Matthew Strugar
@strugar.bsky.social
punk and law and metal and protest stuff i guess matthewstrugar.com to read about my law firm
You should request publication. This is an important decision.
November 20, 2024 at 7:21 PM
You should request publication. This is an important decision.
because talkin shit is good and cool
August 19, 2023 at 10:16 PM
because talkin shit is good and cool
(Assume no damages from A telling B and only B, apart from B’s republication to the world.) Is B a necessary party? Maybe the cleaner Q is whether the original speaker is liable for a republisher’s republication?
August 19, 2023 at 9:49 PM
(Assume no damages from A telling B and only B, apart from B’s republication to the world.) Is B a necessary party? Maybe the cleaner Q is whether the original speaker is liable for a republisher’s republication?
Anyway, victory is sweet. Victory against Paul Clement's firm is sweeter. And victory against an animal abuser is the sweetest.
June 27, 2023 at 11:28 PM
Anyway, victory is sweet. Victory against Paul Clement's firm is sweeter. And victory against an animal abuser is the sweetest.
Now Ziebold is on the hook not only for his own expensive lawyers' fees, but for ours, too. The protests are going to start up again right away. He's only bought himself more pain. And all he had to do to avoid all of this was not sell foie gras.
June 27, 2023 at 11:28 PM
Now Ziebold is on the hook not only for his own expensive lawyers' fees, but for ours, too. The protests are going to start up again right away. He's only bought himself more pain. And all he had to do to avoid all of this was not sell foie gras.
The Court largely stayed away from the First Amendment argument, buying our argument that protest activity directed at a business (even if the protesters name the owner) are not "stalking" of an individual. In other words, if anyone is a real party in interest, it's the business.
June 27, 2023 at 11:28 PM
The Court largely stayed away from the First Amendment argument, buying our argument that protest activity directed at a business (even if the protesters name the owner) are not "stalking" of an individual. In other words, if anyone is a real party in interest, it's the business.
Anyway, Clement's firm's brief wasn't that good. And today the court granted our anti-SLAPP motions, dissolved the temporary restraining orders, and dismissed Ziebold's claims with prejudice.
June 27, 2023 at 11:28 PM
Anyway, Clement's firm's brief wasn't that good. And today the court granted our anti-SLAPP motions, dissolved the temporary restraining orders, and dismissed Ziebold's claims with prejudice.
In response to the anti-SLAPP motions, Ziebold hired *Paul Clement’s* firm. On a damn anti-stalking petition! Maybe Ziebold is richer than I thought, maybe the right wingers love foie gras and hate animal rights activists more than I thought.
June 27, 2023 at 11:27 PM
In response to the anti-SLAPP motions, Ziebold hired *Paul Clement’s* firm. On a damn anti-stalking petition! Maybe Ziebold is richer than I thought, maybe the right wingers love foie gras and hate animal rights activists more than I thought.
We argued not only that the protest activity was protected by the First Amendment, but that this activity was directed at the *business*, not at Ziebold personally. Businesses can't get anti-stalking order; only people can. This was an attempt to get around that limitation.
June 27, 2023 at 11:27 PM
We argued not only that the protest activity was protected by the First Amendment, but that this activity was directed at the *business*, not at Ziebold personally. Businesses can't get anti-stalking order; only people can. This was an attempt to get around that limitation.
Together with my co-counsel (not on here), we filed anti-SLAPP motions to Ziebold's petitions. D.C.'s anti-SLAPP law is still pretty new and we're pretty sure no one had tried to apply it to civil harassment or anti-stalking order petitions yet.
June 27, 2023 at 11:27 PM
Together with my co-counsel (not on here), we filed anti-SLAPP motions to Ziebold's petitions. D.C.'s anti-SLAPP law is still pretty new and we're pretty sure no one had tried to apply it to civil harassment or anti-stalking order petitions yet.
And the judge issued a temporary restraining order saying the activists couldn’t go near the restaurants or say anything “false” about the restaurants on the internet.
June 27, 2023 at 11:27 PM
And the judge issued a temporary restraining order saying the activists couldn’t go near the restaurants or say anything “false” about the restaurants on the internet.