Larry Klayman

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Larry Klayman

#2976

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:18 pm

pipistrelle wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:05 pm
sent me a text one Saturday morning while I was working out in the neighborhood gym
Did anyone else find including this irrelevant detail both incongruous and hilarious?
Also highly unlikely.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2977

Post by bob » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:44 pm

So: It would appear that, in February of this year, Klayman again sought a writ of mandate in the 9th regarding the Bundy court's denial of his PHV application. (N.b.: The district court dismissed the case in January.) In April, the 9th denied (Gould again dissenting). So Klayman, of course, filed a writ of mandate in SCOTUS:
SCOTUS Dkt. No. 18-140 wrote:Jul 20 2018 Petition for a writ of mandamus filed. (Response due August 30, 2018)

Aug 03 2018 Waiver of right of respondent UNITED STATES to respond filed.
No surprise:
SCOTUS wrote:Oct 01 2018 Petition DENIED.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2978

Post by bob » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:02 pm

"For completeness", in Klayman's FW's FOIA litigation against the BLM (to learn more about its activities regarding the Bundys), D.D.C. again layth down some smack:
Dkt. No. 16-2320 wrote:In this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case, Plaintiff Freedom Watch once again seeks discovery from Defendants Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and U.S. Department of Justice—specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)—due to developments in the criminal prosecution of Cliven Bundy, who is not a party here. [ . . . ] Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's latest request for discovery.

* * *

[T]the FBI indicated that it expected to require approximately 500 months to complete the processing of Plaintiff's FOIA request. [ . . . ] Notwithstanding this long timeline, on June 13, 2017, the Court adopted the FBI's proposed schedule of 500 pages per month because Plaintiff did not provide any “objective evidence” in support of its otherwise unsubstantiated objections. [ . . . ] Yet, the Court “remain[ed] amenable to receiving reasonable proposals from Plaintiff to expedite the production of responsive materials (e.g., by limiting the scope of its requests).”

* * *

On August 11, 2017, the Court again denied a request from Plaintiff for expedited production and for discovery. With regard to production speed, the Court reiterated that the immediacy predicated on Mr. Bundy's criminal case did not warrant expedited treatment in this case; rather, Mr. Bundy ought to take up the matter with the judge hearing his criminal case. [ . . . ] As for discovery, the Court found that Plaintiff had still failed to identify any indicia in this case of Defendants' bad faith. [ . . . ] The Court adopted BLM's proposed processing schedule of 1,000 documents per month and, yet again, “for the time being,” FBI's proposed schedule of 500 pages per month. [ . . . ] The Court ordered each party to submit further briefing regarding aspects of FBI's production rate. That further briefing resulted in the FBI's Declaration of David M. Hardy, and Plaintiff's Response to Court's Order of August 11, 2017, to which the Court shall turn below.

* * *

According to Plaintiff's Motion, the whistleblower report alleges significant misconduct within the BLM and FBI in the events precipitating the Bundy prosecution and in the prosecution itself. [ . . . ] Yet again, however, Plaintiff has failed to substantiate his allegations that any such misconduct taints Defendants' processing and production in this case. [ . . . ] (“Given these damning revelations, it is no wonder that Defendants here have provided blatantly inflated and outrageous timelines for the production of documents in an attempt to further the cover-up ....”).

Moreover, the Court's review of the District of Nevada docket in the criminal case against Cliven Bundy illustrates that any urgency to uncover bad faith in this case appears to be largely moot. Shortly after Plaintiff's Motion was filed and fully briefed, the criminal case against Mr. Bundy in Nevada was dismissed with prejudice on January 8, 2018. [ . . . ] The Government sought reconsideration of that decision, which the court denied on July 3, 2018. [ . . . ] In justifying its prior decision, the court stated that “a universal sense of justice was violated by the Government's failure to provide evidence that is potentially exculpatory.” [ . . . ] The District of Nevada docket reflects the Government's filing of an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 2, 2018. [ . . . ] Regardless of the outcome of that appeal, however, developments in Mr. Bundy's prosecution have vindicated this Court's decision to defer, repeatedly, to the criminal discovery process and the Nevada judge's handling of any breakdowns in that process.

