Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
20120915_Vargas Fee SCOTUS Reply

20120915_Vargas Fee SCOTUS Reply

Ratings: (0)|Views: 23 |Likes:
Published by Mark Dierolf
Reply to Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Filed Sept. 15, 2012. Docket info: http://bit.ly/M9IEdD

Attorney for Petitioners: Steven J. André, 26080 Carmel Rancho Blvd.Carmel, CA 93923. (831) 624-5786
Reply to Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Filed Sept. 15, 2012. Docket info: http://bit.ly/M9IEdD

Attorney for Petitioners: Steven J. André, 26080 Carmel Rancho Blvd.Carmel, CA 93923. (831) 624-5786

More info:

Published by: Mark Dierolf on Sep 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial No-derivs

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 11-1459
 
======================
In the 
Supreme Court of the United States
======================
 Angelina Morfin Vargas and Mark Dierolf 
Petitioners 
v.The City of Salinas, David Mora
Respondents.
=======================
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To The Sixth District Court of Appeal of the State of California
 
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO WRIT OFCERTIORARI
Steven J. André Attorney at Law26080 Carmel Rancho Blvd.Carmel, CA 93923(831)624-5786
 Attorney for Petitioners, Angelina Morfin Vargas,Mark Dierolf 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageTable of Authorities ……………………… iiI. THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF HOWGOVERNMENT SPEECH FITS INTO ANTI-SLAPP BALANCING OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. . . 1II. THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND RIPEFOR REVIEW ………………..5 A. THE BURDEN ON PETITIONING IS REAL ..….6B. NEW CASES REVEALING DIVISION …….12CONCLUSION …………………………..13
 
 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases:
Page
 
BE&K Construction v. NLRB 
,
536 U.S. 516 (2002) 7
 Burrough of Duryea v. Guarnieri 
, 564U.S. ___, (2011) 11
 Brandenburg v. Ohio 
,395 U.S. 444 (1969) 2
 
Califano v. Jobst,
434 U.S. 47 (1977) 12
Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.
,52 P.3d 685 (Cal.2002) 9,10
Frisby v. Schultz 
, 487 U.S. 474,484-486 (1988) 3
Garrison
v.
Louisiana
, 379 U. S. 64 (1964) 3
Gonzales v. Carhart 
, 550 U.S. 124, 157-158 (2007) 10
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v.Columbia Pictures 
, 508 U.S. 49 (1993) 9
 Rowan v. Post Office Dept.,
397 U. S. 728 (1970) 3
Stanson v. Mott 
, 551 P.2d 1 (Cal.1976) 6,8
Snyder v. Phelps 
, 562 U.S. ____ (2011) 3-4
Vargas v. City of Salinas 
, 205 P.3d 207(Cal.2009)(
Vargas I 
) 6,8
Zablocki v. Redhail 
, 434 U.S. 374, (1978) 11-12

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->