FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#251

Post by Piffle » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:12 pm

The amicus brief from the District of Columbia does a better job at analyzing these issues.Agreed. Together, the amici have delivered a great one-two punch that is out of Klayman's league by light-years. (But then, what serious legal issue isn't?)With all that well-argued briefing before the DC Circuit, I'd be disappointed if they don't reach out in concord with the sister circuits who have addressed the issue. (In that regard, it'd be unfortunate if the CoA granted the remedy of dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the pissant stunt Klayman pulled without delving further. I don't think that's going to happen though.)However this unfolds, I hope Larry and Joey will be writing a check or two.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#252

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:01 am

With all that well-argued briefing before the DC Circuit, I'd be disappointed if they don't reach out in concord with the sister circuits who have addressed the issue. (In that regard, it'd be unfortunate if the CoA granted the remedy of dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the pissant stunt Klayman pulled without delving further. I don't think that's going to happen though.)I agree this won't happen, or is very unlikely to happen. While the plaintiffs are losers whose frivolous claims are, themselves, quite uninteresting from a legal standpoint (though they might be a curiosity to students of abnormal psychology), the specific issue is quite important to the District of Columbia itself and to SLAPP jurisprudence in general.I am pretty certain that if they do address this issue, this Circuit will follow the precedents of the other appellate courts that have addressed this issue and reject the reasoning of the single outlier.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34949
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#253

Post by realist » Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:03 pm

Docket Update...





03/21/2013 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1426641] granting motion to extend time [1426395-2];response to motion to strike document [1424672-3], and reply to response to motion to strike document [1422492-2] now due on 03/28/2013 [12-7055]





03/27/2013 [link]20,[/link] REPLY FILED [1427576] by Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farah, WND Books and WorldNetDaily.com to Response and RESPONSE FILED to Cross Motion [1424672-2],[1424672-3],[1424672-4](Reply to Response by Mail to Cross Motion due on 04/08/2013) [Service Date: 03/27/2013 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [12-7055] (Klayman, Larry)





04/08/2013 [link]21,[/link] REPLY FILED [1429523] by Esquire Magazine, Hearst Communications, Inc. and Mark Warren to response [1427576-2],[1427576-3] [Service Date: 04/08/2013 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [12-7055] (Donnellan, Jonathan)





links shortly
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#254

Post by Piffle » Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:11 pm

Docket Update...





03/21/2013 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1426641] granting motion to extend time [1426395-2];response to motion to strike document [1424672-3], and reply to response to motion to strike document [1422492-2] now due on 03/28/2013 [12-7055]





03/27/2013 [link]20,[/link] REPLY FILED [1427576] by Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farah, WND Books and WorldNetDaily.com to Response and RESPONSE FILED to Cross Motion [1424672-2],[1424672-3],[1424672-4](Reply to Response by Mail to Cross Motion due on 04/08/2013) [Service Date: 03/27/2013 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [12-7055] (Klayman, Larry)





04/08/2013 [link]21,[/link] REPLY FILED [1429523] by Esquire Magazine, Hearst Communications, Inc. and Mark Warren to response [1427576-2],[1427576-3] [Service Date: 04/08/2013 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [12-7055] (Donnellan, Jonathan)





Eeeeew. What a butt-ugly spat.

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#255

Post by AnitaMaria » Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:28 pm

I always feel like I need a shower after I read something Larry Klayman has written. In his reply, Klayman writes this:Based on Appellant's counsel's [Kalyman's] 35 years of experience, some of these powerful and influential mega-law firms [AM's note: such as the one representing Esquire in this lawsuit] believe they can get away with putting forth falsities to the Court which influence decision making, and in many instances they have actually succeeded in doing so. However, this Court should not tolerate this kind of behavior, as no one is above the law.I recently came across the magistrate's ruling in Klayman's custody case. I'm not going to post the link because it contains personal information about people whose lives Klayman has infested, but here is the essense of the magistrate's ruling, which was upheld in its entirety on appeal:…[T]he Magistrate finds that the Plaintiff’s [Klayman’s] testimony is entitled to no weight. He is simply not credible. If anything, the record reveals that he deliberately misstated facts, misinterpreted emails and conversations and made allegations about the Defendant [Klayman’s ex-wife], her husband, her mother and [the Defendant’s attorney] that were utterly without foundation.I doubt there is anyone involved in the Esquire case who has more experience "putting forth falsities to the Court" than Larry Klayman himself.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#256

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:17 pm

Arrrrgh! An underlined not. That is not something to do in a brief!




