Larry Klayman

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Larry Klayman

#1751

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:43 pm

bob wrote:
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:Is there any proof the parents authorized the suit?
"Proof"? No.

But Patricia Smith (one of the two plaintiffs) spoke at the RNC, and accused Clinton of calling her (Smith) a liar (the basis for the defamation claim).
Smith lives here in San Diego, and we met once immediately prior to one of her Hannity appearances. She is, to put it charitably, an unsophisticated individual, and she did not hate Mrs. Clinton until Sean Hannity told her to.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1752

Post by bob » Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:23 pm

Klayman's latest may deserve its own thread, if Clinton's lawyers learn :sterngard: 's favorite five-letter acronym:
Sekrit Stuffs!
SLAPP. :twisted:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Larry Klayman

#1753

Post by Piffle » Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:20 pm

bob wrote:Klayman's latest may deserve its own thread, if Clinton's lawyers learn :sterngard: 's favorite five-letter acronym:
Sekrit Stuffs!
SLAPP. :twisted:
Sekrit Stuffs!
Yep. IIRC, there are still some unsettled issues pertaining to the reach of DC's anti-SLAPP law in federal diversity cases. In the last round that I know of, the DC Circuit ruled that the federal court should have dismissed immediately for lack of personal jurisdiction, thus destroying the SLAPP defense and its consequences to -- you guessed it -- Larry Klayman and his bigoted client du jour. Forras v. Rauf (DC Circuit, 2016). Somebody else who has PACER or WestLaw can look up a proper cite.

What's still hard to tell, IMO, is which Rule 12(b) reasons for dismissal are to be parsed by the (DC) federal district court before it can entertain a special anti-SLAPP motion. Would it apply to sovereign immunity? (I'd guess so) Expired state law statute of limitations? (I'd guess not)

Here, Klayman is alleging at least one intentional tort (facially escaping immunity argument?) that is poorly pleaded and for which the SoL has run. (Thanks BB!) Does this get past the district court's threshold jurisdictional analysis such that an anti-SLAPP special motion is heard prior to dismissing for state law deficiencies?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1754

Post by bob » Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:49 pm

Piffle wrote:In the last round that I know of, the DC Circuit ruled that the federal court should have dismissed immediately for lack of personal jurisdiction, thus destroying the SLAPP defense and its consequences to -- you guessed it -- Larry Klayman and his bigoted client du jour.
Forras v. Rauf, 812 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2016):
The question in this case is whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, Adam Bailey, when (i) the Plaintiffs, Larry Klayman and Vincent Forras, are not District of Columbia residents; (ii) Defendant Bailey never set foot in the District in the two decades prior to the lawsuit; (iii) the lawsuit arises from allegedly defamatory statements Bailey made in a New York state court filing that (iv) were later published by a New York reporter (v) in a New York paper, and (vi) the statements concern Klayman's and Forras's roles in New York litigation concerning (vii) a controversial construction project in New York City.

The answer to that question is a straightforward “no.” There is no personal jurisdiction in this case over Bailey in the District of Columbia.
Nb.: Klayman alleges Clinton was (and is) a D.C. resident. (One plaintiff is a California resident, the other is from Oregon.)

If Klayman can show that Clinton is a D.C. resident (or she admits to being one), then much of the discussion in Forras is inapplicable to this case.


Clinton's purported statements to the family members were made on September 14, 2012 (in Maryland). But Klayman focuses on Clinton's December 2015, March 2016, and July 2016 statements in which she said the plaintiffs were wrong about their version of events. So, according to Klayman, it is defamation to say someone else is wrong. :roll:


Oh: The claims relating to the deaths are clearly fishing expeditions to see what's on Clinton's server.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
tek
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Larry Klayman

#1755

Post by tek » Tue Aug 09, 2016 5:43 pm

On a fishing expedition? GIL? say it ain't so!
:bored:
There's no way back
from there to here

User avatar
Dandelion
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 10:30 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1756

Post by Dandelion » Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:27 pm


User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1757

Post by bob » Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:34 pm

FOX(!) (Opinion): Families' lawsuit against Clinton over Benghazi doesn't hold up:
Gregg Jarrett wrote:From a purely legal standpoint, a roll of toilet paper has more value.

No one doubts the heartache these parents have endured. And no one should question the valor of their sons who lost their lives. However, this lawsuit is so groundless and specious that it threatens to diminish our memory of them.

[ * * * ]

The parents who agreed to be represented by Klayman have done themselves no favors. His role as their attorney will raise an immediate red flag to the judge that this case is, in all likelihood, politically motivated. Never a good thing.

