Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

GIL: Klayman

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: GIL: Klayman

#76

Post by Luke »

He leaves out the magic words "Grossly Inappropriate".

GIL.JPG
GIL.JPG (73.43 KiB) Viewed 4613 times
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#77

Post by northland10 »

Amazon and Google had removed a case by "Freedom Watch" filed in Palm Beach County on March 8. On March 20, Larry filed both a motion to remand back to the state court and an amended complaint. I have not read it, but he says in a recent notice "NOTICE by Freedom Watch, Inc. of Expedited Request to Expedite Remand" that he reduced the amount below 75K so it should be immediately remanded.

Is this is allowed normally?

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 6.32.0.pdf

Of course, he wants it in state court where he thinks he can get discovery and depositions easier. He probably correctly figures that a federal court will dump it for standing, and probably failure to state a claim. Freedom Watch has no standing against Amazon and Google dumping Parler.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#78

Post by northland10 »

Back in February, the court dismissed his end-run around attempt to get another judge (Chutkan) to overrule Judge Kollar-Kotelly in the Klayman v JW still pending in the DC Circuit.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 49.9.0.pdf

He just filed a NOA for that case.

Back February, he also filed a "MOTION for Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications," Seems he is having a hurt because Judge Chutkan had the wrong tone (well stop being GIL).

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 9.12.0.pdf

Judge Chucken responded with :fuckyou:

Well, a little nicer:
MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff's "Motion for Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications" is hereby DENIED as moot. "An ex parte communication is defined as a 'communication between counsel and the court when opposing counsel is not present.'" North v. United States Dep't of Justice, 17 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary 316 (9th ed. 2009)). As the court's Memorandum Opinion 11 was based on documents "filed on the public docket and thus accessible to all they cannot, by definition, be considered ex parte communications." North, 17 F. Supp. 3d at 4. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/17/21. (DJS) (Entered: 02/17/2021)
So, GIL submitted "Renewed" notice.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 9.12.0.pdf

He wanted a response on Feb 19. The judge did not. Meany Judge.

Of course, even an IANAL can tell the whole case was a load of shit. You cannot ask a district judge to overrule another district judge. That's what the appeal is for. Granted, he wore out his ability to appeal much in the way of substance because he played around and ran out the clock. Making the original judge a defendant to avoid the case being assigned to her because it is related is also rather unethical. Judge Chutkan pointed that out.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#79

Post by bob »

Episode three of "Klayman's Citizen's Grand Jury":

:yawn: At this point, I think Klayman and Goodman have done away with the pretense that there are actually any "jurors" involved.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
johnpcapitalist
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:59 pm
Location: NYC Area
Verified: ✅ Totally legit!

Re: GIL: Klayman

#80

Post by johnpcapitalist »

bob wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:34 pm Episode three of "Klayman's Citizen's Grand Jury":

https:// www. youtube. com/watch?v=F-QsZ8YoTV4

:yawn: At this point, I think Klayman and Goodman have done away with the pretense that there are actually any "jurors" involved.
Could this be because Larry can't even round up a critical mass of pretend grand jurors? How inept a grifter can Klayman be if he can't even find a few handsful of morons in Florida who want to cosplay at being Grand Slam Jury members? Even as dismal a clown as Terry Trussell managed to round up a full quorum of pretend grand jury members for his attempt at pretend legalizing.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#81

Post by bob »

johnpcapitalist wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:55 amCould this be because Larry can't even round up a critical mass of pretend grand jurors? How inept a grifter can Klayman be if he can't even find a few handsful of morons in Florida who want to cosplay at being Grand Slam Jury members? Even as dismal a clown as Terry Trussell managed to round up a full quorum of pretend grand jury members for his attempt at pretend legalizing.
My semi-educated guess is that Klayman (and Goodman) realized the "jurors" added nothing to the final product, i.e., the video content. (Which itself has no value, but I digress.)

Because of the pandemic, they couldn't rent out a hotel's conference room. So it was a Zoom video-conference "jury," Which meant randos (excuse me, duly qualified and sworn jurors) could (and did) interrupt their flow with the sundry video-conferencing problems, e.g,, unmuted mics, forgetting to pin the presenter's screen, etc.

Video of Klayman playing pretend in a room full of people is one thing. But without the live studio audience "jurors," it is Just Another Video. So just fire the background actors, who were just stealing focus from the stars.

The inditement has the same legal validity either way. :batting:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#82

Post by bob »

So: Cohen's deposition in Roy Moore's case happened.

Being Klayman, of course there is needless drama. Klayman's whinegram to the court:
Klayman wrote:Defendants have improperly designated the entire video of the deposition of Defendant Sacha Baron Cohen as confidential , as if this were a complex antitrust, tax or securities case, which is not. This litigation is quite straightforward and simple.

