[00:00:00] Speaker 00: Case 14-70070, Vincent Forrest et al. [00:00:05] Speaker 00: Appellants v. Imam Faisal Rauf et al. [00:00:08] Speaker 00: Mr. Klayman for the appellants. [00:00:10] Speaker 00: Mr. Ho for the appellees. [00:00:17] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:17] Speaker 02: May it please the Court. [00:00:20] Speaker 02: This case was brought on behalf of the valiant first responder who has been awarded a medal. [00:00:26] Speaker 02: by former President George W. Bush. [00:00:28] Speaker 02: He was trapped under the World Trade Tower for hours. [00:00:31] Speaker 02: He takes 23 medications. [00:00:33] Speaker 02: He's dying. [00:00:34] Speaker 02: He's an American hero, and myself. [00:00:38] Speaker 02: The issues in front of this court deal with the dismissal of the lower court case on the basis of the anti-SLAP. [00:00:45] Speaker 02: That's the sole basis upon which the lower court judge, Judge Rothstein, dismissed the case. [00:00:51] Speaker 02: She stated in her order. [00:00:52] Speaker 03: Didn't you have an alternative ground that it was time barred? [00:00:56] Speaker 02: Not the way she wrote the order, Your Honor. [00:00:58] Speaker 02: It does not, in fact, say she's dismissing it under the statute of limitations, although she does discuss that. [00:01:04] Speaker 02: She says at the end of her order, accordingly, defendant's special motion to dismiss pursuant to the Anti-SLAP Act is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. [00:01:14] Speaker 02: So she was dismissing it based on this high standard of a likelihood of success on the merits, which this court has already ruled does not apply to this court in diversity cases. [00:01:25] Speaker 02: That was the embossed case, which I'm sure you're familiar with, because Rule 56 and Rule 12 has a simple pleading standard which would allow a plaintiff to go to trial. [00:01:35] Speaker 04: We have to deal with some jurisdictional questions first? [00:01:38] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor, we did. [00:01:39] Speaker 04: Let's start with diversity. [00:01:40] Speaker 04: We've gotten a flurry of papers late last night and this morning on that. [00:01:45] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:01:46] Speaker 02: Your Honor asked that question, so I filed a motion to amend the record. [00:01:51] Speaker 02: I thought I might speed things along this morning. [00:01:53] Speaker 02: I could have answered it too. [00:01:54] Speaker 00: You might have speeded things along better if you'd done it at the district court where the issue was originally raised. [00:01:59] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, we didn't feel we had to do that because the complaint does show diversity here. [00:02:04] Speaker 02: The caption of the complaint shows that Mr. Forrest has a Connecticut address. [00:02:08] Speaker 04: An address is not the state of citizenship. [00:02:12] Speaker 04: It's not the same as citizenship. [00:02:13] Speaker 02: You're absolutely right, Your Honor. [00:02:14] Speaker 02: I'm not disputing that. [00:02:15] Speaker 02: So we did clear it up. [00:02:16] Speaker 04: You asked the question. [00:02:19] Speaker 04: You said at all relevant times, but you didn't define all relevant times. [00:02:24] Speaker 04: Can you tell us what your citizenship and Mr. Forrest's citizenship were at the time the complaint was filed? [00:02:33] Speaker 02: I've been a citizen of Florida. [00:02:35] Speaker 02: Since early in the 1990s, I ran for the US Senate there as a Republican candidate. [00:02:40] Speaker 04: OK, so you're a citizen of Florida? [00:02:42] Speaker 02: I'm a citizen, Anadonna Silyard. [00:02:44] Speaker 04: At the time the complaint was filed? [00:02:45] Speaker 04: Correct. [00:02:46] Speaker 04: OK. [00:02:46] Speaker 04: And Mr. Forrest, at the time the complaint was filed, was a citizen of which state? [00:02:50] Speaker 02: Connecticut. [00:02:51] Speaker 04: And how is that to be reconciled with what you filed in your opposition to the motion to dismiss in district court, where you said the Supreme Court in New York found that Forrest does not have a bona fide residence, and he was located in New York as well as Connecticut at the