Slander plaintiff replies to Bianco’s dismissal motion

Vem Miller, called a “would-be Trump assassin” by Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, responded on July 2 to Bianco’s motion to dismiss Miller’s slander case. Miller filed a defamation case on March 10, claiming Bianco’s repeated statements to the media have resulted in lost job opportunities and the destruction of his professional career.

“(Bianco and Riverside County) now seek to short-circuit accountability through procedural gamesmanship. They invoke the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute designed to protect speakers against government censorship, perversely wielding it to shield government censorship and retaliation. They claim official duty privilege for conduct that no legitimate official duty could encompass. They assert opinion protection for specific factual lies,” Miller’s reply to Bianco’s motion says.

Bianco asked California Central District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato to throw out Miller’s slander case under California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) law on June 11. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for July 31. 

Bianco’s motion argues that his statements were made in connection with an issue of public interest: the safety of Donald Trump following two failed assassination attempts. Statements made on an issue of public interest are protected under California’s anti-SLAPP law. He argued that his statements are protected, since he made them in his official capacity as sheriff. Finally, he said that he was offering his opinion. Read more about his motion here.

Miller, a Nevada resident, had attempted to attend Donald Trump’s Oct. 12 rally in Coachella. He disclosed to sheriff’s deputies that he had guns in his car, and that he intended to leave them there during the rally. He claimed to regularly make that disclosure to law enforcement in Nevada.

Sheriff’s deputies arrested Miller on gun charges, and was cited and released without posting bail. The FBI and the Secret Service both declined to interview Miller, and found that Miller posed no threat to Trump, according to Miller’s reply. 

Bianco gave multiple statements to the press claiming the Riverside Sheriff’s Department might have stopped a third Trump assassination attempt.

On Oct. 13, Bianco texted The Epoch Times, “We arrested a man trying to get in the perimeter with two firearms who ended up saying he was going to kill the president.” 

Miller did not say he was going to kill Trump, and Bianco later said that false claim was based on bad evidence. Bianco then told the Southern California News Group that his team “stopped another assassination attempt,” then gave a press conference.

 “No matter what, it’s all going to be speculation about what his intentions were getting there. If you’re asking me right now—I probably did have deputies that prevented the assassination attempt,” Bianco said.

Miller’s reply accuses Bianco of repeating defamatory statements about Miller on March 16, April 11 and April 12, and of using the arrest to jumpstart his gubernatorial campaign.

“A single press conference explaining an arrest might arguably fall within official duties. An eight-month campaign of evolving false narratives, continuing long after Bianco knew the truth, serves no legitimate governmental purpose and constitutes purely personal, political conduct designed to advance Bianco’s gubernatorial campaign at Miller’s expense,” the reply says.

Miller also argued Bianco’s comments were too extreme to receive anti-SLAPP protection: “While presidential security might be a public issue, fabricating assassination attempts exceeds any protected discourse. The Supreme Court made clear in New York Times v. Sullivan that even on public issues, ‘calculated falsehood’ receives no constitutional protection,” his reply says.

“Here, Sheriff Bianco acted far outside any legitimate law enforcement function by: fabricating statements Miller never made, continuing false claims after federal agencies cleared Miller, using his official position to launch personal attacks, and making statements for publicity rather than public safety,” it continues.

Bianco’s statements cannot be dismissed as opinions, as Bianco’s motion claims, Miller’s reply said.

“Most critically, Bianco’s statements implied knowledge of undisclosed facts: that Miller had made threats, possessed fake documents, and planned violence. The Supreme Court made clear such implications are actionable: ‘Simply couching a statement—’Jones is a liar’—in terms of opinion—’In my opinion, Jones is a liar’—does not dispel the factual implications contained in the statement,’” the reply says.

The reply ended by claiming Bianco’s statements were in response to Miller’s attempt to associate with Trump.

“Miller was targeted precisely because he attempted to park his car approximately one mile away from and attend a Trump rally, wherein he legally possessed and voluntarily disclosed firearms in his vehicle…But for Miller’s attempt to exercise his First Amendment rights by attending the rally, Bianco would never have defamed him,” it said.

Miller filed suit on March 10. He is represented by Ethan Bearman of Beverly Hills.

Eugene P. Ramirez,  Anthony J. Ellrod, Yury A. Kolesnikov, Kayleigh Andersen and Natalya D. Vasyuk of Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP represent Bianco and Riverside County.