How does the anti-SLAPP statute work?

Where as here plaintiff cannot show as a matter of law that defendants' acts are not protected by section 415.16, he must prove it as part of his prima facie case by demonstrating either that defendants' "`"defenses are not applicable to the case as a matter of law or by a prima facie showing of facts which, if accepted by the trier of fact, would negate such defenses." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Kashian v. Harriman, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 910.) In other words, "conduct that would otherwise come within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute does not lose its coverage . . . simply because it is alleged to have been unlawful or unethical. If that were the test, the statute . . . would be meaningless." (Id. at pp. 910-911, fn. omitted.)