time of the complaint? [00:03:06] Speaker 02: Because he spent time, what we're trying to say is he spent time in that area in the zone of 9-11. [00:03:11] Speaker 02: He had an office there, and he would sleep there, and he would stay there. [00:03:16] Speaker 02: So we're not saying that he's a citizen of New York, but we're saying he did spend time in that area. [00:03:20] Speaker 02: And of course, we didn't sue on the basis of attacking Islam. [00:03:24] Speaker 02: That's how this case arose. [00:03:26] Speaker 04: Again, I want to keep focused here on his citizenship, because you seem to be using residents [00:03:35] Speaker 04: as if you just said that your complaint was using residents as a substitute for citizenship, because that's all you listed in the caption. [00:03:44] Speaker 02: No, what we're saying here is, Your Honor, is that we did show that there was diversity. [00:03:49] Speaker 02: We did plead diversity under Section 1331. [00:03:51] Speaker 03: You did not plead diversity. [00:03:53] Speaker 03: You've just said you were at all relevant times a domiciliary of Florida, and that does not appear in the complaint anywhere. [00:04:02] Speaker 02: Well, we did plead, what I'm saying is we plead the statute 1331. [00:04:06] Speaker 03: You didn't, oh you mentioned the statute. [00:04:09] Speaker 02: Yes, we mentioned the statute. [00:04:10] Speaker 03: But you mentioned foreign. [00:04:11] Speaker 02: And the caption on the, let me explain something here if I may. [00:04:13] Speaker 04: You mentioned foreign diversity at that point. [00:04:15] Speaker 02: We are sensitive about the addresses because of the fact that we were threatened [00:04:19] Speaker 02: by the defendants in this case to say that, in effect, you're an enemy of Islam, I can read you what they said. [00:04:26] Speaker 02: And it wasn't just published in New York Post. [00:04:27] Speaker 02: This was, as alleged, published to the radical Muslim world. [00:04:31] Speaker 04: I don't think we need a reading of that. [00:04:32] Speaker 04: I think we know people in all kinds of cases. [00:04:34] Speaker 04: It's a question of security. [00:04:35] Speaker 04: All kinds of cases. [00:04:36] Speaker 04: Well, there's ways to deal with that in district court, which you didn't do. [00:04:40] Speaker 04: Right? [00:04:41] Speaker 04: If you've got a security issue, ask to file it under shield. [00:04:45] Speaker 02: Your Honor, I'm sorry that this issue arose in terms of the security, but it is an issue in terms of this case. [00:04:51] Speaker 02: And consequently, I used what was my office address here. [00:04:54] Speaker 02: I knew that we had diversity. [00:04:55] Speaker 02: I was not a citizen of New York, nor was Mr. Forrest. [00:05:00] Speaker 02: We were citizens of different states. [00:05:01] Speaker 02: And we did plead that here by claiming 1331 as diversity of citizenship. [00:05:06] Speaker 02: We could have used greater specificity. [00:05:08] Speaker 02: I agree. [00:05:09] Speaker 02: I'm not arguing with you. [00:05:10] Speaker 02: But we've now cleared that up. [00:05:11] Speaker 02: You asked the questions, and there is precedent. [00:05:14] Speaker 02: before this court, that on appeal, because the questions were asked, that we can amend the record. [00:05:20] Speaker 02: If we have to go back to lower court to do that, if you order us to do that, we will. [00:05:24] Speaker 02: But we did not try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. [00:05:27] Speaker 02: There is diversity. [00:05:28] Speaker 04: Can you also address personal jurisdiction? [00:05:31] Speaker 02: Personal jurisdiction is not something that the court ruled on. [00:05:34] Speaker 02: Clearly, it didn't rule in personal jurisdiction. [00:05:36] Speaker 02: It's not in front of this court. [00:05:37] Speaker 02: But I will address it. [00:05:38] Speaker 04: It is in jurisdiction. [00:05:39] Speaker 04: Jurisdiction is always in front of this court. [00:05:41] Speaker 02: I will address it. [00:05:43] Speaker 02: I am a lawyer who's fairly well known in this city. [00:05:46] Speaker 02: I have supported the state of Israel for a very long time. [00:05:51] Speaker 02: I am known as a Zionist, for lack of a better