Whether a state court's dismissal of an interlocutory appeal under an anti-SLAPP statute violates a pro se litigant's First Amendment right to appeal and access to judicial review

No question identified. : Freedom of Speech Protections by Extending Laws Against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) “Good cause” means a reason factually or legally sufficient to appropriately explain why the motion was not brought within the prescribed deadline.” 1. Receipt of mail — twenty (20) days from postmark My family and I moved to Texas from Maine. This was on July 1, 2025. A change of address request was submitted to USPS on June 10, 2025 ? with a start forwarding date of June 30, 2025. Order dismissing the appeal was issued on June 24, 2025. ° It was postmarked on June 27, 2025. * I received it through regular mail only on July 17, 2025. The Supreme Judicial Court is geographically located in Maine. 2. Pro se I am pro se. 3. On my behalf I am preparing a draft of a petition for a writ of certiorari on my behalf. 4, Presentation “Legal basis, factual background, reasoning, and the “nature, extent, duration [(e., nearly nine (9) years)], and depth of the misconduct [(eg., retaliation)]” are being presented to the Court for its review and consideration.” 5. Complexity Issues are complex. At least one (1) is novel. At least one (1) state law is repugnant to the United States constitution. At least one (1) state law “oversimplifi[es]” “graces” such as “devotion”. One (1) state law's “procedural features” “designed to prevent substantive consequences: the impairment of First Amendment rights [under the United States constitution] and the time and expense of defending against litigation that has no demonstrable merit|.|” are ignored. “Dangers of majority's readiness to process without argument and briefing are apparent in the cursory analysis.” At least one (1) state law has national significance as it affects rights guaranteed by the United States constitution. 6. A meaningful and effective explanation of “[t]he [voluminous, various, vicious, violent, and 10. 11. depraved] retaliation methods being deployed against me and my family members ... ” requires research. Record is large. “The [First Circuit] Court of appeals said "the party suing, not the party sued ... who .. . frame[s] the claims ... "” Generally, issues not raised in a previous level are waived where there is an appeal. “The Supreme Court said in 1941 that "[rJules of practice and procedure are devised to promote the ends of justice, not to defeat them.” It appears the Supreme Judicial Court has not received and reviewed a case as of the date of its order wherein the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act with an effective date of January 1, 2025 applies. Citations on the order predated the effective date of the broader UPEPA which repealed and replaced the narrower 14 M.LR.S. § 556. Wherefore, this is to respectfully request for a sixty (60) day extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. I am appreciative of the time of the Court. September 22, 2025. Respectfully Submitted, ea Tan R. Buenaventura List of Endnotes RYH Order Dismissing Appeal Change of address submission, confirmation, and validation from USPS Supra, Order Supra, Order Endnote 1 STATE OF MAINE , SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Sitting as the Law Court Docket No. And-25-246 Leslie G.C. Buot v. ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL Ian S.R. Buenaventura Ian Buenaventura has appealed from an order of a family law magistrate . referring to a District Court judge Buenaventura’s special motion under the anti-SLAPP statute to dismiss this divorce action. The Clerk of the Law Court has docketed the appeal under Law Court docket number And-25-246. The trial court has not yet entered any judgment against any party. Asa result, not all claims against all parties have been resolved, and Quinn’s appeal is interlocutory. See Sanborn v. Sanborn, 2005 ME 95, J 4, 877 A.2d 1075. Although the denial of a special motion to dismiss is immediately appealable, see Nader v. Me. Democratic Party, 2013 ME‘51, § 12, 66 A.3d 571, the order that Buenaventura appeals from does not deny the special motio