Larry Klayman

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14401
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1776

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Young lawyers in prosecutors offices do legal research and proof read pleadings. I doubt Klayman did anything more than that.
And probably not very well if his current work product is any indication.


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

Re: Larry Klayman

#1777

Post by Piffle »

chancery wrote:
Piffle wrote: 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
I knew the trend was toward fewer trials and more pleading out, but I had no idea the extent of the change. Wow! :swoon:

Maybe the mandatory sentencing folks oughta just automate the criminal courts. Do we really need those expensive federal judges?


User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#1778

Post by Northland10 »

A docket on his recently filed Clinton harassment.
08/08/2016 Case Assigned to Judge Royce C. Lamberth. (md) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
Question for the IAAL. Can Klayman's statements from other cases be used in a motion to recuse, if is necessary?


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 31313
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1779

Post by bob »

08/08/2016 Case Assigned to Judge Royce C. Lamberth. (md) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
Hooboy did Klayman hit the jackpot: the Clinton-hating judge that made Klayman's career.

Northland10 wrote:Can Klayman's statements from other cases be used in a motion to recuse, if is necessary?
"It depends." To which statements do you refer?

Recusal is usually aimed at the judge, so the focus would be extrajudicial statements the judge made.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47277
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Larry Klayman

#1780

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Northland10 wrote:A docket on his recently filed Clinton harassment.
08/08/2016 Case Assigned to Judge Royce C. Lamberth. (md) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
Question for the IAAL. Can Klayman's statements from other cases be used in a motion to recuse, if is necessary?
Strange. Lamberth was recently on assignment in the 9th Circuit and apparently takes cases in Texas. Is he flying back to D.C. to take another GIL Klayman case?


User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#1781

Post by Northland10 »

bob wrote:"It depends." To which statements do you refer?

Recusal is usually aimed at the judge, so the focus would be extrajudicial statements the judge made.
If I recall, in Montgomery v Risen, there were statements about the senior judge helping them and they met with him, though they were Klayman's so the truth is suspect. I also recall him making some statements about the judge in the Arizona/Arpaio fun, but I cannot recall if they were in a filing.

I suspected the focus might be more on the judge's statements but I thought I would ask.


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#1782

Post by Northland10 »

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Northland10 wrote:A docket on his recently filed Clinton harassment.
08/08/2016 Case Assigned to Judge Royce C. Lamberth. (md) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
Question for the IAAL. Can Klayman's statements from other cases be used in a motion to recuse, if is necessary?
Strange. Lamberth was recently on assignment in the 9th Circuit and apparently takes cases in Texas. Is he flying back to D.C. to take another GIL Klayman case?
It was on the docket, so I guess so.


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 31313
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1783

Post by bob »

Northland10 wrote:If I recall, in Montgomery v Risen, there were statements about the senior judge helping them and they met with him, though they were Klayman's so the truth is suspect. I also recall him making some statements about the judge in the Arizona/Arpaio fun, but I cannot recall if they were in a filing.
I forget exactly where those statements were, but that's an ultimately just an evidentiary issue. IIRC, in Arpaio's federal adventures, various people were asked about it during depositions (which are under oath), and there are e-mails on the topic. (And, ob., PAGING TES!!!)

Regardless, it is a good point: Clinton could argue straight-faced that Klayman and Lamberth have some sort of relationship, such that there's an appearance of partiality that would require Lamberth off the case. I mean, Klayman ("allegedly") set up a meeting so that Lamberth could review Montgomery's "work." And Klayman (in various e-mails disclosed during Arpaio's contempt proceedings) boasted about being the one who had set that meeting up.

E.g., Lemons' tweets during the hearing:
Mackiewicz described at least 3 meetings w/frmr FISA ct judge Royce Lamberth in DC, brokered by Klayman
And this Lemons article:
Mackiewicz also states in one of the recently unsealed e-mails that the MCSO put Montgomery in front of a federal judge in D.C.