Expect the defense to file a motion to dismiss. Expect it to be granted. If the plaintiffs are lucky, they’ll simply walk away with nothing.

If they are unlucky, they’ll get hit with sanctions for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
A lay explanation for the baselessness is at the link.

[ * * * ]

Esquire (shirley no Klayman fan): Oh, Look, More Benghazi:
To say the very least, the lawsuit is groundless; the idea that ex post facto comments about the video were somehow "false and defamatory" is prima facie evidence that this is a ratfcking nuisance suit aimed at hobbling a candidate/president on behalf of person or persons unknown. Oddly, another piece of prima facie evidence to that effect is mysteriously missing from the Times account.

For that, we have to move on to The New York Post. Watch where you step.
NYP wrote:The parents of the slain Americans are being represented by Larry Klayman, a longtime foe of the Clintons. "Hillary Clinton has been thus far fortunate, throughout her career, to escape the long arm of the law, believing and acting as if she is above the law. This time, her 'luck' has run out," he said in a statement.
The Post is being polite. Klayman is the legal equivalent of a flesh-eating bacteria. Just last month, he said he was going to sue the current president for endangering his life as a white man. More recently, he proposed a novel theory on why the current president hasn't yet been impeached. He also sued the administration over the Ebola virus—and that is not something I wrote to be funny, either.

I can't recall a news story about the filing of a lawsuit in which the plaintiff's attorney wasn't at the very least named, let alone quoted. The fact that Klayman is the genius behind this one strikes me as a salient fact as regards the merits of the lawsuit. Why the Times would choose to overlook this strikes me as both bizarre on its face, and yet consistent with the newspaper's coverage of the Clintons going all the way back to Jeff Gerth's original botched reporting on Whitewater.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1758

Post by bob » Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:38 pm

Family Liberty Patriot wrote: Smith lives here in San Diego, and we met once immediately prior to one of her Hannity appearances. She is, to put it charitably, an unsophisticated individual, and she did not hate Mrs. Clinton until Sean Hannity told her to.
And the other plaintiff: Oregonian: Navy SEAL wouldn't want Benghazi lawsuit, mother says; father looking for 'justice':
One of the parents is Charles Woods, father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods.

[ * * * ]

Tyrone Woods' mother, Cheryl Croft Bennett, who is not involved in the lawsuit, says her son wouldn't have wanted it. "He was very private person," Bennett said of her son.

The maternal side of Tyrone Woods' family chooses "to honor him with dignity and respect as the warrior that he was," Bennett said. "We are not filled with anger and hate."

[ * * * ]

Charles Woods was not made available for comment.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1759

Post by bob » Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:25 pm

A commenter at Doc's noted that, although the Clintons own this house in D.C. (and is the address listed on Klayman's complaint), their primary residence is in New York. (Unlike Trump's children) Clinton voted in New York's primary.

So I'm guessing the lack of personal jurisdiction will factor into not seeking a SLAPP award. :madguy:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Larry Klayman

#1760

Post by Piffle » Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:42 pm

bob wrote:
Piffle wrote:In the last round that I know of, the DC Circuit ruled that the federal court should have dismissed immediately for lack of personal jurisdiction, thus destroying the SLAPP defense and its consequences to -- you guessed it -- Larry Klayman and his bigoted client du jour.
Forras v. Rauf, 812 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2016):
The question in this case is whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, Adam Bailey, when (i) the Plaintiffs, Larry Klayman and Vincent Forras, are not District of Columbia residents; (ii) Defendant Bailey never set foot in the District in the two decades prior to the lawsuit; (iii) the lawsuit arises from allegedly defamatory statements Bailey made in a New York state court filing that (iv) were later published by a New York reporter (v) in a New York paper, and (vi) the statements concern Klayman's and Forras's roles in New York litigation concerning (vii) a controversial construction project in New York City.

The answer to that question is a straightforward “no.” There is no personal jurisdiction in this case over Bailey in the District of Columbia.
Nb.: Klayman alleges Clinton was (and is) a D.C. resident. (One plaintiff is a California resident, the other is from Oregon.)

If Klayman can show that Clinton is a D.C. resident (or she admits to being one), then much of the discussion in Forras is inapplicable to this case.