word. [00:05:54] Speaker 02: I bring cases against terrorists. [00:05:55] Speaker 02: I brought cases even against Osama bin Laden. [00:05:58] Speaker 02: And consequently, to issue that kind of statement, which is intended to hurt me and my community, that is projecting yourself. [00:06:08] Speaker 04: You just said your community is Florida. [00:06:10] Speaker 02: I have several communities. [00:06:13] Speaker 02: I'm a lawyer before the District of Columbia Bar, and I'm a lawyer in front of the Florida Bar. [00:06:17] Speaker 02: That's undisputed. [00:06:18] Speaker 04: I've been a lawyer... So the due process clause requires that Mr. Bailey have contacts with D.C.? [00:06:23] Speaker 02: Well, he did. [00:06:24] Speaker 04: Not that you. [00:06:24] Speaker 04: And what were his contacts? [00:06:25] Speaker 02: Because he projected those statements into D.C., knowing that this was where I practiced law, and it was to hurt me. [00:06:32] Speaker 02: And, Your Honor, there is. [00:06:33] Speaker 02: And, you know, we're not anti... How did he project them? [00:06:35] Speaker 04: How does your complaint allege that he projected them? [00:06:38] Speaker 04: Since he was simply the source, he wasn't the author of the article. [00:06:43] Speaker 02: It says specifically in paragraphs 1 through 9 that it was projected into the District of Columbia. [00:06:51] Speaker 02: It says that, Your Honor. [00:06:53] Speaker 04: I know it says that. [00:06:54] Speaker 02: I can read it. [00:06:54] Speaker 04: I'm trying to get a plausible, factual allegation as to how a source [00:06:58] Speaker 04: has control over where something is published, whether or where something is published. [00:07:02] Speaker 02: Mr. Bailey is a highly intelligent man. [00:07:04] Speaker 02: We never got a chance to go to discovery owner. [00:07:06] Speaker 02: We should have had discovery here. [00:07:08] Speaker 02: It was cut short. [00:07:09] Speaker 04: Only for personal jurisdiction. [00:07:10] Speaker 02: Let me be clear here, OK? [00:07:11] Speaker 02: Let me be clear here. [00:07:13] Speaker 02: This case was dismissed on the grounds of the anti-STAP statute, excuse me, the tongue twister. [00:07:20] Speaker 02: No other grounds. [00:07:22] Speaker 02: Discovery is automatically saved once a motion is filed. [00:07:25] Speaker 02: We never had an opportunity to take discovery into his motivation and what he was trying to do, although it's clear on his face. [00:07:32] Speaker 02: And we did need it in the complaint. [00:07:34] Speaker 02: And Your Honor, if you would like, I can go back and read it on rebuttal. [00:07:37] Speaker 02: I'll find a specific provision for you. [00:07:39] Speaker 04: But how do you, I don't need that. [00:07:41] Speaker 04: How do you distinguish our McFarland decision, McFarland versus Esquire magazine, for purposes of personal jurisdiction? [00:07:47] Speaker 04: Because I think that's your biggest hurdle. [00:07:49] Speaker 04: I know what your papers say. [00:07:51] Speaker 02: I distinguish it on the facts of this case, which we weren't allowed to develop because this case was cut short under the anti-Slavic statute, is that Mr. Bailey knows full well that this is my community and so does the imam. [00:08:04] Speaker 02: The imam, by the way, who is a member of the Islamic Society of North America. [00:08:09] Speaker 04: The imam was never sure, so it wasn't before. [00:08:11] Speaker 02: An unindicted – well, whether or not – all kinds of issues, Your Honor, that you're raising were not in front of this judge. [00:08:18] Speaker 02: You know, if your honor is inclined to dismiss the case, you can find some reason to do it, but it's not in front of this court. [00:08:23] Speaker 02: And the reality here is that this case should have continued on. [00:08:27] Speaker 02: We should have been allowed to develop the facts here. [00:08:29] Speaker 02: It was cut short because it was dismissed on the grounds of only, only the anti-slab snitching. [00:08:35] Speaker 02: And that statute is a violation, this court has ruled, of rules 12 and 56 of the federal rules of civil procedure, because they allow cases to go to fact-finding and in front of a jury. [00:08:47] Speaker 02: And consequently, the issue