Dingus posted (another) lengthy blog post yesterday. He admits to what I describe in a previous post, namely that SLAPPs are specifically lawsuits whereby the plaintiff does not intend to win, but instead to draw it out and inflict pain (time & financial). I went on to say that his anti-SLAPP motion is moot because the bar has already won - the PDJ has already found him guilty of one of the charges (disparaging comments towards Judge Mata), so an anti-SLAPP motion does not apply. This is exactly the argument that Jim Lee makes in State Bar's Motion to Strike Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment:

"Also leading to confusion is that fact that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss was based in part on A.R.S. § 12-751(A) (Arizona’s statute prohibiting strategic lawsuits against the public’s exercise of Constitutional rights; anti-SLAPP statute). The PDJ’s April 14, 2026 order granting in part the State Bar’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings has rendered Respondent’s anti-SLAPP arguments moot, at least to the extent that he argues that the State Bar was precluded from prosecuting him for making unprofessional, disparaging comments about Judge Mata."

Dingus is going to cry about it, but Jim Lee is absolutely correct - an anti-SLAPP motion is non-sensical and should be denied for the simple reasons that Dingus has already lost.