Clinton's purported statements to the family members were made on September 14, 2012 (in Maryland). But Klayman focuses on Clinton's December 2015, March 2016, and July 2016 statements in which she said the plaintiffs were wrong about their version of events. So, according to Klayman, it is defamation to say someone else is wrong. :roll:


Oh: The claims relating to the deaths are clearly fishing expeditions to see what's on Clinton's server.
I think you're missing the point. My question is this: Where would the DC Circuit, moving forward, draw the line between jurisdictional defects that the court must reach prior to entertaining a special anti-SLAPP motion and those defects that may result in dismissal on a 12(b) motion after affording defendant an anti-SLAPP toehold? Given that the DC Circuit CoA to date has been far from SLAPP-happy, would they rule that a 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on an immunity defense knocks out an anti-SLAPP special motion tearing apart the myriad egregious and frivolous state law flaws? (BTW, has there been a case yet where the DC CIrcuit has affirmed the granting of an anti-SLAPP special motion by a district court?)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1761

Post by bob » Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Piffle wrote:My question is this: Where would the DC Circuit, moving forward, draw the line between jurisdictional defects that the court must reach prior to entertaining a special anti-SLAPP motion and those defects that may result in dismissal on a 12(b) motion after affording defendant an anti-SLAPP toehold? Given that the DC Circuit CoA to date has been far from SLAPP-happy, would they rule that a 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on an immunity defense knocks out an anti-SLAPP special motion tearing apart the myriad egregious and frivolous state law flaws? (BTW, has there been a case yet where the DC CIrcuit has affirmed the granting of an anti-SLAPP special motion by a district court?)
The defamation claim is barred by neither statute of limitations nor immunity (as it is based on post-Secretaryship statements). So it'll survive the first volley, but, at the minimum, there's no personal jurisdiction.

So I don't think there'll be an anti-SLAPP toehold left. (Nor do I think Clinton will actually seek a SLAPP award.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Larry Klayman

#1762

Post by Piffle » Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:16 pm

bob wrote:The defamation claim is barred by neither statute of limitations nor immunity (as it is based on post-Secretaryship statements). So it'll survive the first volley, but, at the minimum, there's no personal jurisdiction.

So I don't think there'll be an anti-SLAPP toehold left. (Nor do I think Clinton will actually seek a SLAPP award.)
:rotflmao: And my first thought was that personal jurisdiction might be the only thing GIL got right. The more I see of that boy, the less I think sternsigging is uniquely a quality attributable to Orly.

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9772
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Larry Klayman

#1763

Post by GreatGrey » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:53 am

Even FOX thinks it's bullshit

And Klayman was DEFAMED!

http://freakoutnation.com/2016/08/fox-g ... ies-video/
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1764

Post by bob » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:46 am

Klayman must be in hog heaven: Unlike most of his cases, this one has gotten him lots of media coverage.

While reading all of these news articles about Klayman, I can't help but notice portions of them are cribbed from the Wikipedia article about Klayman.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1765

Post by BillTheCat » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:18 pm

bob wrote:Klayman must be in hog heaven: Unlike most of his cases, this one has gotten him lots of media coverage.
Leave it to only him and Orly to think that it's awesome to be named in a news story for the day, even though every article regarding the story says you're insane and the case should be tossed like the garbage it is.

WINNING! :thumbs:
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1766

Post by bob » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:37 pm

Ob. Wonkette: Hey, What’s Larry Klayman Doing? Oh Just Suing Hillary Clinton For Email-Murdering Benghazi:
There were lots of big news stories this week about the lawsuit filed against Hillary Clinton by parents of two of the Americans killed in the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi. Patricia Smith, the mother of the information management officer Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, the father of CIA security contractor Tyrone Woods, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Clinton Monday, claiming that her use of a private email server was somehow the direct cause of their sons’ deaths in the terrorist attack. The lawsuit also throws in a defamation claim against Clinton for good measure, accusing her of making “false and defamatory statements negligently, recklessly and purposefully and/or intentionally with malice” in her public statements about Benghazi.

There’s just one important detail that a number of news reports tended not to mention, or in some cases underplayed: the lawyer in the case is conspiracy theorist, Wonkette frenemy, and all around nutjob Larry Klayman, who has made something of a career out of filing completely hopeless lawsuits that get lots of publicity, but then get tossed out of court because he is a terrible lawyer. But he’s GREAT at chasing publicity, as all the headlines and joyful wingnut media coverage of his latest effort indicate.

[ * * * ]

But baseless speculation is kind of like evidence, isn’t it?

[ * * * ]

When Fox News’s minimally competent legal expert brands Klayman’s efforts a transparent publicity ploy, your actual legal maneuvering might not have much chance of succeeding.

