MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

User avatar
Karen Walker
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:31 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Karen Walker » Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:19 pm

magdalen77 wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Easy peasy. Montgomery has just decided to become a resident of the state of Washington, again. And he'll stay there until he's needed to be a resident of somewhere else. (Usually a state where one of his lawyers is permitted to craptice law.)
He's Schrodinger's client. :towel:

(Mags sits and waits for Slarti to explain how wrong she is).

Off Topic
Nah, it's pretty clear Montgomery has access to a wormhole through his NSA connections.
:smoking:
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:33 pm

D.D.C. Docket Update:
06/07/2016 -- 268 -- ORDER directing the parties to file material relevant to various motions to seal. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 06/07/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 06/07/2016)

06/07/2016 -- Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 6/14/2016. (tj) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:44 pm

D.D.C. Docket Update:
06/14/2016 -- 271 -- NOTICE of Withdrawal of Request to Seal Documentation by DENNIS L. MONTGOMERY (Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
In short, despite proclaiming - repeatedly - that his communications with the FBI must be filed under seal to protect national security and an ongoing FBI criminal investigation, Klayman now says all documents in case should be matter of public record (then adds in that all defendant documents currently filed under seal also should be a matter of public record).

From the original motions ...

ECF No. 159 (Exhibits 1 and 2 to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal materials concerning the turning over of Plaintiff’s software and the efforts to retrieve it from the FBI).
Klayman wrote:“First, these are communications between Plaintiff s counsel and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”'), as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office, regarding an ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI. The FB1 and the U.S. Attorney have both stated their desire that the criminal matter under investigation and this lawsuit involving Plaintiff be kept separate. Plaintiff is concerned that any ongoing working relationship and cooperation between Plaintiff and the FBI will be put at risk if the communications are released on the public record, and that this criminal investigation will be compromised.

ln addition, these communications fall under the work-product doctrine and should not respectfully be disclosed publicly in this lawsuit. These communications were made specifically between Plaintiff s counsel and the FBI in regards to an ongoing criminal investigation in which Plaintiff's counsel is representing Plaintiff. Plaintiff s negotiations with the FBI began over a year ago, well before this law suit was ever filed.

Finally, the communications with the FBI contain a roadmap to finding sensitive information contained on hard drives that are now in possession of the FBI. The FBI is still in the process of determining whether any of the documents and/or software that may exist on these hard drives is classified. Information that leads to the finding of potentially classified information should not be given to the public for possible revelations of national secrets, as set forth in Exhibit 2.
* * *
. . . The subject documents should respectfully be filed under seal so as not to, at a minimum, compromise an on-going criminal investigation. Accordingly, exceptional circumstances and good cause have been shown.

Consistent with this, as in the case of Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 290 (D.C. Cir. 1991) these facts present an extraordinary situation and a compelling governmental interest which justify the sealing of the information until (1) the substantial risk to the personal safety of cooperating individuals; and (2) the government represents that it can continue its criminal investigation without substantial risk that it would be jeopardized.”
ECF No. 160 (Exhibit 1 and 2 to Plaintiff’s Second Motion to File Under Seal concerning instructions Plaintiff sent to the FBI to locate Plaintiff’s software).
Klayman wrote:“The instructions to the FB1 contain a roadmap to finding sensitive information contained on hard drives that are now in possession of the FBI. The FBI is still in the process of determining whether any of the documents and/or software that may exist on these hard drives is classified. Information that leads to the finding of potentially classified information should not be given to the public for possible revelations of national security secrets, as set forth in Exhibit 2.
* * *
. . . The subject documents should respectfully be filed under seal so as not to, at a minimum, compromise an on-going criminal investigation.Accordingly, exceptional circumstances and good cause have been shown.

