GMSR (Law firm for Los Angeles Times)
Grienes, Martin, Stein & Richland, LLP
9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 544
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-5207
310-859-7811
fax: 310-276-5261
e-mail: postmaster@gmsr.com

June 15, 2001
Brian Buckley, Esq (American Patrol lawyer)

Re: American Patrol v. Los Angeles Times

Dear Brian:

In the above referenced case, your client claims that it was injured by the Daily News' refusal to publish its ad opposing the election of Antonio Villaraigosa as Mayor of Los Angeles. As you know, Mr. Villaraigosa lost the election. Therefore, the result your client sought by its ad was achieved. Accordingly, your client suffered no injury when the Daily News refused to publish its ad.

In fact, your client received a benefit, because it did not have to pay the cost of the ad. Therefore, we do not understand what your client can achieve if it continues to pursue this case against the Los Angeles Times.

Finally, if your client pursues this matter, we will file a motion under California Code of Civil Procedures ¶ 425.16, the anti-Slapp statute. If that motion succeeds, your client must pay our attorney's fees and costs.

I urge your client to consider dismissing your case against the Los Angeles Times, because litigation at this point cannot lead to any recovery or relief for your client, because it did not suffer and injury, and because your client will have to pay our attorney's fees if our anti-Slap[p] motion is successful.

Please let me hear from you on or before Monday, June 25, as to whether your client will dismiss its claim against the Los Angeles Times. If I do not hear from you, I will assume your client refuses to do so and we will proceed with our anti-Slapp motion.

Signed.

Rex S. Heinke

California Code of Civil Procedures

425.16. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.
(b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.
(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.
(3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination.
(c) In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a
special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to
Section 128.5.
(d) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor.
(e) As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes:
See California Code of Civil Proceedings.