More specifically, the entire video of Defendant Sacha Baron Cohen's deposition has also been designated as confidential, with the outrageous and phony reason being that it was taken at some undisclosed and unidentifiable location by Zoom, allegedly a residence. However, nowhere in the video or the transcript of the deposition is any mention made of its location, and nor is the location identifiable. Rather, the video does clearly show Cohen looking downward – most likely at his phone or tablet -- with virtually every question that I posed, and it is thus obvious that he was being fed answers by someone. He is indeed the self-described proud master of fraud and deception and his being fed answers comes as no surprise given his past conduct. . . . I urge the Court to watch the Cohen video and reach its own conclusion, which is obvious. The ramifications of this obvious conduct are criminal in nature.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that an order issue "unsealing" the Cohen video. Cohen is a public figure, and a Hollywood star, but when it suits him he a man of extreme “privacy.” There is no good faith reason to keep the video of his deposition confidential, particularly since the transcript of the deposition has not been designated confidential. Apparently Defendant Cohen has no problem maliciously and publicly defaming Judge Moore as a pedophile but yet seeks to hide his video testimony from public view.

Clearly, Defendants have abused process and this needs to be rectified as soon as possible. As for the apparently fed answers, we also respectfully request an expeditious evidentiary hearing on this matter, as Cohen's coached answers may, if left uncorrected and unremedied, work prejudice to Plaintiffs in the disposition of Defendants' summary judgment motion.
Cohen's attorney's this-your-own-fault-for-not-dismissing-this-case responsive letter to the judge. Which explains that Cohen repeatedly looked down because ... he's tall. And defense counsel casually mentions Klayman's repeated failures to disclose his suspensions.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#83

Post by realist »

Thank you, bob.

:thumbsup:
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#84

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:21 pm Cohen's attorney's this-your-own-fault-for-not-dismissing-this-case responsive letter to the judge. Which explains that Cohen repeatedly looked down because ... he's tall. And defense counsel casually mentions Klayman's repeated failures to disclose his suspensions.
Cohen's attorney knows GIL's MO. The deposition never had any litigation purpose. It is all about the PR.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#85

Post by bob »

Episode Four of their radio play:

Still no inditements. :yawn:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#86

Post by realist »

:yankyank:
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
jcolvin2
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:56 am
Verified:

Re: GIL: Klayman

#87

Post by jcolvin2 »

Klayman's Petition for rehearing of the DC Circuit's reciprocal suspension was denied last week:
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-7110 September Term, 2020
18-BG-0100
Filed On: April 7, 2021

In re: Larry Elliott Klayman,
Respondent
BEFORE: Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges; and Edwards, Senior Circuit
Judge
O R D E R
Upon consideration of respondent’s petition for panel rehearing styled as “motion for reconsideration and petition for rehearing by the panel,” filed on April 2, 2021, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Kathryn D. Lovett
Deputy Clerk
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#88

Post by northland10 »

I'm really slacking on my Klayman court foible following. :oopsy:

Prepping for a small attendance in person wedding and planning for outdoor in person liturgies has taken more of my time. I guess it's a good thing. It is a minor move back to a former life.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
sterngard friegen
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:51 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#89

Post by sterngard friegen »

northland10 wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 pm I'm really slacking on my Klayman court foible following. :oopsy:

Prepping for a small attendance in person wedding and planning for outdoor in person liturgies has taken more of my time. I guess it's a good thing. It is a minor move back to a former life.
What was (or is) your "former life"?
somerset
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:06 pm
Occupation: Lab Rat

Re: GIL: Klayman

#90

Post by somerset »

sterngard friegen wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:53 pm
northland10 wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 pm I'm really slacking on my Klayman court foible following. :oopsy:

Prepping for a small attendance in person wedding and planning for outdoor in person liturgies has taken more of my time. I guess it's a good thing. It is a minor move back to a former life.
What was (or is) your "former life"?
Church music dude

I think ;)
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#91

Post by northland10 »

sterngard friegen wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:53 pm
northland10 wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 pm I'm really slacking on my Klayman court foible following. :oopsy:

Prepping for a small attendance in person wedding and planning for outdoor in person liturgies has taken more of my time. I guess it's a good thing. It is a minor move back to a former life.
What was (or is) your "former life"?
Actually playing for a service, in the church and not with a keyboard setup at home, on Zoom. This would be what I was doing before COVID. Granted, things are still very limited attendance and I have to play and sing with a mask but my life before COVID is slowing returning.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#92

Post by northland10 »

northland10 wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:33 pm Amazon and Google had removed a case by "Freedom Watch" filed in Palm Beach County on March 8. On March 20, Larry filed both a motion to remand back to the state court and an amended complaint. I have not read it, but he says in a recent notice "NOTICE by Freedom Watch, Inc. of Expedited Request to Expedite Remand" that he reduced the amount below 75K so it should be immediately remanded.