Consistent with this, as in the case of Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 290 (D.C. Cir. 1991) these facts present an extraordinary situation and a compelling governmental interest which justify the sealing of the information until (1) the substantial risk to the personal safety of cooperating individuals; and (2) the government represents that it can continue its criminal investigation without substantial risk that it would be jeopardized.”
ECF No. 180 (Exhibits A and B to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under seal, reproducing Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion for sanctions and including purportedly sensitive Exhibit 5, as well as e-mail traffic between the parties).
Klayman wrote:“Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that his correspondence with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), including any instructions sent to the FBI (included as Exhibit 5 to the Memorandum) be placed under seal. The instructions to the FB1 contain a roadmap to finding sensitive information contained on hard drives that are now in possession of the FBI.

Plaintiff requests to have these documents placed under seal. The U.S. Justice Department in conjunction with the FBI are in the midst of an ongoing criminal investigation
* * *
Consistent with this, as in the case of Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 290 (D.C. Cir. 1991) these facts present an extraordinary situation and a compelling governmental interest which justify the sealing of the information until (1) the substantial risk to the personal safety of cooperating individuals; and (2) the government represents that it can continue its criminal investigation, which has national security implications, without substantial risk that it would be jeopardized.”
* * *
Plaintiff sought consent for this motion from Defendants. Defendants do not grant consent to this motion because they demanded to see the documents before they are filed under seal. This would be inappropriate as set forth in the email correspondence."
But.... that was then, this is now:
Klayman wrote:“Plaintiff, Dennis Montgomery, hereby notifies the Court that he withdraws any and all requests to seal documentation in this case. Upon reflection, the documentation in this case should be a matter of public record. This should also be true for Defendants, who have filed certain documents under seal, including but not limited to Defendant James Risen’s contract with Defendants Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company. In addition to being a private lawsuit, this case concerns matters of public interest concerning false and misleading publications by Defendants Risen and Houghton Mifflin, which defamed and damaged Plaintiff Montgomery.” (ECF 271)
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

chancery
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by chancery » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:50 pm

GIL is a screaming a****le, and a carbuncle on the callipygian buttocks of the bar, but he has far more skills than La Taitz.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 40879
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:30 am

Sounds like Klayman is missing the publicity. Anything for publicity.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 12952
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:40 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Sounds like Klayman is missing the publicity. Anything for publicity.
Is he googling his name as does Orly daily? And only TFB shows up as interested in his filings :-D


PS. Has Orly Taitz already been disbarred ? :rotflmao:

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by SueDB » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:01 am

RTH10260 wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:Sounds like Klayman is missing the publicity. Anything for publicity.
Is he googling his name as does Orly daily? And only TFB shows up as interested in his filings :-D


PS. Has Orly Taitz already been disbarred ? :rotflmao:
Orly Taitz Disbarred!!! I dont' think I have seen anything in the news like " ORLY TAITZ DISBARRED! " from any of the papers. Though I don't have access to the California Bar Association disciplinary info, I am sure I would have heard any news of Orly Taitz Disbarred!!! Then again if Orly Taitz Disbarred!!! it may be secret or not in the news. Orly Taitz seems to have reduced herself to irrelevancy with her performance but not to the level where there would be a headline of Orly Taitz Disbarred!!!
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2198
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by mmmirele » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:21 pm

Considering that the CA Bar couldn't seem to find it within their hearts to get rid of unindicted co-conspirator Kendrick Moxon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White, also with the unindicted L. Ron Hubbard), I can't see that they're going to get rid of La Taitz. As for Klayman, he's slowly but surely whittling down the number of places where he is able to practice law.

