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

Wild Bill
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:46 pm

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

#276

Post by Wild Bill » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:50 pm

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.Ms. Handman is a well-known and highly-respected First Amendment lawyer. I doubt she felt the need to impres her literary colleagues. On the other hand, when arguing to a bunch of old appellate judges, I think prudence dictates a response explaining, at a minimum, what a print view is. Appellate judges are not often known for technological prowess. My two cents.

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

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

#277

Post by AnitaMaria » Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:17 pm

Laura Handman knows what a scumbag loser Larry Klayman is. His client Bradlee Dean owes her $24K in anti-SLAPP fees from his ill-fated lawsuit against Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. :P

User avatar
DryInk
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: King of OffTopica
Contact:

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

#278

Post by DryInk » Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:21 pm

Laura Handman knows what a scumbag loser Larry Klayman is. His client Bradlee Dean owes her $24K in anti-SLAPP fees from his ill-fated lawsuit against Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. :PSo she gets to kick his ass a second time. Excellent.
Let's just assume I said something witty.

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

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

#279

Post by Epectitus » Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:56 pm

On the other hand, when arguing to a bunch of old appellate judges, I think prudence dictates a response explaining, at a minimum, what a print view is. Appellate judges are not often known for technological prowess.That's exactly where I come down. The "print view" scam was a new and additional attempt by Klayman to mislead the court. It needed to be called out.
"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

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

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

#280

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:26 pm

Ms. Handman is a well-known and highly-respected First Amendment lawyer. I doubt she felt the need to impres her literary colleagues. On the other hand, when arguing to a bunch of old appellate judges, I think prudence dictates a response explaining, at a minimum, what a print view is. Appellate judges are not often known for technological prowess.Both briefs are peppered with literary references, more so than one usually sees. They're also both excellent pieces of writing. As for the print view thing, though, that was already explained in detail in the first brief. The second brief just repeats it. I see very little to nothing new in the second brief. It is clever, but IMO too clever by half.This is more a criticism of form than substance, as the plaintiffs have zero chance of prevailing on their own motion, but they had zero chance of prevailing before this reply brief. I was also, perhaps incorrectly, assuming that the first lawyer listed at the end of the brief (and who signed the certificate of service) had done most of the drafting, but perhaps not.Needless to say, Klayman's pile of shit is deserving of no discussion.

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

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

#281

Post by Loren » Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:59 pm

[/break1]scribd.com/doc/149760888/Farah-v-Esquire-Per-Curiam-Order]A per curiam order was filed on Saturday.The skinny: Klayman's motions were denied, and the court granted Esquire's motion to strike Klayman's screenshots and whatnot. Sadly, Esquire's motion for sanctions against Klayman was denied, but it was denied without prejudice.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27239
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#282

Post by bob » Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:39 pm

This court will not consider the evidence and argument presented for the first time on appeal.Someone should tell this newsflash to the lawyer prosecuting the appeal pending before SCOAL. ;;)(And Taitz, who only selectively remembers this rule.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

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

#283

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:01 pm

[/break1]scribd.com/doc/149760888/Farah-v-Esquire-Per-Curiam-Order]A per curiam order was filed on Saturday.The skinny: Klayman's motions were denied, and the court granted Esquire's motion to strike Klayman's screenshots and whatnot. Sadly, Esquire's motion for sanctions against Klayman was denied, but it was denied without prejudice.That's a reasonably good sign. I think it may simply be an acknowledgment of the fact that Klayman's sanctionable misconduct is likely to continue until the case is resolved, so it makes more sense to deal with it all at once, at the end of the case, as to grant it now and then later have to rule on yet another motion for sanctions.

