that we have a sufficiently demonstrated meritless under the c p a or retaliatory of the c p a is we could go back and litigate that issue but as a practical matter that requires us to invest even more money in the hope of recovering a portion of our attorneys fees it doesn't make sense we're here the records of the same as it's going to be eighteen months from now if you send this back and dismiss and it comes back you're going to be entertaining the same arguments that point about the contest is a corporation corporations are covered citizens united from the united states supreme court say that that when it comes to first amendment rights corporations have the same rights in the can't discriminate based on  wealth of the speaker contest as equal rights under the c p a and soon home gives an example from the legislative history where they say a citizen group got up and spoke of the election or it is a council meeting and then the city passed a statute that the plaintiff objected to they sued not only the city council but this is the speaker at the city council meeting now the facts are not the same here but i would say that there is a very strong parallel comcast is not the person that mr greedo is angry at they are not the person that created the ad they are not the person that did the act i would say it's a broad question judge and you know i think that in a situation like this that the burden is an opponent's advertisement fifteen waiters fifteen days later it's being sued for the loss of the election it makes no sense that's not comcast responsibility this statement would have to be so obviously beyond any kind of reasonable doubt lacking it mariette has to be explicitly stated i think this is very problematic for plaintiff's case against against comcast the advertisement doesn't say what he says it sets comcast had advertisements where the the allegedly false statement it's not explicitly stated it's implied by innuendo the point in that case has to come forward with a survey affirmative evidence that this advertisement is actually communicating that message in a judge and there's plenty of case law that we cited see on this a judge could not even make the call absent such survey evidence i message is actually being communicated and that's read this point even said that in his letter we think that this advertisement that doesn't mention elysee parking is communicating to voters that i took a contribution from  and on other grounds which we think are well supported by the record i think i can speak on behalf of of all defenders i think all defensive made similar representation that we'd rather have it affirms and over with than to go back and have further proceedings directed solely towards the it's not a matter of the proof that we're able to prove on the on the actual claim it's whether or not the defendants have disproved the their minimum for the essential elements of the plaintiff's claims which they have not done it's just  decided to keep on publishing those false statements and even media the media can be still held liable if actual mails is shown whether they knew the statements were false and they kept publishing or they acted in reckless disregard for the truth in continuing to publish the statements there's case law that that's of course that the media can still be held liable if the republicans of information a false statements and it can be shown that they have to with malice they still have liability so  at this juncture they have to disprove the essential elements of the claim one of which is now list and so the the cases of new york times versus sullivan those are still on it and we haven't even gotten to any discovery in this case there have been tori's no depositions there's been no request to admit so at this stage it's the bare minimum of whether or not the defendants have disproven those essential elements and we have now i would address the court's question off could not answer regarding what the statements were in the mailers about the pension if republican john green was elected he will draw to city pensions and you'll pay for them both he would drop to city pensions  when he double dips by taking two pensions will pay the price they did not say will be eligible in some years for a pension or in ten years he may get a pay as a second pension they are talking the here and now going  nearly a month after the initial statements were made and the stigma in the sting from being associated with the pac in years being associated with corruption being associated with taking two pensions and was thrown out reputation was damaged and mr greedo has you know makes his livelihood livelihood with other positions he's a lawyer he's a member of our legal community one that relies on referrals and he's a neighborhood lawyer who lost business as a result of the statements that the defendants made he's a police officer who was not able to get other positions in the world well anyw resemble your traditional or classic slap case where the riaa sues david to keep him quiet and to require him to spend amounts of money extreme amounts of money to defend a lawsuit here you