Klayman takes credit for this in an e-mail to Mackiewicz, stating, "there would be no judge if not for me," advising him, "do not mess with Lamberth."


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1784

Post by BillTheCat »

Okay. Does this mean it's not getting tossed? :shock:


'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: 31313
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1785

Post by bob »

BillTheCat wrote:Okay. Does this mean it's not getting tossed? :shock:
If Klayman gets around to properly serving Clinton (and that's a not-small if), then we'll have to wait to see how she reacts; she might not bother first trying to boot Lamberth, and just go for the (obvious) dismissal.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: Larry Klayman

#1786

Post by TollandRCR »

If you have not had the pleasure of hearing and seeing GIL, this article contains a video. Larry Klayman: America Is Headed Towards An All-Out Revolution, Race War And Gender War


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14401
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1787

Post by Notorial Dissent »

TollandRCR wrote:If you have not had the pleasure of hearing and seeing GIL, this article contains a video. Larry Klayman: America Is Headed Towards An All-Out Revolution, Race War And Gender War
Thank you, that is one pleasure :sick: I will quite happily do without. In this case ignorance is not only bliss, but mandatory.


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.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 31313
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1788

Post by bob »

In Klayman v. The Blacks, Klayman unironically filed this opposition* to Farrakhan's attorney's PHV application, arguing:
Mr. Muhammad is widely known as the attorney for the Nation of Islam.[] As Plaintiff has alleged in his Complaint, the Nation of Islam advocates the killing of Jews and Caucasians as a fundamental tenet of its system of beliefs. See Docket No. 1 ¶¶ 50-102. Specifically, “Defendant Farrakhan called for angry blacks and black Muslims to ‘stalk them and kill them’ (Jews and Caucasians) as the ‘400 year old enemy.’” Docket No. 1 ¶ 67. Defendant Farrakhan has attacked Judiasm as a “gutter religion” and Israel as an “outlaw nation.” Docket No. 1 ¶ 100. Plaintiff, who is Jewish, takes great offense to these statements. . . . Accordingly, Defendant Farrakhan should have to retain counsel that is not associated with the Nation of Islam, which is the flip side of the Klu-Klux-Klan in terms of its calls to incite racial and religious violence.
Klayman takes great offense at a defendant's beliefs; ergo, the defendant should not be entitled to counsel of his choosing. :roll:


I admit to being confused: Klayman v. The Blacks was originally touted on FW's site, but the PHV opposition is on Klayman's "private" site. It is if Klayman and Freedom Watch are one and the same. :think:


* Technically, moving to strike the court's grant of the PHV application.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#1789

Post by Northland10 »

Of course, Klayman and FW are one and the same, but for this case, he has to be just GIL. If it was FW, he would not be able to represent them without applying for PHV.


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#1790

Post by Northland10 »

Klayman argues that Rule 7.1, Motion practice, was not followed so the PHV order should be stricken, but the local rules do not require a motion.

http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/civil-rules
83.9 - Attorneys Not Admitted to Practice Before this Court.
Eligibility to Appear. An attorney who is licensed to practice law by the highest court of any state or the District of Columbia, but who is not admitted to practice before this court, may represent a party in proceedings in this court only by permission of the presiding judge.
Application to Appear. Unless exempted by LR 83.11, an attorney who is not admitted to practice in this court, who desires to appear as counsel in a case, and who is eligible pursuant to subsection (a) of this rule to appear, shall apply for admission pro hac vice on a court-approved form and pay the applicable fee to the clerk.
Regulation of Attorneys Admitted Pro Hac Vice. By appearing in any case, an attorney becomes subject to the rules of this court.


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 3112
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1791

Post by woodworker »

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.
Clinton may not be a DC resident, but IMHO establishing personal jurisdiction over her in DC should not be too difficult - i think that there are probably minimum contacts (in fact I think she is house hunting there, looking for public housing, something in white and built by slaves).