The closest Plaintiff comes to furnishing any basis for discovery in this case is his argument that “what Defendants have produced thus far are overwhelmingly only press articles.” [ . . . ] Plaintiff does not mention, however, the reason that Defendants have given, if any, for not producing many other kinds of documents. It is quite possible, for example, that Defendants assert FOIA exemptions, such as Exemption 7(A), as to other responsive documents that they have reviewed. The Court shall require a response from the FBI and, in an abundance of caution, the BLM, regarding the nature of documents that they are not producing.

* * *

The FBI has submitted a declaration regarding its processing rate from David M. Hardy, the Section Chief of its Record/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division. [ . . . ] Mr. Hardy documents at length the rationale for the FBI's interim release policy of 500 pages per month. In summary terms, the FBI is experiencing ever-increasing “volume and complexity” of both FOIA requests and FOIA litigation. [ . . . ] The agency has devised methods for allocating its finite FOIA resources between competing demands. [ . . . ] Plaintiff's own FOIA request is exemplary of the strain placed on the FBI's resources: According to the FBI's four-queue classification system for FOIA requests, “[P]laintiff's overall multi-subject request equates to an extra-large queue request as it is in excess of approximately 100,000 pages.” [ . . . ]
Freedom Watch v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 16-2320 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2018).


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7063
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#2979

Post by Northland10 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:21 pm

Assuming he has received at least some responsive documents, either upon the initial request or an actual court case, what has he done with the results? Is he publicizing them on his website or WND as part of "investigative journalism"?

What's the purpose of the FOIA request unless you intend some result, beyond harassing the government?


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2980

Post by bob » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:27 pm

Northland10 wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:21 pm
What's the purpose of the FOIA request unless you intend some result, beyond harassing the government?
Grifting and :mememe: !

1. Klayman filed this FOIA suit before the judge dismissed the criminal charges, so his motive has changed, i.e., ... :
2. The Bundys now are suing the feds for $60M, so presumably Klayman will argue this information will aid in that suit.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2643
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2981

Post by woodworker » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:40 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:02 pm
"For completeness", in Klayman's FW's FOIA litigation against the BLM (to learn more about its activities regarding the Bundys), D.D.C. again layth down some smack:
Dkt. No. 16-2320 wrote:In this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case, Plaintiff Freedom Watch once again seeks discovery from Defendants Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and U.S. Department of Justice—specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)—due to developments in the criminal prosecution of Cliven Bundy, who is not a party here. [ . . . ] Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's latest request for discovery.

* * *

[T]the FBI indicated that it expected to require approximately 500 months to complete the processing of Plaintiff's FOIA request. [ . . . ] Notwithstanding this long timeline, on June 13, 2017, the Court adopted the FBI's proposed schedule of 500 pages per month because Plaintiff did not provide any “objective evidence” in support of its otherwise unsubstantiated objections. [ . . . ] Yet, the Court “remain[ed] amenable to receiving reasonable proposals from Plaintiff to expedite the production of responsive materials (e.g., by limiting the scope of its requests).”

* * *

On August 11, 2017, the Court again denied a request from Plaintiff for expedited production and for discovery. With regard to production speed, the Court reiterated that the immediacy predicated on Mr. Bundy's criminal case did not warrant expedited treatment in this case; rather, Mr. Bundy ought to take up the matter with the judge hearing his criminal case. [ . . . ] As for discovery, the Court found that Plaintiff had still failed to identify any indicia in this case of Defendants' bad faith. [ . . . ] The Court adopted BLM's proposed processing schedule of 1,000 documents per month and, yet again, “for the time being,” FBI's proposed schedule of 500 pages per month. [ . . . ] The Court ordered each party to submit further briefing regarding aspects of FBI's production rate. That further briefing resulted in the FBI's Declaration of David M. Hardy, and Plaintiff's Response to Court's Order of August 11, 2017, to which the Court shall turn below.