of the statute of limitations did not arise. [00:08:50] Speaker 02: But if it did, [00:08:51] Speaker 02: We filed a lawsuit in federal court before the case at DC was dismissed voluntarily. [00:08:58] Speaker 02: There are no specific cases on point on this. [00:09:01] Speaker 04: What day did you file that lawsuit? [00:09:04] Speaker 04: October 12th, is that right? [00:09:06] Speaker 04: I had October 12th is the day you filed the lawsuit. [00:09:09] Speaker 02: Right, we got within the one year, which we didn't need to do. [00:09:12] Speaker 04: But the article was published October 11th. [00:09:14] Speaker 02: And we're not basing this [00:09:16] Speaker 02: No, we made it by day. [00:09:19] Speaker 02: Go back and look at the dates. [00:09:21] Speaker 02: We made it by day. [00:09:23] Speaker 02: But we didn't base this case solely on the publication. [00:09:27] Speaker 02: The complaint says clearly that they sent this, in effect, fatwa out into the Muslim world. [00:09:33] Speaker 02: You know, just today, turn on the news, the individual who killed Osama bin Laden, a Muslim woman, published on the internet his address. [00:09:43] Speaker 02: And the poor guy, I mean, is a Navy SEAL. [00:09:45] Speaker 02: He's scared to death, you can see. [00:09:47] Speaker 02: Because there is this real risk. [00:09:49] Speaker 02: And they knew what they were doing. [00:09:51] Speaker 02: And to say that we are Nazis, to say that we are bigots against Islam, that we brought this case just to harass Muslims, which is not true. [00:10:00] Speaker 02: I've defended Muslims in cases. [00:10:03] Speaker 02: That is a tantamount to telling the world, harm or kill Mr. Forrest and Mr. Klayman. [00:10:08] Speaker 02: That's the way the world works. [00:10:09] Speaker 02: That's a reality. [00:10:10] Speaker 02: That's not fiction. [00:10:12] Speaker 02: I sat in my office at Judicial Watch and watched the Pentagon go up in flames on 9-11. [00:10:17] Speaker 02: This imam told the world that the United States deserved what it got for 9-11. [00:10:22] Speaker 02: This is not some imam that's neutral. [00:10:24] Speaker 02: This is a guy who's a member of the Islamic Society of North America that was an indicted co-conspirator in a federal court in Texas. [00:10:32] Speaker 02: So this is very serious, Your Honor. [00:10:34] Speaker 02: It's not an insult like the lower court judge said. [00:10:36] Speaker 02: In fact, her saying that insulted me. [00:10:37] Speaker 04: All right, thank you. [00:10:38] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:10:39] Speaker 04: We'll hear from the other side. [00:10:40] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:10:49] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:10:49] Speaker 01: May it please the Court, Christopher Hoag on behalf of Mr. Bailey. [00:10:54] Speaker 01: There is no subject matter jurisdiction in this case. [00:10:58] Speaker 01: It's very clear, not only from the lack of specificity in the submission that was made last evening, but also in an admission that Mr. Klayman made at pages 11 to 12 of his motion to dismiss, I'm sorry, opposition to motion to dismiss, which we attached as exhibit one to the opposition to the motion to supplement. [00:11:21] Speaker 04: residency, which is not the same as either domicile or citizenship. [00:11:25] Speaker 01: Well, you know, he admits that there is a lack of diversity, is what he says. [00:11:36] Speaker 01: At the bottom of, I mean, sorry, the top of page 12, it says, moreover, on the second line of page 12 of exhibit one, moreover, while Forrest was located in New York as well as Connecticut at the time of the initial complaint, this is no longer true, and therefore diversity of jurisdiction is properly invoked. [00:11:55] Speaker 01: And the citation is to the Caterpillar versus Lewis. [00:11:58] Speaker 01: That appears to be the concession that there was not diversity of citizenship until sometime later after the complaint had been filed. [00:12:06] Speaker 01: However, Caterpillar does not give the relief that [00:12:11] Speaker 01: Mr. Klayman would like. [00:12:13] Speaker 01: Indeed, a caterpillar only applies where there is a diversity-destroying party who's dismissed out of the