The primary significance is that, in contrast to some others (in particular, Texas anti-SLAPP, and the law that Minnesota previously had, but found unconstitutional), Colorado's anti-SLAPP doesn't impose a higher (and vague) evidentiary burden on the plaintiff, or require the court to act as a finder of fact by weighing conflicting evidence (for which you have the right to a jury). It's basically just a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim - "even if all of the facts he alleges are true, he still doesn't have a case" - but unlike a regular motion to dismiss (which, even if you win, it's pretty rare for a court to order the losing party to pay you reasonable legal fees and costs), the anti-SLAPP motion guarantees fee shifting if the defendant successfully gets the case dismissed.
No. You are wrong. Rekieta's argument boils down to the fact that he is that he is a complete and utter fool who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.
In responding to Kurt just recently, Nick justified his position by saying that he has criticized anti-SLAPP laws that he hasn't like. Crucially, he specifies not just Texas' laws throughout the video, but also California
's. Link because Kurt disables embedding for some reason.
Nick mentions his distaste of California and Texas' laws at other points in the video. One reason he doesn't like anti-SLAPP because the plaintiff has to defend the merits of their case without the benefit of evidence from discovery: "to have to get that, before going to discovery, can be a problem".
Nick says that Colorado doesn't have that!
Timestamped link.
But, later, Nick says that California does...
Timestamped link
There's a wrinkle here. Nick's argument is that Colorado's anti-SLAPP isn't as terrible as the California anti-SLAPP. But the CO law was explicitly modeled on the CA law, to the point where Colorado's appellate courts have looked to California case law for guidance. When I say explicitly modeled, let's look at the statutes. The left screenshot is the relevant text from California law (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)), The right screenshot is the relevant text from Colorado law (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-1101(3)).
Notice any similarities?
Nick did mention the issue of discovery being paused as a reason why he hated anti-SLAPP in California. Is that handled similarly in California and Colorado?
Oh.
@AnOminous is right. There's nothing hypocritical about playing the game according to its rules even if you disagree with them. There's nothing noble in fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Nick could be honest about that.
But instead Nick prefers to beclown himself further every single day and continue to make himself look like a fool.
It's really a shame that Steve Quest doesn't have a competent lawyer to advise him on how to do stuff like issue a legitimate request for retraction. But I guess it would probably cost a lot more more than a dollar to get an actual competent lawyer to explain shit like that to him.
What does "legitimate request for retraction" even mean? There's no magic incantation required to make a request for a retraction "legitimate" or not. Were Monty's requests muddled and vague? Sure. But Rekieta cut through the ambiguity by stating "there are no slanderous videos, Monty. Not any of them."
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no legal requirement that Monte sends a cease and desist before filing suit. Now, most people do that, because it's significantly cheaper than a lawsuit, and a c&d often works.
It's totally irrelevant. But in this case we have seen the video where Nick mocks Monty asking for an apology, so I don't know why he's whining about not being asked for a retraction.
Retaining an attorney to send a more formal request for retraction might make sense in some situations, but in this circumstance? If I'm understanding Nick's position correctly, he would rather let his legal bills go well into six figures and endure a time-consuming and invasive discovery and trial process before even contacting the other side to ask what they would want to see in a settlement. I doubt he would have responded positively to Schneider sending him any kind of correspondence before filing the lawsuit.