* * *

According to Plaintiff's Motion, the whistleblower report alleges significant misconduct within the BLM and FBI in the events precipitating the Bundy prosecution and in the prosecution itself. [ . . . ] Yet again, however, Plaintiff has failed to substantiate his allegations that any such misconduct taints Defendants' processing and production in this case. [ . . . ] (“Given these damning revelations, it is no wonder that Defendants here have provided blatantly inflated and outrageous timelines for the production of documents in an attempt to further the cover-up ....”).

Moreover, the Court's review of the District of Nevada docket in the criminal case against Cliven Bundy illustrates that any urgency to uncover bad faith in this case appears to be largely moot. Shortly after Plaintiff's Motion was filed and fully briefed, the criminal case against Mr. Bundy in Nevada was dismissed with prejudice on January 8, 2018. [ . . . ] The Government sought reconsideration of that decision, which the court denied on July 3, 2018. [ . . . ] In justifying its prior decision, the court stated that “a universal sense of justice was violated by the Government's failure to provide evidence that is potentially exculpatory.” [ . . . ] The District of Nevada docket reflects the Government's filing of an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 2, 2018. [ . . . ] Regardless of the outcome of that appeal, however, developments in Mr. Bundy's prosecution have vindicated this Court's decision to defer, repeatedly, to the criminal discovery process and the Nevada judge's handling of any breakdowns in that process.

The closest Plaintiff comes to furnishing any basis for discovery in this case is his argument that “what Defendants have produced thus far are overwhelmingly only press articles.” [ . . . ] Plaintiff does not mention, however, the reason that Defendants have given, if any, for not producing many other kinds of documents. It is quite possible, for example, that Defendants assert FOIA exemptions, such as Exemption 7(A), as to other responsive documents that they have reviewed. The Court shall require a response from the FBI and, in an abundance of caution, the BLM, regarding the nature of documents that they are not producing.

* * *

The FBI has submitted a declaration regarding its processing rate from David M. Hardy, the Section Chief of its Record/Information Dissemination Section, Records Management Division. [ . . . ] Mr. Hardy documents at length the rationale for the FBI's interim release policy of 500 pages per month. In summary terms, the FBI is experiencing ever-increasing “volume and complexity” of both FOIA requests and FOIA litigation. [ . . . ] The agency has devised methods for allocating its finite FOIA resources between competing demands. [ . . . ] Plaintiff's own FOIA request is exemplary of the strain placed on the FBI's resources: According to the FBI's four-queue classification system for FOIA requests, “[P]laintiff's overall multi-subject request equates to an extra-large queue request as it is in excess of approximately 100,000 pages.” [ . . . ]
Freedom Watch v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 16-2320 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2018).

The issuance of the Order on 9/25 is a most excellent b/day gift/


Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2982

Post by bob » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:31 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:50 pm
Oh this should be fun; N.D. Cal.:
4:17-cv-04864-CW - Robles v. In the Name of Humanity, We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America et al
Motion to Disqualify Judge
October 23. :popcorn:

(I predict it'll be resolved without a hearing. But, still.)
Bumped to November 20.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2983

Post by bob » Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:49 pm

FW: Williams & Connolly the Clintons’ and the Left’s “Go To Lawyers”!:
Today Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch and now the general counsel of Freedom Watch, as well as a former federal prosecutor of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice who was on the trial team that broke up the AT&T monopoly, announced that the law firm of Bill and Hillary Clinton has entered its appearance in this case (Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google/YouTube et. al (Civil Action No. 18-cv-2030), which was recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging an illegal agreement in restraint of trade between the social media companies to discriminate against conservatives.
Williams & Connolly is a big-name firm that also has represented George W. and Laura Bush, Paul Ryan, McConnell, Palin, Cheney, etc. (And that Clinton hater who likes beer used to work there too. Also.)