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:25 pm

D.D.C. Docket Update
06/15/2016 -- -- MINUTE ORDER: In light of 271 Plaintiff's Notice of Withdrawal of Requests to Seal Documentation, it is hereby ORDERED that 156 , 159 , 160 , and 180 Plaintiff's Motions to Seal are DENIED as moot. The Court notes, however, that the underlying documents are cited in the parties' objections to the magistrate judge's discovery orders and the parties' motions concerning sanctions and summary judgment. The Court must review those documents in order to decide the motions. Accordingly, because the docket transferred from the Southern District of Florida does not contain the underlying documents, it is FURTHER ORDERED that on or before June 17, 2016, Plaintiff shall file on the docket the underlying documents identified in 268 the Court's June 7, 2016 Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of Defendants' Opposition to 236 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal and to Remove Documents from Protective Order, on or before June 17, 2016, Plaintiff shall file the underlying documents to ECF No. 236 under seal. Those documents will remain under seal pending the Court's review of the underlying documents, Plaintiff's motion to remove the documents from the protective order, and Defendants' opposition. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 06/15/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016 -- 272 -- SEALED DOCUMENT filed by DENNIS L. MONTGOMERY(This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ECF 159, # 2 Exhibit ECF 160, # 3 Exhibit ECF 180, # 4 Exhibit ECF 236)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
Yeah, you're reading that right. After withdrawing his motions to file 159, 160, and 180 under seal and being ordered to file them anyway (and, separately, to file 268 under seal), Klayman has filed them ALL under seal, again.
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
realist
Posts: 33986
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by realist » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:51 am

Yeah, you're reading that right. After withdrawing his motions to file 159, 160, and 180 under seal and being ordered to file them anyway (and, separately, to file 268 under seal), Klayman has filed them ALL under seal, again.
:brickwallsmall:
ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7271
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Flatpointhigh » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:03 pm

realist wrote:
Yeah, you're reading that right. After withdrawing his motions to file 159, 160, and 180 under seal and being ordered to file them anyway (and, separately, to file 268 under seal), Klayman has filed them ALL under seal, again.
:brickwallsmall:
I"m brain injured, and I understood that.

"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:23 pm

Docket Update:
06/20/2016 -- -- MINUTE ORDER: The Court's June 15, 2016 Minute Order directed Plaintiff to file the underlying documents to ECF Nos. 156, 159, 160, and 180 on the public docket, and further ordered Plaintiff to file a single set of documents, those underlying ECF No. 236, under seal. Upon review of 272 Plaintiff's filing, however, it appears that Plaintiff has filed all four sets of documents under seal. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that on or before June 22, 2016, Plaintiff shall refile the underlying documents to ECF Nos. 156, 159, 160, and 180 as a publicly available filing on the docket, not under seal. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 06/20/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
Yaaaay
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:42 am

Docket Update
06/20/2016 -- 273 NOTICE of Compliance of Order of June 20, 2016 by DENNIS L. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ECF 159, # 2 Exhibit ECF 160, # 3 Exhibit ECF 180)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
:popcorn:
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:46 am

Klayman was copying Judge Royce Lamberth on the June-July letters to FBI ...
Edit: ... and in October ...
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:23 pm

DISMISSED
07/15/2016 -- 274 -- ORDER resolving all pending motions and granting 201 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 07/15/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/15/2016 -- 275 -- MEMORANDUM OPINION resolving all pending motions and granting 201 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 07/15/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
Motion for Summary Judgment granted.

Sanctions denied because "end result" is same and dismissing case based on sanctions motion would waste more judicial resources than already has:
Although the Court is substantially troubled by Montgomery’s and his counsel’s conduct in this case, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion. As explained below, the Court ultimately finds summary judgment warranted in favor of Defendants on the merits of this case. In favorably resolving Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court provides Defendants in practical terms much of the result they seek in their spoliation motion—judgment in their favor—albeit by a different route. As Magistrate Judge Goodman’s pre-hearing order indicated, a number of factual and legal questions are raised in the particular context of this case which would make resolution of the spoliation issue labor intensive. See generally Order Scheduling Hr’g on Defs.’ Spoliation Sanctions Mot. (with Specific, Add’l Requirements), ECF No. 191. Despite Montgomery’s and his counsel’s actions, the Court is hesitant to allocate additional judicial resources to this discovery dispute, beyond the considerable resources already expended, for little additional gain. Therefore, in light of the Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions.20

20 If the judgment in this case were ever reversed, thereby removing the basis for the Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions, the Court would entertain a renewed motion.