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

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

#284

Post by Loren » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:13 pm

[/break1]scribd.com/doc/149760888/Farah-v-Esquire-Per-Curiam-Order]A per curiam order was filed on Saturday.The skinny: Klayman's motions were denied, and the court granted Esquire's motion to strike Klayman's screenshots and whatnot. Sadly, Esquire's motion for sanctions against Klayman was denied, but it was denied without prejudice.That's a reasonably good sign. I think it may simply be an acknowledgment of the fact that Klayman's sanctionable misconduct is likely to continue until the case is resolved, so it makes more sense to deal with it all at once, at the end of the case, as to grant it now and then later have to rule on yet another motion for sanctions.And it's not like Esquire put much effort into *this* argument for sanctions. If you look at page 9 of [/break1]scribd.com/doc/131278149/WND-v-Esquire-Appeal]Esquire's motion, they just have two sentences asking for sanctions, followed by a page of citations to other cases where sanctions were granted (plus the wonderful footnote listing other cases where Klayman's been sanctioned). It's not even a separate, discrete item in the motion brief.So maybe the court's leaving the door open for a better motion, one that better documents Klayman's misconduct with specificity, and points to parallel cases where sanctions were granted.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27239
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#285

Post by bob » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:19 pm

I read the "without prejudice" to refer to Klayman's conduct, i.e., if he continues to act in a sanctionable manner, Esquire is free to reallege these acts in a future motion for sanctions.I doubt Klayman will appreciate the warning shot. Taitz, OTOH, would have already issued a "press" release.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

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

#286

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:27 pm

So maybe the court's leaving the door open for a better motion, one that better documents Klayman's misconduct with specificity, and points to parallel cases where sanctions were granted.Very good point. Many judges are reluctant to award sanctions based on a passing mention like this (though Judge Wingate in Mississippi has in fact done that). Counsel for Esquire would be advised to sing for their supper, if they want it.

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

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

#287

Post by Loren » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:27 pm

The DC Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in the WND vs. Esquire appeal for October 3. The docket says it'll be before Judges Rogers, Brown, and Williams.FWIW, Williams was a Reagan appointee, and Janice Rogers Brown was an infamous George W. Bush appointee. So if WND loses 3-0 on this appeal, they're not gonna be able to cry about liberal bias.

MetoDC
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:37 am

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

#288

Post by MetoDC » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:55 pm

The DC Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in the WND vs. Esquire appeal for October 3. The docket says it'll be before Judges Rogers, Brown, and Williams.FWIW, Williams was a Reagan appointee, and Janice Rogers Brown was an infamous George W. Bush appointee. So if WND loses 3-0 on this appeal, they're not gonna be able to cry about liberal bias.Darn -- I would love to attend oral argument, but I will be in my San Francisco office. Typical.MetoDC

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8532
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

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

#289

Post by Northland10 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:01 pm

FWIW, Williams was a Reagan appointee, and Janice Rogers Brown was an infamous George W. Bush appointee. So if WND loses 3-0 on this appeal, they're not gonna be able to cry about liberal bias.Disagree with, or ruling against these folks make you a libtard, socialist, Marxist, nazi, gun-grabber. Actual policies or background are not a consideration. Did you tell them no? If so, they will call you all the bad names they know.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

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

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

#290

Post by realist » Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:05 pm

Farah v. Esquire Panel Has Significant Experience in First Amendment Cases


Posted on September 17, 2013 by Leslie Machado





[/break1]com/2013/09/17/farah-v-esquire-panel-has-significant-experience-in-first-amendment-cases/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=farah-v-esquire-panel-has-significant-experience-in-first-amendment-cases]http://dcslapplaw.com/2013/09/17/farah- ... ment-cases





The DC Circuit has announced that the Farah v. Esquire appeal will be heard on October 3, 2013 before Circuit Judges Rogers and Brown and Senior Circuit Judge Williams. In a separate post, I will summarize the background facts giving rise to the case, the proceedings in the district court and the issues on appeal. For now, however, I thought I would take a quick look at prior defamation/libel/First Amendment decisions involving these judges. As explained below, for two of the judges on the panel, there will be a sense of déjà vu when the argument begins on October 3.





Most notably, Judge Brown was part of the panel in Sherrod v. Breitbart, the only DC Circuit decision to date involving the DC anti-SLAPP statute. Unfortunately we cannot glean anything from that decision about her potential views on the issues in this case because she did not author the court’s opinion (which sidestepped the Erie issue and decided the case on timeliness grounds), nor did she write separately, as did Judge Griffith in concurrence to explain the panel’s decision to decide the merits before ascertaining jurisdiction.