Pretty weaksauce :mememe: , even for Klayman.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 2007
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: Larry Klayman

#2984

Post by scirreeve » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:18 pm

Klayman representing Arpaio now and suing NY Times.
ARPAIO SUES NEW YORK TIMES FOR ALLEGED MALICIOUS DEFAMATION
Asks for Over $147,500,000.00 in Compensatory and Punitive Damages
https://www.freedomwatchusa.org/arpaio- ... defamation
Link to lawsuit https://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/181 ... 20Comp.pdf



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2985

Post by bob » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:26 pm

Arpaio's butthurt over this NYT article opinion piece: Well, at Least Sheriff Joe Isn’t Going to Congress.

Specifically:
His 24-year reign of terror was medieval in its brutality. In addition to conducting racial profiling on a mass scale and terrorizing immigrant neighborhoods with gratuitous raids and traffic stops and detentions, he oversaw a jail where mistreatment of inmates was the stuff of legend. Abuses ranged from the humiliating to the lethal. He brought back chain gangs. He forced prisoners to wear pink underwear. He set up an outdoor “tent city,” which he once referred to as a “concentration camp,” to hold the overflow of prisoners. Inmates were beaten, fed rancid food, denied medical care (this included pregnant women) and, in at least one case, left battered on the floor to die.

* * *

The number of inmates who hanged themselves in his facilities was far higher than in jails elsewhere in the country. More disturbing still, nearly half of all inmate deaths on his watch were never explained.

* * *

At the same time, Mr. Arpaio’s department could not be bothered to uphold the laws in which it had little interest. From 2005 through 2007, the sheriff and his deputies failed to properly investigate, or in some cases to investigate at all, more than 400 sex-crime cases, including those involving the rape of young children.
And:
Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., who so robustly devoted himself to terrorizing immigrants that he was eventually convicted of contempt of court and would have lived out his twilight years with a well-deserved criminal record if President Trump, a staunch admirer of Mr. Arpaio’s bare-knuckle approach to law enforcement, had not granted him a pardon.

* * *

Cast aside and left to wallow in the knowledge that his moment has passed, he has a fitting end to the public life of a true American villain.

* * *

It was no secret that Mr. Arpaio’s methods often crossed the line into the not-so-legal.

* * *

For nearly a quarter-century, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was a disgrace to law enforcement, a sadist masquerading as a public servant. In a just system, we would not see his like again.
Rhetorical hyperbole's acceptable for the president, but not for those who criticize his friends. :roll:

Klayman, natch, filed in the D.D.C., because ... ummm ... Arpaio was appointed in 1957 to the predecessor agency of the DEA, which was headquartered in D.C. :roll: And rich Republicans; they too (also) live in D.C., and might have read this NYT article. :roll:

The NYT has hampered Arpaio's ability to run for office in 2020, so he wants $147.5M. (Why not $150M and a pony?)


Prediction, if Klayman ever actually serves: it'll be transferred to S.D.N.Y.; Klayman's PHV application will be denied; and it will be voluntarily dismissed.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15920
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Larry Klayman

#2986

Post by Suranis » Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:13 pm

pipistrelle wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:05 pm
sent me a text one Saturday morning while I was working out in the neighborhood gym
Did anyone else find including this irrelevant detail both incongruous and hilarious?
Is that what they call "hanging around a Gym wearing a sailor suit" these days?


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2987

Post by bob » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:16 pm

To recap, Klayman presently is litigating:

Arpaio v. NYT
Moore v. Cohen
[Klayman's puppet] v. [Antifa]
[Klayman's puppet] v. [The Blacks]
[Klayman's puppet] v. [Clinton]
Klayman v. [Silicon Valley]
Montgomery and Klayman v. Comey
Bundy v. U.S. [criminal]
Bundy v. U.S. [civil]
Bundy v. U.S. [in state court]
[Bundy flunkies] v. U.S.
Cox v. U.S. [allegedly]
[The DC Bar wanting Klayman's license]
Klayman v. DC Bar
[A RHWONJ] v. [A RHWONJ] went to arbitration, presumably to die
37 FOIA cases
37 cases against Judicial Watch
37 more cases not even on my radar


... and, in his spare time, Klayman's citizen grand jury is supposed to roll out last month this month (or "any day now").


