Whether California's SLAPP law is unconstitutional for protecting unlawful petitioning activities, denying due process and the right to a fair trial, and resulting in unequal protection between states

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | oo . 1) California’s SLAPP Law, was written to protect LAWFUL petitioning © , activities. However, it is now protecting UNLAWFUL petitioning activities. In this case, an attorney filed a lawsuit without the consent of the client, used ; . known associates of organized crime to threaten and extort the celebrity owners | and celebrity control group during their TV Show. Attorney then sued the control : group of the alleged client by using the abusive discovery obtained, falsely claiming to represent their company. Attorney then filed a false oath stating his : petition was true and correct, even though he was forced to withdraw as counsel. ; The California Appeals Court has stated this is now lawful, in both MacDonald v. . Singer (unpublished) and the related Malin v. Singer, (published). The SLAPP ' law was used to deny Plaintiff discovery rights to attack the fraud. The U.S. . : Supreme Court is asked to declare this action unconstitutional since it has major ; ramifications for Attorney-Client Rules of Professional Conduct, denies due process under the law, denies Plaintiff the right to petition the government unabridged, and denies his right to fair trial by jury. . 2) SLAPP law was declared unconstitutional in the States of Washington . Minnesota, as a violation of due process resulting from substantial abuses of the , ; law. This has resulted in unequal protection of due process between the States. i” The U.S. Supreme Court is asked to intervene and remedy this unequal . treatment in California and between the states. : ; 2 3) MacDonald was denied due process and a fair trial. His motion for limited discovery to determine the truthfulness of Defendants’ Declarations was denied. . MacDonald then obtain supporting declarations from his expert witness, a | : former California Supreme Court Justice, who opinioned that Attorney’s action . was a crime and unconstitutional, as well as supporting declaration from the : . . control group, stating that Attorney was never authorized to represent the ; company nor to file the lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court is asked to review this case as a complete abuse of the SLAPP law, a violation of due process, and declare the California SLAPP law as unconstitutional. ; ' 4) Martin Singer, Esq. has along and public history of threatening his . : opponents of his Hollywood clients with organized crime tactics and unethical legal practices. In the related Malin v. Singer case, the Trial Court ruled that / “the activities that gave rise to the complaint were extortion asa matter of law.” . . Singer and Defendants filed false declarations and used them in the California Appeals Court to overturned the trial court. MacDonald uncovered the fraud in ; his case, resulting in Singer withdrawing as counsel. However, the Court cited _ ) Malin, a published opinion, to grant Defendants’ SLAPP motions. The U.S. Supreme Court has an interest in overseeing the processes of inferior courts to ensure they are administered fairly and equitably and to prevent fraud-on-the: court by attorneys and to promote Rules of Professional Conduct and is asked to review this case. . , . ,