Edit: Also note that, while sometimes witty, the defendants' reply is essentially superfluous. There was no need for it. The initial brief pretty much reached the snark quotient you're allowed, and at this point, the brief is simply reiterating points that have already been made. This would have been a perfect moment to let the other guy be the asshole who needed the last word. I think they would have been better off not filing this at all, or if they did file it, the entirety of the reply brief should have been little longer than the summary. Two or three pages tops.





YMMV.

obot 10241408971650
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:25 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#257

Post by obot 10241408971650 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:52 pm

So Klayman's "evidence" is the print view did not contain tags? Is he serious?

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#258

Post by nbc » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:57 pm

So Klayman's "evidence" is the print view did not contain tags? Is he serious?Desperately so... :crazy:

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#259

Post by mimi » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:10 am

Do people pay Klayman to do this?I'm being serious. With his track record, who would pay him? And why? :-? Not a snark. A serious question.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#260

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:11 am

Do people pay Klayman to do this?I'm being serious. With his track record, who would pay him? And why? :-? Not a snark. A serious question.Because, like a prostitute that specializes in some particularly degrading act, there are some things only a real degenerate will do, and for those things, Klayman is your man.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27254
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#261

Post by bob » Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:08 am

Do people pay Klayman to do this?





I'm being serious. With his track record, who would pay him? And why? :-?





Not a snark. A serious question.Judicial Watch, Klayman's claim to (in)fame, was very successful.





Not successful in court, but successful at harassing the Clinton administration and generating headlines. For which, I have no doubt many wealthy conservative donors gave heavily to Judicial Watch. Which in turn paid Klayman well for his "services."





His present engorgement off WND is a poor shadow of his past.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10455
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#262

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:43 am

Arrrrgh! An underlined not. That is not something to do in a brief!




Edit: Also note that, while sometimes witty, the defendants' reply is essentially superfluous. There was no need for it. The initial brief pretty much reached the snark quotient you're allowed, and at this point, the brief is simply reiterating points that have already been made. This would have been a perfect moment to let the other guy be the asshole who needed the last word. I think they would have been better off not filing this at all, or if they did file it, the entirety of the reply brief should have been little longer than the summary. Two or three pages tops.





YMMV.
I agree. At the same time, I'm not sure that I'd be able to resist responding under the same circumstances. Klayman is very good at being shamelessly dishonest, and completely infuriating.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#263

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:51 am

I agree. At the same time, I'm not sure that I'd be able to resist responding under the same circumstances. Klayman is very good at being shamelessly dishonest, and completely infuriating.I understand and sympathize with the urge to respond to this asshat. I also think counsel may be trying to impress his literary colleagues at Esquire with his own erudition, because I imagine they read this stuff, while also racking up some billable hours. I just think this is a prime example of interrupting an enemy while he is making a mistake.

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9811
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#264

Post by GreatGrey » Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:56 am

Shoot, all ya have to do is read Klayman's first sentence to realize he's got nothing.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#265

Post by Piffle » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:16 am

Shoot, all ya have to do is read Klayman's first sentence to realize he's got nothing.^^^^ This. 'Twas my first impression too. What a truly dreadful opening.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#266

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:26 am

Personally? All I have to see is "Klayman" to realize they have nothing. That's where the brief fails.




Edit: Yes, I just actually started to read the Klayman brief, such as it is. Stopped after the first sentence. I feel sorry for anyone who had to read further because they were getting paid to read this crap. It's hard to blame the opposing counsel for dropping another snarkbomb in response to this bullshit, but it would have been the wiser choice. I only read the opposing brief, because that was the only brief that promised information. All you ever get from Klayman is bloviating gibberish. Opposing counsel should have let this turd in a punchbowl speak for itself. Res ipsa loquitur.

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#267

Post by Loren » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:47 am

Klayman's Reply Brief, summarized:





"Esquire is completely evading the issue of their lies by producing mere historical evidence that they didn't lie. Meanwhile, we have an affidavit! From one of the Plaintiffs! And we also have the printable view of the article! And did I mention that the Defendants are represented by a big law firm? Because they totally are."

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#268

Post by nbc » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:53 am

Klayman's Reply Brief, summarized:





"Esquire is completely evading the issue of their lies by producing mere historical evidence that they didn't lie. Meanwhile, we have an affidavit! From one of the Plaintiffs! And we also have the printable view of the article! And did I mention that the Defendants are represented by a big law firm? Because they totally are."Wow, that perfectly captures it...





So who do you trust, the plaintiff who stands to win millions or the defendant who has the actual logs...