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34550
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2988

Post by realist » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:25 pm

bob wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:16 pm
To recap, Klayman presently is litigating:

Arpaio v. NYT
Moore v. Cohen
[Klayman's puppet] v. [Antifa]
[Klayman's puppet] v. [The Blacks]
[Klayman's puppet] v. [Clinton]
Klayman v. [Silicon Valley]
Montgomery and Klayman v. Comey
Bundy v. U.S. [criminal]
Bundy v. U.S. [civil]
Bundy v. U.S. [in state court]
Cox v. U.S. [allegedly]
[The DC Bar wanting Klayman's license]
Klayman v. DC Bar
[A RHWONJ] v. [A RHWONJ] went to arbitration, presumably to die
37 FOIA cases
37 cases against Judicial Watch
37 more cases not even on my radar


... and, in his spare time, Klayman's citizen grand jury is supposed to roll out last month this month (or "any day now").
That should keep his very large office staff of associate attorneys and paralegals and legal assistants him busy. :rotflmao:

Well, if he ever did any real legal work he'd have all that stuff, with the case load he carries. :lol:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 8021
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: DHS Psy-Ops HQ

Re: Larry Klayman

#2989

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:58 am

:lol: Bring on the Citizen's Grand Jury, let's get to it GIL! Maybe Orly and Pasture Manning will fly in.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34550
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2990

Post by realist » Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:29 am

Orlylicious wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:58 am
:lol: Bring on the Citizen's Grand Jury, let's get to it GIL! Maybe Orly and Pasture Manning will fly in.

They’ll probably testify.
Along with Arpaio and Zullo.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2991

Post by bob » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:50 pm

FW:
The "Jewish Left" Is a Danger to Jewry and Israel!
:
Klayman Announces Creation of “Coalition of the Jewish Right”

Let me get one thing clear up front. I am a proud Jew and Zionist! Jesus, having come and spoken to me on three occasions when I was very down and out and going through a very difficult period in my life, I also became a proud Christian. That's why I call myself a Jewish Christian.

* * *

Fast forward to the aftermath of the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. Leftist Jews such as Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, CNN host Jake Tapper at the obvious direction of CNN head Jeff Zucker, and billionaire and fellow Soros Democrat financier Tom Steyer (whose father was Jewish) wasted no time going on the airwaves to attack President Trump, incredibly blaming him for the massacre and suggesting that he is an anti-Semite, not to mention the cause of attempted bombings last week of leftist Democrats. This shameless political ploy intended to influence voters in the lead-up to the mid-term elections next week, leveled in the wake of the deadliest attack on Jews in our nation's history, was "one upped" by the likes of leftist Jewish writer Dana Millbank of the anti-Trump Washington Post, who wasted no time, while bodies were still being processed in morgues, penning an opinion piece titled "Trump's America is Not A Safe Place for Jews," The Washington Post, October 29, 2018.

* * *

While Jews, including yours truly are not against the ban of all Muslims from our shores, it is ironic that many in the Jewish Left will vilify President Trump as the cause of the Pittsburgh tragedy, but not look into the mirror and recognize that their reflexively anti-Trump actions, however wrongly, may have provoked this Neo-Nazi maniac to kill 11 of our fellow Jews.
P.S.: Send money.

Klayman's presently touting (in addition to FW):
* Coalition of the Jewish Right
* Freedom Watch's Justice League
* Leftist Media Strike Force
* Judicial Selection Strike Force Coalition
* Citizens Grand Jury


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 2830
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2992

Post by Whip » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:40 pm

Image



DmitriNotPetra
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:28 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2993

Post by DmitriNotPetra » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:48 pm

Reminder, Chris Farrell the director of investigations at Judicial Watch was kicked off of Fox News permanently because his George Soros theories were too anti-semitic for Fox News. That sounds like a joke. How intolerant do you have to be for FOX NEWS to go "Whoa, pump the hate brakes there, guy."



