Larry Klayman

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3602
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4076

Post by Jim »

Dave at Sea wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:01 pm There is no depths that Larry would not gladly go to.
where GIL's already at...he doesn't have far to go.
Jcolvin2
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: Larry Klayman

#4077

Post by Jcolvin2 »

Jim wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:03 pm
Dave at Sea wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:01 pm There is no depths that Larry would not gladly go to.
where GIL's already at...he doesn't have far to go.
Just another case of lowering the BAR.
User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 3081
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4078

Post by woodworker »

GIL Klayman can, and will, go deeper. Just imagine if one of the BLM protesters were to sue the great orange shitgibbon for his comments that police shouldn't be so gentle and claim a chain of causation to injuries suffered. GIL will rush right in and proudly proclaim that such a theory and claim is total nonsense. His theories are only applicable to black/brown/etc. DEMOCRATS. Not god-fearing (must be christian god of course) republicans.
bring out the tumbrils. I am so fucking filled with pain and anger at what is going on in this country. I do deeply believe that if trump somehow retains power it will be the end of democracy in this country and the end of this country as we know it.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10053
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4079

Post by Northland10 »

bob wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:58 pm
Exclusive: Larry Klayman spotlights Trump-appointed judge over 'sad and despicable abdication'
Did Facebook memories remind GIL it was time to celebrate past failures?
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4080

Post by bob »

FW: GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM SUED OVER MASK AND "HOME IMPRISONMENT" ORDERS:
Press Conference With Judy Mikovits and Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, and now General Counsel of Freedom Watch, announced that the previous complaint filed for declaratory judgment relief by Ben Stein against Governor Gavin Newsom, has been amended as a class action to include as a lead plaintiff, Judy Mikovits, a world reknowed expert in virology. A press conference announcing the suit will be held [in Sacramento] at 11:00 A.M. Pacific.

The amended complaint challenges Governor Newsom's unconstitutional actions over stay at home and mandatory mask orders, both of which are detrimental to the health and well-being of California citizens. . . .

Ben Stein is an accomplished actor, writer, lawyer and financial expert and Judy Mikovits is the co-author, along with Kent Heckenlively, of the New York Times best selling book "Plague of Corruption," and a reknowed expert in virology who worked alongside Dr. Anthony Falci at the military's research facility in Ft. Detrick, Maryland.
The amended complaint, filed a California superior court, has two counts of injunctive relief and six counts seeking declaratory judgment.

Klayman is both "of counsel" and "PHV application pending"; no local counsel listed. (Klayman is not licensed in California.) Stein and Mikovits are both pro per, with an address of ... Klayman's Western office mailbox.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 3319
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Larry Klayman

#4081

Post by Grumpy Old Guy »

Is Klayman’s declaration that his Pro Hac Vice application is pending a statement of fact or a wish?

I see no mention of his suspension.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29033
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Larry Klayman

#4082

Post by RTH10260 »

Did Klayman declare his pending suspension :?: :think:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4083

Post by bob »

Grumpy Old Guy wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:38 pm Is Klayman’s declaration that his Pro Hac Vice application is pending a statement of fact or a wish?
Yes.

It is perfunctory; I can't be bothered to search the docket to see if he actually applied.
I see no mention of his suspension.
There's no legal reason for Klayman to mention his pending suspension in either the complaint or his presser.

I assume the nominal plaintiffs are pro per so Klayman can ghostwrite for them once he's officially suspended.

But Klayman's not in it to win it; he's just trying to grift off the anti-vaxxers.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 3319
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Larry Klayman

#4084

Post by Grumpy Old Guy »

Thanks bob as always.