Is this is allowed normally?

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 6.32.0.pdf

Of course, he wants it in state court where he thinks he can get discovery and depositions easier. He probably correctly figures that a federal court will dump it for standing, and probably failure to state a claim. Freedom Watch has no standing against Amazon and Google dumping Parler.
After filing on 6 April, Expedited Request to Expedite Remand, on 9 April, NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Freedom Watch, Inc.

What's the over/under that he is refiling in Palm Beach County?
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#93

Post by northland10 »

Well, my quick check through Palm Beach County finds he just filed suit against Portfolio Media (i.e. LAW360) and authors Khorri Atkinson and Haily Konnath. Without reading fully (or uploading to Scribd because it is too large for here), he is mad at their articles about his fight with the bar and other stuff (he accuses them of colluding with Tom Fitton, who is actually not a party here).

Okay, I uploaded anyway.


Also suing the ALM Media LLC dba National Law Journal over an article about his bar issues.
Edit: ETA Add Law & Crime to the list.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#94

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:48 pmAlso suing the ALM Media LLC dba National Law Journal over an article about his bar issues.
Klayman did the same thing to Politico in November.

And, of course, years ago GIL sued (and lost) against the papers that covered the "GI" in "GIL."
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#95

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:56 pm In one of Roy Moore's Alabama defamation lawsuits, he partially staved off a motion to dismiss. Meaning Moore is entitled to discovery!

Klayman hasn't filed anything in this case since July, so Klayman may have handed this case off to local counsel.

Oh: The defendants are represented by Barry Ragsdale and Marc E Elias. :boxing:
The other Alabama case against the Washington Examiner, et al, was dismissed at the end of March.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 3.49.0.pdf
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#96

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:09 pm
northland10 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:48 pmAlso suing the ALM Media LLC dba National Law Journal over an article about his bar issues.
Klayman did the same thing to Politico in November.
And it is still open. The latest was the judge putting the kibosh on most of GIL's attempt to push discovery and sanctions (and, for some reason, he saw it as an emergency).
502020CA011868XXXXMB_38.pdf
(95.43 KiB) Downloaded 119 times
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#97

Post by bob »

So: John Paul Mac Isaac, the erstwhile Delaware computer shop owner who "found" Hunter's laptop, sued (in pro per) Twitter for defamation because it refused to disseminate stories about Isaac. (Isaac claims Twitter's noisy refusal defamed him.)

If this sounds Klayman-esque, well, Twitter's motion to dismiss dips into Klayman's oeuvre to explain why this suit is junk.

And since Isaac sued in S.D.Fla, Twitter took the opportunity to reference a recent Klayman fail in S.D. Fla: Klayman's usual in Corsi v. Newsmax. And, last week, Newsmax moved for attorney's fees against Corsi. :thumbsup:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:11 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left at the portrait of George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney. I am not your lawyer. My posts != legal advice.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#98

Post by fierceredpanda »

The fact that anyone at all is willing to give GIL money to subsidize his habit of filing nonsense lawsuits (not to mention keeping a roof over his head) just boggles my mind. Fools and their money, I guess.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple. The smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#99

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:20 am So: John Paul Mac Isaac, the erstwhile Delaware computer shop owner who "found" Hunter's laptop, sued (in pro per) Twitter for defamation because it refused to disseminate stories about Isaac. (Isaac claims Twitter's noisy refusal defamed him.)

If this sounds Klayman-esque, well, Twitter's motion to dismiss dips into Klayman's oeuvre to explain why this suit is junk.

And since Isaac sued in S.D.Fla, Twitter took the opportunity to reference a recent Klayman fail in S.D. Fla: Klayman's usual in Corsi v. Newsmax. And, last week, Newsmax moved for attorney's fees against Corsi. :thumbsup:
It also includes Zimmerman v. Buttigieg in the authorities. Klayman finally managed to get himself out of that one, but the dismissal of the original complaint was basically a dismissal of his work (for completeness, the new attorneys took the judge up on his statement that they could file an amended motion to fix things and there is a MTD pending on that).

Still, I am confused as how this could not have been a Klayman case. A Delaware (now Colorado) resident suing a Delaware company (or California headquartered) in Florida is classic Klayman. This case even had a PHV lawyer from Delaware (apparently a tax lawyer).
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#100

Post by bob »

The next episode:

:yawn:
Image ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”