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2994

Post by bob » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:47 pm

FW: Klayman: This Is Further Evidence That the Social Media Companies Are Colluding to Restrain Trade:
Law360 [but behind a paywall]: Tech Giants Unite in Response to Conservative's $1b Suit:
Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple have said they'll be responding as one to a D.C. federal court proposed class action from a conservative legal provocateur seeking $1 billion and alleging the tech giants violated antitrust statutes and the First Amendment by censoring conservative content.

The Friday notice comes in the form of a motion asking for more time for the companies to jointly respond to the lawsuit launched in August from Freedom Watch Inc. The group is headlined and represented by estranged Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman, a conservative legal advocate who's made a name suing liberal politicians and wants to be named a special counsel so he can investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In Friday's motion, the tech companies asked for a roughly two-week extension to respond to the suit, from between Oct. 30 and Nov. 6, to Nov. 16.

* * *

According to the filing, an attorney for the tech companies asked Klayman for his assent to the proposed schedule, which would give him until Dec. 17 to respond.

The reaction to the schedule request from Klayman's camp was ultimately negative.

"Counsel for plaintiff replied that the schedule was 'OK if y'all acknowledge service.' Relying on this response, defendants prepared a joint motion for extension of time, sent it to counsel for plaintiff on October 22, 2018 and requested consent to file," the companies said. "Counsel for plaintiff replied on October 25, 2018: 'We oppose.'"

* * *

Klayman and counsel for the tech companies did not immediately respond to press inquiries late Monday.
Klayman's :mememe: isn't even about a proposed joint defense; it is about a joint request for an extension of time. :roll:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2995

Post by bob » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:51 pm

FW Klayman's site: Ryan Bundy Files Suit to Protect All Nevadans and Americans!:
Seeking Relief Against Federal Prosecutorial Injustice for Violations against Constitutional Rights

Ryan Bundy, candidate for Nevada Governor and his father, Cliven Bundy, will hold a press conference tomorrow, Wednesday, October 31, 2018, in front of the federal courthouse in Nevada where the fatally flawed indictment against them and other peaceful protesters, who had lawfully exercised their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and to keep and bear arms under the First and Second Amendments to successfully stand down a tyrannical federal government at Bunkerville, had been dismissed last January, 2018.

* * *

Now Ryan Bundy is fighting back against federal overreach and corruption in the courts and seeking to not just protect the constitutional rights of the people of Clark County, where the Bundy Ranch is located, but all Nevadans and Americans. The lawsuit which he filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will be distributed at the press conference, which will be attended by Ryan and Cliven and other members of the Bundy family, as well as supporters.

Mr. Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor, and who filed the suit with the Bundys in his private capacity, will also be present to speak. He will also discuss another complaint which he filed for Cliven Bundy, seeking a declaration that the land upon which he and others ranch, live and do business is owned not by the federal government, but as of right by the people of Clark County and Nevada.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7063
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#2996

Post by Northland10 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:43 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:51 pm
FW Klayman's site: Ryan Bundy Files Suit to Protect All Nevadans and Americans!:
Seeking Relief Against Federal Prosecutorial Injustice for Violations against Constitutional Rights

Now Ryan Bundy is fighting back against federal overreach and corruption in the courts and seeking to not just protect the constitutional rights of the people of Clark County, where the Bundy Ranch is located, but all Nevadans and Americans. The lawsuit which he filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will be distributed at the press conference, which will be attended by Ryan and Cliven and other members of the Bundy family, as well as supporters.