It takes a deep level of stupid to expect Larry's lawsuits to achieve anything, but if only a tiny fraction of the population has that level, that will be enough to support Larry's grift.
User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4085

Post by Dr. Caligari »

I assume the nominal plaintiffs are pro per so Klayman can ghostwrite for them once he's officially suspended.
An individual can be pro per, but not if she's a class-action plaintiff, because that means, by definition, she's representing others. So only someone represented by a lawyer can file a class action.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4086

Post by bob »

Dr. Caligari wrote: Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:05 pmAn individual can be pro per, but not if she's a class-action plaintiff, because that means, by definition, she's representing others. So only someone represented by a lawyer can file a class action.
:shh:

Klayman's griftees don't know that.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4087

Post by bob »

bob wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:14 pm Klayman's streak continues unabated: In the old-ish case, Strange v. Iran [parents of slain SEAL member versus the mooooolims], the D.C. district court dismissed all claims against the Afgan defendants due to lack of jurisdiction.
This case, which was filed in 2014, is down to three defendants: Iran, Al Queda, and the Taliban. Klayman had attempted to serve the former Afghani president via Twitter, but the district court didn't bite. The district did certify the issue for interlocutory appeal ... and Klayman blew the deadline.

So the D.C. Cir. dismissed. The interlocutory appeal. Of Klayman's attempt to serve. By Twitter. Because Klayman blew a deadline. :brickwallsmall:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29033
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Larry Klayman

#4088

Post by RTH10260 »

bob wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:36 pm
bob wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:14 pm Klayman's streak continues unabated: In the old-ish case, Strange v. Iran [parents of slain SEAL member versus the mooooolims], the D.C. district court dismissed all claims against the Afgan defendants due to lack of jurisdiction.
This case, which was filed in 2014, is down to three defendants: Iran, Al Queda, and the Taliban. Klayman had attempted to serve the former Afghani president via Twitter, but the district court didn't bite. The district did certify the issue for interlocutory appeal ... and Klayman blew the deadline.

So the D.C. Cir. dismissed. The interlocutory appeal. Of Klayman's attempt to serve. By Twitter. Because Klayman blew a deadline. :brickwallsmall:
:think: Wonder how Klayman intends to serve "Al Queda" and "Taliban". Do they also have a P.O. Box near his own where the Ghost of Osama Bin Laden checks in to pick up some stray mailings :?:

:lol:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4089

Post by bob »

RTH10260 wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:56 pmWonder how Klayman intends to serve "Al Queda" and "Taliban".
The district court permitted Klayman to serve Al Queda and the Taliban by publication. The D.C. Cir.'s ruling did not go into further detail, and the ruling was only about the former Afghani president.

Best-case scenario for Klayman his clients is a default judgment for bazillions of dollars. Suitable for framing, but not much else.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Frater I*I
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 5:08 pm
Location: City of Dis, Sixth Circle of Hell
Occupation: Aviation Mechanic

Re: Larry Klayman

#4090

Post by Frater I*I »

bob wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:14 pm
RTH10260 wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:56 pmWonder how Klayman intends to serve "Al Queda" and "Taliban".
The district court permitted Klayman to serve Al Queda and the Taliban by publication. The D.C. Cir.'s ruling did not go into further detail, and the ruling was only bout the former Afghani president.

Best-case scenario for Klayman his clients is a default judgment for bazillions of dollars. Suitable for framing, but not much else.
You know, knowing how pathetic of a lawyer he is, I almost wish that Al Queda and the Taliban would hire US law firms to rep them and take the case to trial. Imagine how one's resume would look knowing you lost a case to terrorist groups [yes, I really think Klayman would botch it to that level].
Gazer Into the SovCit Abyss
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10053
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4091

Post by Northland10 »

Northland10 wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:22 pm
Northland10 wrote: Sun May 24, 2020 2:08 pm
bob wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:04 pm
Klayman's site: Buttigieg and Warren Sued by George Zimmerman:

"Interesting" that Klayman Zimmerman is suing in state court folks in other states for gazillions; in other words, he's begging for federal removal.
And so they answered his begging and pleading. Removed to the MD of Florida.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17 ... buttigieg/
It was removed to the Middle District of Florida on 8 May 2020. Klayman has still not made an appearance nor filed anything. The defense filed an MTD on 29 May 2020.