While Judge Brown will be wading into the anti-SLAPP arena for the second time in recent months, Judge Williams might also have flashbacks, as this will be the second time he is involved in a defamation action involving Esquire magazine. In fact, 17 years ago, he authored one of the seminal libel decisions in the DC Circuit: McFarlane v. Esquire.





[...]





On appeal, the DC Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Williams, affirmed the district court’s decision in its entirety. The court held that actual malice could not be imputed to Esquire (because the reporter was an independent contractor), and must instead be demonstrated by looking only at the evidence that was available to Esquire, and the conduct of its employees. The court held that, although there was evidence that supported McFarlane’s theory that the critical source for the article was not truthful, the evidence, in the aggregate, did not demonstrate that Esquire acted with actual malice when it published the article.





In fact, all three Farah panel members have been involved in, and authored, significant DC Circuit First Amendment decisions.





In 2007, Judge Rogers authored the court’s decision in Jankovic v. International Crisis Group. There, Milan Jankovic alleged that three documents published by the defendant defamed him. After the district court held that the statute of limitations on the first two publications had expired, and the third was not capable of defamatory meaning, Jankovic appealed the dismissal of his case to the DC Circuit.more at the link
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

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

#291

Post by Loren » Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:53 am

The appeals court hearing was this morning. And although [/break1]wnd.com/2013/09/public-hearing-in-wnds-case-against-esquire/]WND was hyping this the other day, according to the court's own website, each side got 10 minutes of time to argue.It'll be interesting to see what Klayman argues. According to that article linked above, he still seems fixated on the fake screenshots...even though the court already threw out that part of his pleadings back in June, and denied all his motions relating to that.

bellbop
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 2:11 pm

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

#292

Post by bellbop » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:16 pm

No later than 3:00 pm, the oral argument should be available on [/break1]cadc.uscourts.gov]www.cadc.uscourts.gov.

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

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

#293

Post by Loren » Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:38 pm

No later than 3:00 pm, the oral argument should be available on [/break1]cadc.uscourts.gov]http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov.[/break1]cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings.nsf/]It's up and available.And since that page's content changes with time, [/break1]cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2014.nsf/5B998E248ACC94EF85257BF90053CE54/$file/12-7055.mp3]here's a direct link to the mp3 file.

rosy
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

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

#294

Post by rosy » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:19 pm

I've listened to the oral argument at the cadc site listed above. KKKlayman says that firstly, this case has nothing to do with eligibility issues, that Esquire's exhibits are not 'authenticated' (though the judge pointed out that Klayman had not challenged the documents' authenticity, Klayman said that this was "not relevant"), and that the case is about commercial injury and Farah's 1st amendment rights. Unfortunately though the attorneys are easy to hear, the judges are not, so it's hard to get a sense of what the judges are asking, particularly as Klayman seems to find it difficult to stick to answering the questions without saying things like [paraphrase] anyone calling us birthers are mean poopyheads, and that the previous judge was biased for making a ruling that Obama was born in the USA. Klayman touches on eligibility issues more than once, asserting that 25% of the population have doubts about Obama's eligibility, calling the birth certificate the "alleged" birth certificate. He didn't argue about the fake screenshots. He did say that Esquire had accused WND of fraud, which the judges did not seem to accept as they asked him to explain it more than once. Also, Mr K, 2.5 hours is not 90 minutes you thick idiot. Esquire's lawyer who seemed more focused on the issue of whether this was satire, and thus protected by the first amendment, or whether, as Klayman argued, the Esquire blog was designed to defraud the public. He pointed out that any commercial injuries that the plaintiffs claim would have had to be suffered only within the first 90 minutes after the blog was posted, before the clarification that it was satire was added. He stated political debate is protected speech, that satire and rhetorical hyperbole are accepted to be part of political commentary. He made a point of the 'humour' tag, which Klayman didn't address either in his argument or in rebuttal. One judge asked about the font size of the humour tag on the screen. Klayman in his argument, in response to a question, accepted that if the blog piece is satire then it is protected speech and Esquire's lawyer underlined this. However, Klayman seemed to resile from this in rebuttal. Both lawyers cited to the Falwell (?) case and another one which I couldn't hear properly.Esquire's lawyer argued that the reasonable reader would think that it was satire; especially given the improbable quotes, and that the book was published three weeks after the release of the birth certificate and it is therefore unlikely that the publisher would do nothing to withdraw the book during those three weeks but ship the book to bookstores and then recall it the next day. He also stated that even if some people didn't recognise it was satire, it should be obvious to the 'reasonable reader', and therefore the case should not go ahead. He said that despite Klayman's arguments of this being only a 12 b 6 motion (and therefore nothing that Esquire submitted should be looked at by the judges), the case was also an anti SLAPP hearing and so all the exhibits were pertinent and judicial notice should be taken of them.In rebuttal, Klayman wants discovery because he's certain that Esquire have emails stating that Esquire's writers "intend to destroy WND, Farah and Corsi just because they hate their guts". Also, he stated that Esquire's readers are not all 'leftist', because some people read Esquire for fashion tips.The judge then said that they'd take the ?case under advisement.IANAL so I may not have picked up all the points that are important.

