you are so beautiful

to me...

there was a letter to the editor in the News-Press...the News-Press doesn't print letters that allege illegal wrongdoing but it will report stories that allege illegal wrondoing..the NP sets lower standards for the reporters than the letter writers!

what is the meaning of this???

anyway, the lady who wrote the letter is a Lompoc ultra-conservative old bag named Ann Ruhge and she wrote in to thank News-Press Operations Manager Don Katich for speaking at the Republicans Woman's Club up there in good ol' Lompoc...

Don spoke to the tea ladies about freedom of the press and the First Amendment ...they all slurped up the talk and said Don was professional and well-prepared...haha...the old bitty thanked Wendy McCuckoo for all her efforts to counter-attack those who would try to squelch free speech rights...and hooray for all the lawsuits Wendy P filed to defend her paper, the News-Press...

these old teabagger ladies, I'm tellin' ya...these ladies...there's nothing they can do to make themselves look attractive!!! they are just soooo creepy!!  if you're a Jung girl, please do all you can not to end up like them..please!!! whatever it takes..do more exercise or give more blowjobs...

ok.."You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time." said Abe Lincoln...

and Wendy, you don't fool me...THE NEWS-PRESS IS NOT ABOUT FREE SPEECH AT ALL!!

"Just like any other institution, the media need to be open to scrutiny," Tobin said. "The court agreed with us that it's a real 'shame on you' moment when a publisher tries to chill expression of opinion about how it's doing its job."

so I'm perusing the court calendars and the county keeps messing with the website making it hard to see who's doing what to whom...but I did spot a civil case involving Wendy's publishing company Ampersand and a guy named Michael Todd...

I know that a big free speech case Wendy lost involved Susan Paterno, a reporter for American Journalism Review...Wendy sued her for defamation but really it was an atttempt to muffle Susan's free speech..this was around 2008...

Paterno wrote an article, "Santa Barbara Smackdown," for the magazine’s December 2006 issue. The article offered a "behind-the-scenes look" at the "turmoil" engulfing the News-Press, including the dismissal or resignation of more than half of its 50-member newsroom, leaving others to work in a "climate of fear and paranoia ripped from the pages of Kafka’s ‘The Trial,’…." The article described McCaw’s efforts to "silence" criticism by filing or threatening to file libel lawsuits.
Though McCaw’s company, Ampersand Publishing, sued Paterno on multiple claims, it was mainly for allegedly libelous statements in the article. But thanks to California’s law against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or anti-SLAPP law, Paterno was able to obtain a prompt dismissal of the lawsuit last summer. Anti-SLAPP statutes are meant to protect people from lawsuits of questionable merit that are often filed to intimidate speakers into refraining from criticizing a person, company, or project. Fighting these suits can be a time-consuming and expensive enterprise. Paterno thinks the anti-SLAPP statute saved her from mortgaging her house to pay legal bills, because it allowed her to recoup most of her attorney fees after the suit’s dismissal. "The law allowed me to avoid what could have been millions of dollars in legal fees," Paterno said. "I was blessed that AJR was amazing and they picked up every penny of this horrible, frivolous, revenge-driven lawsuit when it was going through the courts." - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/anti-slapp-laws-0#sthash.NC1NVkth.dpuf


http://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/caselaw/california-courts-of-appeal-cases/paterno-v-superior-court/



Bitch Slapped
An "anti-SLAPP" law is meant to provide a remedy from SLAPP suits. Under most such statutes, the person sued makes a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then has the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail in the suit -- meaning they must make more than allegations of harm and actually show that they have evidence that can result in a verdict in their favor. If the defendant prevails on the motion, many of the statutes allow them to collect reasonable attorney's fees from the plaintiff. When a plaintiff brings a SLAPP lawsuit against someone attempting to exercise their right of free speech, it is usually under the guise of a defamation claim. However, as SLAPP defense attorneys and anti-SLAPP law advocates Peter Kurdock and Mark Goldowitz point out in their September article "The Need for Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation" posted on www.sitejabber.com, it could just as easily come as an accusation of conspiracy or trademark infringement. The goal of plaintiffs in these cases is not necessarily to actually win the lawsuit, but to drag their critics to court and bury them under a pile of attorney’s fees and embarrassment until they cry "uncle!" and agree to be quiet, anti-SLAPP law advocates said. "SLAPPs aren’t just random meritless lawsuits," Kurdock and Goldowitz wrote. "They are lawsuits that directly attack First Amendment rights." - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/anti-slapp-laws-0#sthash.NC1NVkth.dpuf

It is ironic that Ampersand, itself a newspaper publisher, seeks to weaken legal protections that are intended to secure the role of the press in a free society. Newspapers and publishers, who regularly face libel litigation, were intended to be one of the "‘prime beneficiaries’" of the anti-SLAPP legislation. (Lafayette Morehouse, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 863.)
　

now as far as Todd goes, this is all I found: At the hearing on the motions, the trial court concluded Ampersand had not met its burden to show a probability of success on 29 of the 32 libelous statements because "[m]ost appear as a matter of law to be opinion, or [Ampersand] fails to establish prima facie falsity." The trial court, however, found that Ampersand met its burden of proof on 3 of the 32 statements, and subsequently issued a formal order granting Ampersand leave to conduct discovery on whether Paterno made the following three statements with actual malice:

(1) that orders from "on high" forced former News-Press editor Jerry Roberts to "kill" a story about a drunk driving sentence imposed on the editorial page editor, Travis Armstrong;

(2) that the News-Press pursued a workplace restraining order against former employee Michael Todd, costing him approximately $7,000 in attorney’s fees, before dropping the case in October 2006;

so maybe he's asking the court for Wendy to cough up the $7000...the hearing is 3/10/15 at 9:30 am SB3....is this stuff still lingering from 2008???

Ampersand Publishing vs Michael Todd Thomas P Anderle SB3 1) Eligibility Hearing; re: Fee Waiver

Anderle is the "Beam Me Up Scotty" judge...

maybe he can beam Wendy up!!