case. [00:12:21] Speaker 01: The correctly controlling case is a Supreme Court case called Grupo Dataflux, which I cited at page 3 of the opposition we filed last night. [00:12:29] Speaker 01: Once there is a failure to have diversity at the institution of the lawsuit, that is a failure that essentially continues and deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. [00:12:39] Speaker 01: Also, Judge Malan, you're absolutely correct, there is no in personam jurisdiction. [00:12:44] Speaker 01: The McFarland case is exactly on point, and there is no distinction that anybody has been able to draw to that. [00:12:53] Speaker 01: Mr. Bailey, this is the height of absurdity, very frankly. [00:12:59] Speaker 01: A lawyer makes a statement in litigation in New York. [00:13:03] Speaker 01: That statement is picked up by a national journal, a national newspaper. [00:13:09] Speaker 01: That paper happens to be published in New York, but sold in a number of jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia. [00:13:17] Speaker 01: Somehow that is sufficient under international shoe to give this court impersonal jurisdiction over Mr. Bailey. [00:13:25] Speaker 01: Granted, that was not something that the court below relied upon. [00:13:30] Speaker 01: The court below felt that both the anti-SLAPP provision as well as the statute of limitations issue allowed dismissal and never addressed the question of- [00:13:41] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, the statute of limitations, is my math right or wrong that the article was October 11, 2011 and the lawsuit was October 12, 2012? [00:13:52] Speaker 01: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:13:54] Speaker 01: We believe that the statement was made on October the 8th in court, and it was published in the Post on October 11th. [00:14:02] Speaker 01: Of course, Mr. Bailey had nothing to do with that. [00:14:04] Speaker 01: And the lawsuit in the D.C. [00:14:06] Speaker 01: Superior Court under a one-year statute of limitations was October the 12th. [00:14:10] Speaker 01: So it was either four days late or one day late, but either way, it was late. [00:14:14] Speaker 01: And then obviously, after it was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, by the way, after three failures to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss, or a motion for judgment of the pleadings, rather, in the Superior Court case, that case was dismissed without prejudice. [00:14:31] Speaker 01: And then we brought the exact same case here in this court. [00:14:36] Speaker 01: There's no relation back. [00:14:38] Speaker 01: And the case that was filed in this court did not happen until 2012. [00:14:43] Speaker 01: So he's out of court on statute of limitations as well. [00:14:48] Speaker 01: Also out of court on such fundamental principles as New York Times versus Sullivan litigation privilege, many, many different. [00:14:55] Speaker 04: I was curious, in a diversity suit in DC, [00:15:00] Speaker 04: And I take it, it looks like it may not be an issue. [00:15:04] Speaker 04: Judicial privilege may be about the same in the two jurisdictions, but does the judicial privilege, in a diversity case, does the judicial privilege that applied in the forum where the statement was made in court, i.e. [00:15:16] Speaker 04: New York, govern, or because you're litigating in D.C., is it the D.C. [00:15:20] Speaker 04: judicial privilege? [00:15:21] Speaker 01: Well, I think it's substantive law, so I think that the law of the place of the alleged tort is the law that would govern, is the way I would analyze it. [00:15:34] Speaker 04: And so DC law is what you say would govern. [00:15:37] Speaker 01: Yes, that's right. [00:15:39] Speaker 03: Mr. Hogue, what's your best authority? [00:15:41] Speaker 03: I see that in the relation back analysis, the district court cites district court cases. [00:15:45] Speaker 03: Do you have any stronger authority for the notion that assuming the DC case was timely filed, that subsequently filed same complaint in the federal court would not relate back? [00:15:59] Speaker 01: I don't believe there are any cases we've found that address that point specifically, and I don't think anything has been cited by either