It's a 74-page opinion and I'm only part way through but, so far, it's a good one......
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
realist
Posts: 33986
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by realist » Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:26 pm

I'm SHOCKED!!

:rotflmao:

Thanks, Tes.
ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3029
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by vic » Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:32 pm

And I was worried today wouldn't be a Smackdown Friday!

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:55 pm

Footnote 16 includes this nugget:
For his part, Mr. Klayman now states that he has never even seen or reviewed the software that forms the basis of Montgomery’s complaint—and partially offers that as an explanation for why he does not know if the software was ever turned over. .... This assertion implies that Mr. Klayman filed this lawsuit without a rigorous attempt to verify the claims that the software did in fact work—claims he asserted were false and defamatory. The Court is not insensitive to Mr. Klayman’s assertion that the software is classified (despite the absence of any real evidence showing it is), but his admissions nevertheless raise serious questions about whether he conducted the investigation necessary to meet his obligations as counsel under Rule 11.
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14069
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Reality Check » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:02 pm

The court is wasting everyone's time including their own. Klayman will keep on doing what he does. If they were serious about stopping him they would have imposed sanctions. Screw them. :cussing:
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 8555
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:21 pm

And Klayman will be appealing in 10 9 8 .......
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

chancery
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by chancery » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:24 pm

Reality Check wrote:The court is wasting everyone's time including their own. Klayman will keep on doing what he does. If they were serious about stopping him they would have imposed sanctions. Screw them. :cussing:
Sanctions of any kind are extremely rare and hard to obtain. Financial sanctions for spoliation are particularly hard to obtain.
Circuit law also “establishes that the Court may only grant a motion for punitive spoliation sanctions if the moving party demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the opposing party destroyed relevant evidence in bad faith.
Edit: that's judge-speak for "we don't do this, don't bother asking."

Furthermore ... well, let me pose a question. What amount of monetary sanctions do you think would be sufficient to stop Klayman from "doing what he does"?

chancery
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by chancery » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:31 pm

Tesibria wrote:It's a 74-page opinion and I'm only part way through but, so far, it's a good one......
Very good. I'm frankly in awe of the amount of work and care involved. That was a challenging and fractious record.

We're lucky that we have judges who are willing to do this kind of work.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14069
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Reality Check » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:54 pm

chancery wrote:Furthermore ... well, let me pose a question. What amount of monetary sanctions do you think would be sufficient to stop Klayman from "doing what he does"?
I don't care about financial sanctions. There should be something to go on his record other than a few cute finger wagging footnotes. It's clear that Montgomery gave the drives to the FBI to avoid turning them over to the defense. Klayman also lied when he said the FBI was looking for the software. They never were.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4379
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by Tesibria » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:57 pm

chancery wrote:
Tesibria wrote:It's a 74-page opinion and I'm only part way through but, so far, it's a good one......
Very good. I'm frankly in awe of the amount of work and care involved. That was a challenging and fractious record.

We're lucky that we have judges who are willing to do this kind of work.
:yeah:
“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

chancery
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: MONTGOMERY v RISEN (Defamation Suit)

Post by chancery » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:53 pm

Reality Check wrote:
chancery wrote:Furthermore ... well, let me pose a question. What amount of monetary sanctions do you think would be sufficient to stop Klayman from "doing what he does"?
I don't care about financial sanctions. There should be something to go on his record other than a few cute finger wagging footnotes. It's clear that Montgomery gave the drives to the FBI to avoid turning them over to the defense. Klayman also lied when he said the FBI was looking for the software. They never were.
Well, I do share your frustration. Klayman is a foul pimple. But with respect, I prefer the kind of judge who is cautious about making findings that a litigant or lawyer lied. (If that's what you mean.) There's a frightening potential for abuse. Witness Judge Hansen in Texas. And I've come to the conclusion over the years that federal judges have a better sense than outsiders do of whether the effort involved in sanctions orders in fact pays off in curbing abuse.

Post Reply

Return to “Other Fringe Groups & Individuals”