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

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

#295

Post by AnitaMaria » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:28 pm

Interesting hearing. In keeping with birfer logic that direct statements that don't support the point you are trying to make can be interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what they are clearly saying...At one point (around 7:45), Klayman said that Mr. Farah's statement to the Daily Caller shortly after Esquire posted the article--where Farah said that the Esquire post was poorly done satire--was evidence that the article wasn't satire at all. That got an outburst of laughter from one judge and a giggle from another.

tjh
Posts: 2943
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

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

#296

Post by tjh » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:55 pm

Thanks for the transcripts =D> =D>

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

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

#297

Post by Loren » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:55 pm

At one point (around 7:45), Klayman said that Mr. Farah's statement to the Daily Caller shortly after Esquire posted the article--where Farah said that the Esquire post was poorly done satire--was evidence that the article wasn't satire at all. That got an outburst of laughter from one judge and a giggle from another.Yeah, that caught my attention.The other thing that stuck with me was when the judges asked Esquire's counsel about Joseph Farah's statement that he'd received calls from people at some of the top news agencies in the country asking if the story was true. And the judges wanted to know what Esquire had to say about that.I was sorely disappointed when Esquire's response wasn't simply to cast doubt on Joseph Farah's veracity in making the statement in the first place. "So he says he received an unspecified number of phone calls from some unnamed individuals at some unidentified but nonetheless 'major' news agencies. What am I supposed to rebut?"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27239
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#298

Post by bob » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:00 pm

Both lawyers cited to the Falwell (?) case and another one which I couldn't hear properly.[/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell]Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, [/break1]law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0485_0046_ZS.html]485 U.S. 46 (1988). Falwell contains a minor discussion about "reasonably believable," i.e., whether a reasonable person would understand that it was satire.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2909
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

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

#299

Post by p0rtia » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:02 pm

Pretty boring, I thought. Neither lawyer convince me of much, KKKlayman in particular--mentioning how F or C thought the humor (I can't remember what word he used, but I don't think it was satire) was bad was just awful. :shock: My favorite moment. When the Esquire lawyer said he rejected the notion that WND was in any way a competitor of Esquire. :-bdI wondered if the reason the lawyers didn't have good points to make was because the case is so dumb on all levels.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

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

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

#300

Post by Loren » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:09 pm

My favorite moment. When the Esquire lawyer said he rejected the notion that WND was in any way a competitor of Esquire. :-bdOh, that reminds me...at one point, Klayman is asked whether the same article, appearing on The Onion, would be satire.He says no.And I'm pretty sure he *also* claims that The Onion is a competitor of WND. Which I need to go back to confirm and quote, because that might be the single best quote to come out of the entire history of the case.

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”