There was a telephonic hearing regarding the PHV requests (bonus for RW outrage - they are both from Perkins Coie). He may or may not have been there as I am cannot tell for sure. In an order granting PHV, the judge did say:
To the extent Plaintiff objects to these motions for the reasons stated on the record, such objections are overruled.
I don't know if he was at the hearing and objected, if he was not and the judge was covering future objections, or if this boilerplate.
So, the defendants filed an MTD, to which Klayman later requested an extension for the response (which was granted), and he filed the response. Three days later, he filed a motion to withdraw as attorney.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
The undersigned counsel, having reached an impasse in legal representation as a result of a conflicting situation with his client George Zimmerman hereby moves to withdraw as counsel in this case. Mr. Zimmerman has previously indicated that he will consent to this withdrawal.
Conflicting situation? Did Zimmerman expect Larry to actually represent him and put in an effort? Did George get cold feet when the DC Court of Appeals ruling came down?

However, his attempt to withdraw hit a snag.
ENDORSED ORDER: The 21 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff George Zimmerman is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) and failure to provide notice to opposing counsel in accordance with Local Rule 2.03(b). If Plaintiff's counsel files a renewed motion to withdraw (and if successor counsel has not appeared by that time), counsel shall include in his renewed motion a mailing address and telephone number for the Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 6/29/2020. (AHA) (Entered: 06/29/2020)
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 3319
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Larry Klayman

#4092

Post by Grumpy Old Guy »

So that fine lawyer Larry is not even capable of properly withdrawing from a case.
User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14114
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4093

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Grumpy Old Guy wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:08 pm So that fine lawyer Larry is not even capable of properly withdrawing from a case.
That much libeled and blamed "staff" of GIL no ddoubt.
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.
Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 3319
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Larry Klayman

#4094

Post by Grumpy Old Guy »

Notorial Dissent wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 4:09 am
Grumpy Old Guy wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:08 pm So that fine lawyer Larry is not even capable of properly withdrawing from a case.
That much libeled and blamed "staff" of GIL no ddoubt.
It’s hard for staff to maintain social distancing when they have to work in a mailbox.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4095

Post by bob »


:thumbs:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Frater I*I
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 5:08 pm
Location: City of Dis, Sixth Circle of Hell
Occupation: Aviation Mechanic

Re: Larry Klayman

#4096

Post by Frater I*I »

bob wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:11 pm :snippity:
Welp....sometimes you just gotta go back to the well...he's got a mortgage payment due after all... :thumbs:
Gazer Into the SovCit Abyss
User avatar
tek
Posts: 4951
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Lake Humidity, FL
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Larry Klayman

#4097

Post by tek »

Time to get the band back together I guess
There's no way back
from there to here
User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 3081
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4098

Post by woodworker »

Where was publication supposed to be? NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, Terrorists Daily, Afghan Daily Journal, etc.? And if supposed to be in foreign press, I would assume it would have be in the appropriate language and done by a certified interpreter, and I just can't see GIL spending thousands of dollars on a certified interpreter.
bring out the tumbrils. I am so fucking filled with pain and anger at what is going on in this country. I do deeply believe that if trump somehow retains power it will be the end of democracy in this country and the end of this country as we know it.
User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 3081
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4099

Post by woodworker »

And I want the judge in the zimmerman bullshit to require zimmerman to state the exact nature of the conflict, i.e., GIL only wants to raise money and not do any work.
bring out the tumbrils. I am so fucking filled with pain and anger at what is going on in this country. I do deeply believe that if trump somehow retains power it will be the end of democracy in this country and the end of this country as we know it.
User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4100

Post by Dr. Caligari »

9th Circ. Affirms DQ'ing Of Larry Klayman From Berkeley Suit
By Kevin Penton

Law360 (July 13, 2020, 5:13 PM EDT) -- The Ninth Circuit has upheld a California federal judge's move to toss attorney Larry Klayman from a suit that challenged how the city of Berkeley and the University of California, Berkeley handled a protest for an event featuring conservative figure Milo Yiannopoulos, holding that the judge properly cited the lawyer's disciplinary record.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken did not abuse her discretion by revoking Klayman's permission to work on the case in a state in which he is not licensed, given that the Ninth Circuit itself has taken issue with the lawyer's "concerning conduct" and "unflattering record," a three-judge panel said Friday.

