"In short, this action is a SLAPP suit," Brooks argued in his motion. "LFCU has admitted that it is suing Brooks to punish him for his alleged opposition to LFCU's planned conversion. Fortunately, the Anti-SLAPP Act forbids the abuse of Maryland's courts for this purpose."

Under Maryland's Anti-SLAPP Act, according to Brooks' argument, lawsuits cannot be brought in Maryland if they are "brought in bad faith" against a party who has communicated with the government or the public at large in the exercise of their rights of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; if it is "materially related" to the defendant's communications; and is intended to inhibit the exercise of rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Maryland's Declaration of Rights.

In his pleading, Brooks argued that the credit union's suit meets the standards for a SLAPP suit and was brought in bad faith because it seeks to punish Brooks' alleged action of exercising a right to oppose the conversion which Lafayette agrees he has.

"As explained previously, LFCU's stated purpose in this action is to punish Brooks for opposing the conversion…However, LFCU admits (as it must) that Brooks 'is entitled to state his opposition' to the conversion and that he has a right 'to express his views and opinion concerning the wisdom of the proposed conversion….' Thus, it becomes clear that, despite LFCU's perfunctory statements to the contrary, LFCU is suing Brooks precisely for exercising a right that LFCU knows he has."

In its complaint Lafayette charged that Brooks had defamed the credit union's leadership by publishing defamatory statements on a Web site he allegedly founded and helped run and made statements against the CU's leadership on his own.

But Brooks countered by arguing that the Federal Communications Decency Act precluded any prosecution for statements that are published on Web sites and that, in any case, the CU does not provide the actual statements and their context for the court to decide if they were defamatory or not. Further, since Lafayette's complaint alleged that Brooks made comments directly to the CU's lawyers, and since the CU cannot cite anyone else to whom the statements were made, the statements do not meet the state's standards for defamation, Brooks argued. In a related filing, Brooks asked the court to stay the extensive discovery process that Lafayette has initiated as part of the suit. Lafayette has sought documents from a wide variety of organizations that it deemed as having opposed the conversion. The court should stay this effort, Brooks argued, since the motives for the discovery are part of a case brought in bad faith. "As part of its apparent effort to quell public debate on the [sic] its conversion plan, LFCU has issued subpoenas to numerous third parties requiring them to produce massive numbers of documents with little or no relationship in this case," Brooks argued. "The subpoenas also required these parties to sit for onerous depositions on these unrelated matters. These subpoenas seem calculated not to win the case, but to use the action as a springboard to further Defendants and other opponents of the LFCU conversion plan and as an excuse for a fishing expedition for grounds for additional litigation."

While in still another filing, Brooks' son, William Brooks Jr., has filed a motion arguing that the credit union should be required to spell out how Brooks allegedly defamed the credit union's leadership.

"In the complaint, LFCU limits its charges against Brooks Jr. to two tangential allegations within its defamation count…" Brooks Jr. argued in his brief. "The complaint does not include material from the web sites or otherwise describe the comments at issue. This complaint does not specify or detail in any fashion the exact statements that are the focal point of the action or even when the alleged comments were made. Nor does the complaint explain how the alleged comments defamed or injured LFCU. These broad allegations regarding the web sites' publishing provides an insufficient basis upon which to answer."

In its response to Brooks Junior's motion, the credit union argued, essentially, the Brooks' should know what he said or published which brought the complaint, but Brooks Junior, in another filing, argued that this is not what Maryland law requires.

"This is not the law. As the initial brief established, the law does not require Brooks Jr. to speculate as to what defamatory statements he may or may not have made. To the contrary, the complaint must contain 'such statements of fact as may be necessary to show the pleader's entitlement to relief' including 'a clear statement of the facts necessary to constitute a cause of action…'"

Currently the court has the first set of briefs and is waiting for Lafayette's response to Brooks' motion to have the case dismissed. –[email protected]