What a tool ](*,) ](*,)

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#269

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:56 am

Klayman's Reply Brief, summarized:





"Esquire is completely evading the issue of their lies by producing mere historical evidence that they didn't lie. Meanwhile, we have an affidavit! From one of the Plaintiffs! And we also have the printable view of the article! And did I mention that the Defendants are represented by a big law firm? Because they totally are."Arguments based almost solely on the basis that the other side has good lawyers have a remarkably low rate of success. Of course, anything Larry Klansman does has a low rate of success, but I guess that's why WND pays him all the money they do (how much is that actually).

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#270

Post by Kriselda Gray » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:27 am

Docket Update...





03/21/2013 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1426641] granting motion to extend time [1426395-2];response to motion to strike document [1424672-3], and reply to response to motion to strike document [1422492-2] now due on 03/28/2013 [12-7055]





03/27/2013 [link]20,[/link] REPLY FILED [1427576] by Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farah, WND Books and WorldNetDaily.com to Response and RESPONSE FILED to Cross Motion [1424672-2],[1424672-3],[1424672-4](Reply to Response by Mail to Cross Motion due on 04/08/2013) [Service Date: 03/27/2013 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [12-7055] (Klayman, Larry)





04/08/2013 [link]21,[/link] REPLY FILED [1429523] by Esquire Magazine, Hearst Communications, Inc. and Mark Warren to response [1427576-2],[1427576-3] [Service Date: 04/08/2013 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [12-7055] (Donnellan, Jonathan)





links shortlyUmmmm.... could someone translate that in to IANAL English, please? There are so many motions and motions to motions, etc, that I'm WAY lost!
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15830
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#271

Post by Reality Check » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:52 am

Ummmm.... could someone translate that in to IANAL English, please? There are so many motions and motions to motions, etc, that I'm WAY lost!This is the way I read these:The Three Stooges (Farah-Corsi-Klayman) are trying to introduce evidence in the appeal they claim to have had along but didn't bother to introduce in their filings at the district level because the Stooges thought their case was a slam dunk and they didn't need it. The Stooges said the lower court judge was a mean poopie head and dismissed their case, however. The Real Attorneys (representing Esquire) said no you can't do that during an appeal. They said the Stooges had their chance and blew it. Not only that the screen captures the Stooges claim are proof the humor tag was added after the original article don't prove anything of the sort. You Stooges think you are being clever but you are trying to fool the court. Go away Stooges. It won't play here.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Tarrant
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#272

Post by Tarrant » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:09 am

I read it as Klayman saying - from his very first sentence:"They other side hired actual lawyers from a real law firm to try and bamboozle you with stuff like 'Evidence' and 'Law'. But don't believe it! You know how shifty high-priced lawyers are. I have an affidavit from a guy who wrote an article admitting it was satire until such time as he decided he wanted money, so you know he's trustworthy."

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27254
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#273

Post by bob » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:21 am

Ummmm.... could someone translate that in to IANAL English, please? There are so many motions and motions to motions, etc, that I'm WAY lost!This is the way I read these:The Three Stooges (Farah-Corsi-Klayman) are trying to introduce evidence in the appeal they claim to have had along but didn't bother to introduce in their filings at the district level because the Stooges thought their case was a slam dunk and they didn't need it. The Stooges said the lower court judge was a mean poopie head and dismissed their case, however. The Real Attorneys (representing Esquire) said no you can't do that during an appeal. They said the Stooges had their chance and blew it. Not only that the screen captures the Stooges claim are proof the humor tag was added after the original article don't prove anything of the sort. You Stooges think you are being clever but you are trying to fool the court. Go away Stooges. It won't play here.Klayman is taking it a step further: Klayman is accusing Esquire's lawyers of lying to the court, and is demanding (thanks, Taitz, for overusing that word) that its lawyers be sanctioned and reported to the bar for discipline.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#274

Post by Kriselda Gray » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:04 pm

Ummmm.... could someone translate that in to IANAL English, please? There are so many motions and motions to motions, etc, that I'm WAY lost!This is the way I read these:The Three Stooges (Farah-Corsi-Klayman) are trying to introduce evidence in the appeal they claim to have had along but didn't bother to introduce in their filings at the district level because the Stooges thought their case was a slam dunk and they didn't need it. The Stooges said the lower court judge was a mean poopie head and dismissed their case, however. The Real Attorneys (representing Esquire) said no you can't do that during an appeal. They said the Stooges had their chance and blew it. Not only that the screen captures the Stooges claim are proof the humor tag was added after the original article don't prove anything of the sort. You Stooges think you are being clever but you are trying to fool the court. Go away Stooges. It won't play here.Thanks, RC!
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15830
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#275

Post by Reality Check » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Thanks, RC!You are welcome. Obviously, I missed a few details as has been pointed out. I forgot about the Stooges calling the Real Attorneys mean poopie heads too.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”