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: 3112
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1792

Post by woodworker »

bob wrote:FOX(!) (Opinion): Families' lawsuit against Clinton over Benghazi doesn't hold up: :snippity: :snippity: . 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.
[/quote]

Wait: are you telling me that the Hillary beast didn't kill her fellow drug dealers at the airport in Mena, AR before they could testify or that she didn't kill all of the women that Bill raped or the women that she raped?

I just don't what to believe anymore. Next you are going to tell me that the republicans were wrong when they accused her of personally slitting the ambassador's throat and then drinking his blood (oh damn, I got that mixed up with making matzo again - my bad).

IMHO, the NY Times, the Washington Post, et al, would print any story that cast a bad light on the Clintons and would do everything possible to avoid printing any story that showed any Clinton (or Democrat, excepting Harold Ford, Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman) in a positive light, with complete and utter disregard for the facts Just MHO.


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
bob
Posts: 31313
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1793

Post by bob »

bob wrote: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
8/29/2016 a120 MOTION HEARING SET FOR 11/01/2016 AT 3:45 PM IN 365B, JDG: COOPER, JOHN C
It looks like there will be hearing on how much if anything Klayman will be paying to the RNC.

:popcorn:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47277
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Larry Klayman

#1794

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

bob wrote:
bob wrote: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
8/29/2016 a120 MOTION HEARING SET FOR 11/01/2016 AT 3:45 PM IN 365B, JDG: COOPER, JOHN C
It looks like there will be hearing on how much if anything Klayman will be paying to the RNC.

:popcorn:
Which of Klayman's frivolous cases is this, again, please?


User avatar
bob
Posts: 31313
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#1795

Post by bob »

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Which of Klayman's frivolous cases is this, again, please?
Klayman's butthurt over the RNC's "conspiring" to rewrite the convention rules (the "vote your conscience" teacup). Already been dismissed.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16780
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Klayman

#1796

Post by Reality Check »

I get the impression that if Klayman flushes in the morning and it doesn't all go down he will have filed a lawsuit against Kohler by 10 am.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016
User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7809
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Everett. WA
Occupation: Middle Aged College Student

Re: Larry Klayman

#1797

Post by PatGund »

Reality Check wrote:I get the impression that if Klayman flushes in the morning and it doesn't all go down he will have filed a lawsuit against Kohler by 10 am.
The fact that Klayman gets off of the toilet is proof all the shit didn't go down the drain.


User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 18268
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: The nuttiest congressional district of a nut job state.

Re: Larry Klayman

#1798

Post by ZekeB »

PatGund wrote:The fact that Klayman gets off of the toilet is proof all the shit didn't go down the drain.
Perhaps I should buy him a Toto.


Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47277
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Larry Klayman

#1799

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

PatGund wrote:
Reality Check wrote:I get the impression that if Klayman flushes in the morning and it doesn't all go down he will have filed a lawsuit against Kohler by 10 am.
The fact that Klayman gets off of the toilet is proof all the shit didn't go down the drain.
:like:


User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#1800

Post by Northland10 »

In his Texas case to harass the non-white (or so he claims) folk, GIL asks for his normal extension which counsel for Farrakhan will not agree to, so GIL is rude in the motion and re-argues that Farrakhan's counsel should not have been given PHV status (this was a previous motion of his). Farrakhan responds to the request for time, and GIL replies with a 7 page replay and a 39 page supplement to the reply.
08/26/2016 10 First MOTION to Extend Time To Oppose Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed by Larry Klayman with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/28/2016 11 RESPONSE filed by Louis Farrakhan re: 10 First MOTION to Extend Time To Oppose Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Muhammad, Michael) (Entered: 08/28/2016)

08/30/2016 12 REPLY filed by Larry Klayman re: 10 First MOTION to Extend Time To Oppose Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Klayman, Larry) Modified text and linkage on 8/31/2016 (sss). (Entered: 08/30/2016)

08/31/2016 13 REPLY filed by Larry Klayman re: 11 Response/Objection (Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
The link for the last one should hopefully work once RECAP catches up. It is too big to upload here.


North-land: of the family 10.5

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

Return to “Miscellaneous”