side on that. [00:16:06] Speaker 01: But I think it's a fundamental principle that when a case is dismissed without prejudice by the party who brought it, that there's nothing that would [00:16:17] Speaker 01: in some way, toll the operation of the statute until the later filing in the U.S. [00:16:25] Speaker 01: District Court. [00:16:25] Speaker 01: So I can't answer the court with any direct case law authority, but it seems to me almost intuitive, if not fundamental, that there would be no such relation back. [00:16:36] Speaker 03: Although, if a case is removed by a defendant from a state court or from the Superior Court to the Federal Court, then it would carry over. [00:16:44] Speaker 01: Well, I would agree with that, but this was certainly not a removal. [00:16:46] Speaker 01: This was a cynical, very frankly, the precipice that was filed of dismissal. [00:16:52] Speaker 01: First of all, it was done in violation of the Superior Court rules, because at that stage in the litigation, it needed to be done with the consent of both parties, and that didn't happen. [00:17:01] Speaker 01: But second of all, there was a statement, an overt statement by Mr. Klayman in the dismissal that the reason that he was dismissing it in the District of Columbia Superior Court in face of a pretty extensive motion for judgment on the pleadings, including anti-SLAPP statute relief, [00:17:18] Speaker 01: was that he wanted to take advantage of a trial court decision in the federal court case, the Bolter decision, which was subsequently upheld by Alves, essentially. [00:17:30] Speaker 01: And so I don't think it's analogous to a removal. [00:17:34] Speaker 01: I think it was a, you know, it was a multiple litigation, you know, cynical decision that this was a way to avoid the obvious trap that he was walking into with the anti-SLAPP Act in the District of Columbia. [00:17:47] Speaker 03: Well, I think without imputing or finding bad faith, we would have to come up with a rule how to treat that kind of situation, where essentially the same case, same parties, same allegations is moved based on a perception that there might be federal court jurisdiction, whether there's a relation back there. [00:18:05] Speaker 01: Well, what I would suggest is that it's a burden on the plaintiff to show that there is a relation back. [00:18:10] Speaker 01: And I don't see any demonstration or even contention by Mr. Claim that there is a relation back. [00:18:15] Speaker 04: Does it help to relate back if the first action would have been time barred anyhow? [00:18:19] Speaker 01: Well, that was the point we were just discussing. [00:18:22] Speaker 01: If it was too late in Superior Court, it doesn't matter if it relates back. [00:18:25] Speaker 01: And it was too late in Superior Court. [00:18:28] Speaker 01: I want to say just a word, if I might have a couple of minutes, to talk about attorney's fees. [00:18:34] Speaker 01: We understand the ABAS decision. [00:18:37] Speaker 01: We have issues with the ABAS decision. [00:18:39] Speaker 01: We think it conflicts with a number of other circuits. [00:18:41] Speaker 01: But we understand that we're bound by that law. [00:18:44] Speaker 01: What we're not bound, however, is by footnote six of the ABAS decision, which talks about the unavailability of attorney's fees in the event that you can't get anti-slap relief in the federal court because it's a diversity case. [00:18:59] Speaker 01: That footnote is dicta. [00:19:02] Speaker 01: I'm sorry, I misspoke. [00:19:03] Speaker 01: It's footnote five. [00:19:04] Speaker 01: There are two cases, Aliesha and Napera, cited at page 54 of our brief, which say that in this type of a situation, indeed, attorney's fees are available. [00:19:16] Speaker 01: And indeed, even if the court finds that it does not have a subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation, attorney's fees are allowed under [00:19:26] Speaker 01: those two cases, Aliesha and Napera. [00:19:30] Speaker 01: This is a case that cries out for an award of sanctions. [00:19:32] Speaker 01: Judge Rothstein certainly thought so. [00:19:35] Speaker 01: This is the definition of multiple and vexatious litigation. [00:19:39] Speaker 01: It just cries out for... None of