Mr. Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor, and who filed the suit with the Bundys in his private capacity, will also be present to speak. He will also discuss another complaint which he filed for Cliven Bundy, seeking a declaration that the land upon which he and others ranch, live and do business is owned not by the federal government, but as of right by the people of Clark County and Nevada.
Wonder how that will work out seeing that the DC court transferred the Lovelien case from DC to Nevada. I posted the order in the Bundy thread.

viewtopic.php?p=1038575#p1038575


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#2997

Post by bob » Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:44 pm

Cross-responding:
Northland10 wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:38 pm
scirreeve wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:25 pm
Cross post from Klayman topic.
Klayman suing the Bundy prosecutors and other folks.
(Washington, D.C., August 9, 2018). Today, Larry Klayman announced the filing of a $60 million dollar lawsuit against federal prosecutors Steven Myhre, Daniel Schiess and Nadia Ahmed of the U.S. Attorney in Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") Neil Kornze, the FBI, and BLM, who are alleged to have entrapped, manufactured, and used false evidence to indict peaceful protesters Rick Lovelien and Steven Stewart in the criminal prosecutions stemming from the 2014 successful standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada.
The DC Court transferred the case to Nevada.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 13.0_2.pdf
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting the United States of America's 9 Motion to Transfer Case. The Clerk of Court shall transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and shall close this case. See attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Trevor N. McFadden on 10/12/2018. (lctnm3) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
This case too (also) is not long for this world: Klayman's not licensed in Nevada, and he'll never have a PHV application granted again. Unless Whipple picks up the gauntlet, it'll be donzo soon enough.

And I expect Ryan's suit to take a similarly circular route to the round file.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7063
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#2998

Post by Northland10 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:48 pm

In his second case against people on the DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel there was this activity.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/79 ... man-v-lim/
09/27/2018 3 MOTION OF REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF HOW AND WHY THIS COURT WAS ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE by LARRY KLAYMAN (Klayman, Larry) Modified relief on 9/28/2018 (ztd). (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018 4 STANDING ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives set forth in the attached Standing Order. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/27/2018. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

10/04/2018 MINUTE ORDER: In light of Plaintiff's Motion for Disclosure 3 , the Court advises Plaintiff that his case was assigned to this judge because it was flagged by the Clerks Office as related to Klayman v. Fox, Civ. No. 18-1579 (D.D.C.). The Clerks Office screens for and assigns related status in pro se suits. See LCvR 40.5 (a)(3) ("[A] case filed by a pro se litigant with a prior case pending shall be deemed related and assigned to the judge having the earliest case."). The Court sees no reason why that rule should not apply in this case. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/4/2018. (lcrdm3, ) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
His motion is here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .3.0_2.pdf

Klayman had a sad that the court determined the cases were related. Could it be he was trying to get a different judge instead of just amending the original complaint with the new information he claims are part of his new case?


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7063
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#2999

Post by Northland10 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:54 pm

bob wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:47 pm
FW: Klayman: This Is Further Evidence That the Social Media Companies Are Colluding to Restrain Trade:
Law360 [but behind a paywall]: Tech Giants Unite in Response to Conservative's $1b Suit:
In Friday's motion, the tech companies asked for a roughly two-week extension to respond to the suit, from between Oct. 30 and Nov. 6, to Nov. 16.

* * *
The reaction to the schedule request from Klayman's camp was ultimately negative.

"Counsel for plaintiff replied that the schedule was 'OK if y'all acknowledge service.' Relying on this response, defendants prepared a joint motion for extension of time, sent it to counsel for plaintiff on October 22, 2018 and requested consent to file," the companies said. "Counsel for plaintiff replied on October 25, 2018: 'We oppose.'"
Klayman's :mememe: isn't even about a proposed joint defense; it is about a joint request for an extension of time. :roll:
Mr. Extension opposes others' requests for extensions. How GIL of him.

It's moot anyway.
10/26/2018 MINUTE ORDER granting the Defendants' 12 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before November 16, 2018. Plaintiff shall oppose any motion to dismiss filed by Defendants on or before December 17, 2018. Defendants may reply to any opposition on or before January 11, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Trevor N. McFadden on 10/26/18. (ltnm1) (Entered: 10/26/2018)


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24847
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#3000

Post by bob » Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:57 pm

MOTION OF REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF HOW AND WHY THIS COURT WAS ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE by LARRY KLAYMAN (Klayman, Larry)
That's some Taitzian level of dumb.

(And I note Klayman's back to his Florida office mail box.)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”