[ * * * ]

Can you imagine how diplomatically Donald Trump would have reacted to a meritless lawsuit accusing him of having killed people while performing his official duties?
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1767

Post by bob » Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:14 pm

So the superior court dismissed this in June. In July, Klayman filed a NOA. The RNC and Priebus responded by ... filing a motion for attorneys fees. Klayman responded by requesting a stay; the stay is still pending.

Leon County Dkt. No. 2016-CA-000925;
1st Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dkt. No. 16-3377 (OSC pending re: dismissal for failing to pay $300 filing fee ).

:popcorn:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

HumbleScribe
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Zzyzx Road
Occupation: Green eye-shade wearing bean counter

Re: Larry Klayman

#1768

Post by HumbleScribe » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:38 pm

I read where good ole GIL started his legal career in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor. Wikipedia says that he was on the trial team that busted up AT&T in the '80s.

Was he ever (a) competent; (b) ethical; (c) successful (d) none of the above? Did he sell his soul to the devil?

I had never even heard of him until I joined the 'Bow.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44695
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Larry Klayman

#1769

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:42 pm

Young lawyers in prosecutors offices do legal research and proof read pleadings. I doubt Klayman did anything more than that.

HumbleScribe
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Zzyzx Road
Occupation: Green eye-shade wearing bean counter

Re: Larry Klayman

#1770

Post by HumbleScribe » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:56 pm

OK, thanks, Stern.

One would think that if one of his responsibilities as a new lawyer was proofreading, that at least he would get that clerical function correct when he files all his :shit:

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Larry Klayman

#1771

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:12 pm

HumbleScribe wrote:OK, thanks, Stern.

One would think that if one of his responsibilities as a new lawyer was proofreading, that at least he would get that clerical function correct when he files all his :shit:
A bit of legal research would also help.

HumbleScribe
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Zzyzx Road
Occupation: Green eye-shade wearing bean counter

Re: Larry Klayman

#1772

Post by HumbleScribe » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:14 pm

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
HumbleScribe wrote:OK, thanks, Stern.

One would think that if one of his responsibilities as a new lawyer was proofreading, that at least he would get that clerical function correct when he files all his :shit:
A bit of legal research would also help.
:rotflmao:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26916
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1773

Post by bob » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:45 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Young lawyers in prosecutors offices do legal research and proof read pleadings. I doubt Klayman did anything more than that.
This primary source of this puffery is ... Klayman, and he is vague about it.

In 1974, the federal government filed its antitrust lawsuit; in 1977, Klayman (allegedly) graduated from law school; in 1981, Reagan took office (and Klayman turned 30); in 1982, the AT&T consent decree was finalized. (Klayman would enter private practice no later than 1983.) So, theoretically, there is a small window in which Klayman could have done what he said he did.

But, like :sterngard: said, a baby prosecutor government attorney is researching and drafting pleadings (and correspondence). It is quite possible that young Klayman attended settlement discussions; he probably held the lead attorney's briefcase and said nothing at those discussions.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Larry Klayman

#1774

Post by Piffle » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:49 pm

bob wrote: But, like :sterngard: said, a baby prosecutor government attorney is researching and drafting pleadings (and correspondence). It is quite possible that young Klayman attended settlement discussions; he probably held the lead attorney's briefcase and said nothing at those discussions.
If, like GIL, the n00b is working on complex antitrust litigation such as the AT&T breakup, then yeah, he's probably not much more than a water boy.

OTOH, a lot of baby prosecutors working in U.S. Attorneys' offices out in the states rack up many hours of invaluable take-it-to-the-jury trial work. If you don't mind spending a few years prosecuting crappy drug cases, it's one of the best ways to pile up experience as a real litigator.

chancery
Posts: 1627
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1775

Post by chancery » Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:15 pm

Piffle wrote:
bob wrote: But, like :sterngard: said, a baby prosecutor government attorney is researching and drafting pleadings (and correspondence). It is quite possible that young Klayman attended settlement discussions; he probably held the lead attorney's briefcase and said nothing at those discussions.
If, like GIL, the n00b is working on complex antitrust litigation such as the AT&T breakup, then yeah, he's probably not much more than a water boy.

OTOH, a lot of baby prosecutors working in U.S. Attorneys' offices out in the states rack up many hours of invaluable take-it-to-the-jury trial work. If you don't mind spending a few years prosecuting crappy drug cases, it's one of the best ways to pile up experience as a real litigator.
Used to be, but not any more. No more trials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”