Judge Wilken in part cited the Ninth Circuit's 2016 ruling in In re: Bundy , in which the appellate court noted that Klayman had previously been sanctioned for making "frivolous pleadings," that he had been found to have engaged in "discovery abuse" and that he had behaved "rudely and unprofessionally," among other things, according to court documents.

"The district court did not commit any legal error in concluding that plaintiff's right to counsel of choice could be outweighed by the court's interests in the 'ethical and orderly administration of justice,'" the panel said.

Klayman was representing Yiannopoulos supporter Kiara Robles in a lawsuit against the city of Berkeley, several UC Berkeley officials and Raha Mirabdal and Ian Dabney Miller, two individuals who purportedly were protesting a February 2017 campus speech by Yiannopoulos, a former editor at the conservative website Breitbart News.

Robles alleges school officials and Berkeley police withheld protection as a way to interfere with her First Amendment free speech and assembly rights, according to court documents.

The Ninth Circuit on Friday also affirmed Judge Wilken's tossing of Robles' claims against the city, the UC Berkeley officials and Miller.

The court held that Judge Wilken correctly found that Robles failed to establish the school officials were part of a "state-created danger" and that city police had a custom or policy that discriminated against conservatives like herself. The court also held that Judge Wilken did not abuse her discretion by declining to have jurisdiction over Robles' claims against Miller.

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Wilken's tossing of Robles' battery claim against Mirabdal, finding the lower court should hear more on whether Mirabdal "aided and abetted" others who purportedly attacked Robles with flagpoles, bear mace and pepper spray, according to Friday's opinion.

"Plaintiff's allegation that Mirabdal physically attacked other Yiannopoulos supporters lends plausibility to her allegation that Mirabdal was a participant in a coordinated attack," the court said.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Wilken's denial of Robles' bid for the judge to exit the case, saying the judge being a UC Berkeley graduate and former adjunct is insufficient grounds for a disqualification.

"The Ninth Circuit only reaffirmed what has been demonstrated throughout this case, the ethical and orderly administration of justice must come before political posturing and gamesmanship,"said John Hamasaki, an attorney representing Miller.

Klayman told Law360 on Monday that Robles intends to refile the case in state court, where they hope to find a judge who is unbiased. He said the Ninth Circuit "circled the proverbial judicial wagon" to protect Judge Wilken.

"Judge Wilken's federal judicial misconduct is one of the worst I have experienced in 43 years of practice, and I have seen a lot," Klayman said. "If not before the Ninth Circuit, she will be held to account."

Rachel Lederman, an attorney representing Mirabdal, told Law360 on Monday that her client was sued after Robles apparently learned that Mirabdal was amongst hundreds of people at the February 2017 event. She said her client intends to challenge the ruling.

"The Ninth Circuit holding allowing the plaintiff to continue with this litigation, based essentially on my client's presence in the crowd demonstrating against racism and fascism, is erroneous and dangerous," Lederman said. "The law requires more in the way of plausible factual allegations to maintain a lawsuit."

UC Berkeley said in a statement that it is "pleased that the Ninth Circuit recognized that the university's officials acted appropriately and in keeping with Ms. Robles' constitutional rights."

Counsel for the city of Berkeley could not be reached for comment Monday.

U.S. Circuit Judges Milan D. Smith Jr. and Andrew D. Hurwitz and U.S. District Judge C. Ashley Royal sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law
Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”