that's before us. [00:19:44] Speaker 04: I mean, the District Court clearly reserved that issue. [00:19:47] Speaker 01: That's true. [00:19:48] Speaker 01: That's true. [00:19:48] Speaker 01: I'm simply saying that... Well, I think it is before you as to whether or not the court has the authority to award attorney's fees. [00:19:57] Speaker 04: Judge Roste... Mr. Court hasn't exercised any discretion yet, hasn't made any decision on that. [00:20:03] Speaker 04: I don't know how we have to have that right issue before us. [00:20:05] Speaker 01: Well, the judge did say that we were entitled to attorney's fees, just that there had to be a hearing in terms of the... In an opinion room. [00:20:12] Speaker 04: The world has changed a bit from when she wrote that opinion. [00:20:14] Speaker 01: Right. [00:20:15] Speaker 01: Well, I understand that. [00:20:16] Speaker 01: I understand that. [00:20:17] Speaker 01: And I have nothing further to say. [00:20:18] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:20:24] Speaker 04: Mr. Klingman, we'll give you just two minutes. [00:20:26] Speaker 02: You know, I appreciate it, Your Honor. [00:20:29] Speaker 02: The statements that were made by Mr. Hogue are not accurate. [00:20:31] Speaker 02: We alleged in the complaint that the matter was published in the New York Post on October 12, 2010. [00:20:38] Speaker 02: For purposes of a motion to dismiss, given there's no discovery, you have to accept what we said in the complaint is true. [00:20:45] Speaker 02: So that was a misrepresentation by Mr. Hogue, and I hope that it'll be corrected. [00:20:50] Speaker 02: Secondly, with regard to the [00:20:54] Speaker 02: issues of this case. [00:20:55] Speaker 02: I mean, you can talk about anything you want, but the reality is the judge dismissed solely on the basis of the anti-SLAPP statute. [00:21:01] Speaker 02: And we didn't hinge just our allegations on defamation or false light. [00:21:05] Speaker 02: We also said in the complaint at paragraph eight that these statements that I'm an enemy of Islam in effect because we hate Muslims and despise the religion and we're the equivalent of the Third Reich and Nazis, that [00:21:22] Speaker 02: created intentional infliction of emotional distress. [00:21:25] Speaker 02: That's the primary claim. [00:21:26] Speaker 02: And there's a three-year statute of limitations on that. [00:21:30] Speaker 02: And Your Honor can look at the case Saunders v. Mamadi, 580, 8 seconds, 660, D.C., 1990, which lays the case. [00:21:37] Speaker 02: Is that in your brief? [00:21:38] Speaker 02: I'm sorry. [00:21:38] Speaker 04: Is that case in your brief? [00:21:40] Speaker 02: No, that case is not in our brief. [00:21:41] Speaker 02: I found it yesterday in researching. [00:21:44] Speaker 04: Did you tell the other side that you were going to refer to this case as an oral argument? [00:21:47] Speaker 02: I found it late last night, Your Honor. [00:21:48] Speaker 04: Well, you did a lot of filings late last night, so you could have emailed them and let them know about the case. [00:21:52] Speaker 02: Well, my colleagues found it and sent it to me this morning. [00:21:55] Speaker 02: Saunders v. Nimadi, 580, 8 seconds, 660, D.C., 1990. [00:22:00] Speaker 02: Similar case cited where victims of Palestinian terrorists, in Israel by the way, brought a case in federal court here, and [00:22:10] Speaker 02: in DC Superior Court here, and they were threatened. [00:22:15] Speaker 02: I mean, the assault that applied and the intentional affliction of emotional distress were considered separate. [00:22:20] Speaker 02: So we deserve an opportunity to go back to lower court [00:22:24] Speaker 02: and make these arguments, because all the court considers, you talk about a melange of issues, but then she said, I'm only deciding the slap. [00:22:32] Speaker 02: And this court has decided the slap correctly. [00:22:34] Speaker 02: Thank God you have done that. [00:22:36] Speaker 02: I commend all of you for knocking out the slap statute, which is also unconstitutional. [00:22:41] Speaker 04: All right. [00:22:41] Speaker 04: Thank you, Mr. Clannam. [00:22:42] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:22:43] Speaker 04: The case is now submitted.