Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

User avatar
tek
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#26

Post by tek » Sat May 30, 2015 6:49 pm



it is fascinating, though, to watch this amazing legal mind in action


You can't go on
Thinking nothing's wrong
Who's gonna drive you home
Tonight

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#27

Post by bob » Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:50 pm



"For completeness": Klayman's opposition to the motion to dismiss, motion to amend complaint, and proposed second amended complaint.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6503
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#28

Post by Northland10 » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:43 pm



"For completeness": Klayman's opposition to the motion to dismiss, motion to amend complaint, and proposed second amended complaint.Question to the attorneys.  Are amended complaints, and especially second amended complaints a normal occurrence in cases?  It seems like Orly and Larry are forever filing amended complaints so I am unsure of the normal use. 


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

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#29

Post by gatsby » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:57 pm



I noticed new docket entries earlier today. Klayman is constantly filing motions to amend or correct his complaints, and to give himself more time to respond to others' motions.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25769
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#30

Post by Foggy » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:48 am



If at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again.


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you are trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 16065
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#31

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:43 am



"For completeness": Klayman's opposition to the motion to dismiss, motion to amend complaint, and proposed second amended complaint.Question to the attorneys.  Are amended complaints, and especially second amended complaints a normal occurrence in cases?  It seems like Orly and Larry are forever filing amended complaints so I am unsure of the normal use. add-on question: is the motion to amend still timely when the motion to dismiss is already pending?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#32

Post by bob » Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:14 pm



As Orlylaw and Klaymanlaw bear little resemblance to the actual practice of law, caution is advised in trying to draw conclusions from their methods.When a motion to dismiss is granted, the judge has the option to grant leave to amend the complaint (essentially, a do-over).  Leave is supposed to be granted because the law tries to avoid ending meritorious claims based only on defects in the pleadings.  But the judge can (and must) dismiss without leave if there is simply no way to fix the claim (e.g., lack of standing, cannot a state a claim because none exists) or the plaintiff has not fixed a defect despite an opportunity to do so.So asking for leave to amend while a motion to dismiss is pending is a tacit admission that the motion to dismiss is well-taken.  The plaintiff usually is acknowledging a shortcoming and then fixing the problem.But Klayman here spins a wild RICO tale.  And if Klayman can't convince the judge that he has sufficiently alleged the existence of an ongoing criminal conspiracy (that injured him), then fixing technical defects won't help anyone.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8955
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#33

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:18 pm



I think there's a larger problem than just Klayman's ability to allege the existence of the conspiracy - IIRC, a civil RICO plaintiff also has to allege that the damages were caused by the RICO conspiracy.  As far as I can tell from the pleadings, Klayman's damage claim is based entirely on an assertion that he has a property right in the documents that should have been sent in response to his FOIA request. I don't think he's going to be able to fix that issue with amended pleadings.  


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43447
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#34

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:38 pm



In the immortal words of Judge Wingate, he's another birfer who lacks "RICO standing."



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#35

Post by bob » Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:41 pm



The 90s are back!: Klayman issues notices of deposition for Bill and Hillary Clinton.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#36

Post by mimi » Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:35 pm



Rightwingers are all over this on the facebooks and stuffs.  They are citing this Moonie Times article:Bill and Hillary Clinton ordered to give depositions about emails in civil caseBy Kellan Howell - The Washington Times - Friday, July 10, 2015 Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have been ordered to give depositions in a civil case investigating the pair’s growing email scandal. Mrs. Clinton will giver her deposition on the morning of July 28 in Washington, and Mr. Clinton will give his the following morning, according to copies of the notices of deposition reviewed by The Washington Times. The case, filed by Freedom Watch founder and former federal prosecutor Larry Klayman, alleges the couple committed criminal violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).According to a statement from Freedom Watch, the suit alleges Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic nomination, covered up these crimes by destroying her personal emails sent during her time as Secretary of State. remainder:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ositions-/ wtf?



User avatar
TheEuropean
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:13 am

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#37

Post by TheEuropean » Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:28 am



These are orders from KKKLayman, not from the court, I suppose ......



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#38

Post by mimi » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:53 am



That's what I thought.  And then the headline confused me.  :/But I suppose anything that looks bad for the Clintons is good copy.Monday, July 06, 2015 The Clinton Rules from the insideby digbyI can hardly believe my eyes, but here is political reporter Jonathan Allen validating what some of us have been saying for a couple of decades in this piece called Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary 1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.4) Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefitremainder:http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/ ... nside.html 



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7405
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#39

Post by Orlylicious » Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:39 pm



BOTH Clintons and RICO! Eat your heart out Orly Taitz!The Hill:July 13, 2015, 08:00 amClintons ordered to answer questions in private email lawsuitBy Jesse Byrnes Bill and Hillary Clinton have been ordered to answer questions later this month in a lawsuit over their use of a private email server, according to court documents filed by the conservative Freedom Watch group. Hillary Clinton, a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, will give her deposition on July 28 in Washington, D.C., and former President Bill Clinton will be deposed there the following day, according to the documents. The civil suit, filed in March in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that Hillary Clinton failed to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act regarding State Department waivers for those doing business with Iran, potentially undermining U.S. sanctions.The racketeering lawsuit, which lists Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation as defendants, alleges that the former secretary of State used a private email server at their home in New York to sell access to other officials in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch who launched a number of lawsuits against former President Bill Clinton’s administration, said in a statement that the Clintons have been "refusing to be candid with the American people.""If they lie there will be consequences," Klayman said. Scrutiny over Hillary Clinton's use of private email during her four-year tenure as secretary of State, which ended in 2013, has become a centerpiece of Republicans' attacks since she announced her campaign in April.http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... il-lawsuit Secretary Clinton Depo: Clinton Depo:  Story about the lawsuit: http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/klayman- ... bilKlayman files RICO racketeering case against Hillary and Bill Clinton and their family foundation over email scandalCriminal Enterprise Alleged to Occur Over 10 Years Culminating in Present Email Scandal Conceived to Hide Incriminating Evidence and Obstruct Justice(Washington, D.C., March 25, 2015). Today, Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor, filed a civil suit against Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and their family foundation alleging criminal violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Civil Action No. 9:15-cv-80388. A copy of the complaint can be viewed at www.freedomwatchusa.org.The lawsuit alleges a pattern over ten years of the Clintons engaging in two or more predicate acts constituting a criminal enterprise, designed to enrich them personally. In this regard, Klayman alleges that the Clintons – through mail and wire fraud, and various false statements – misappropriated documents which he was entitled to receive and possess under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") concerning Hillary Clinton's involvement in releasing Israeli war and cyber-warfare plans and practices. The complaint alleges that Hillary Clinton orchestrated this release to harm and thwart Israeli plans to preemptively attack Iranian nuclear sites to stop the Islamic nation's march to producing atomic weapons. Another FOIA request called for the production of Mrs. Clinton's and other State Department's records which refer or relate to the granting of waivers for persons, companies, countries and other interests to do business with Iran, thereby undermining the economic sanctions. These acts are alleged to be the result of the defendants selling government influence in exchange for bribes from interests which have donated to The Clinton Foundation, paid huge speaking fees to the Clintons and other means. The present email scandal is alleged to cover up evidence of these and other related crimes by hiding emails that would incriminate the Clintons and their foundation.Klayman issued this statement: "This is the first and only hard-hitting case to address the growing email scandal. What Hillary Clinton, her husband, and their foundation have done is nothing new. It is simply part of a criminal enterprise which dates back at least 10 years, all designed to enrich themselves personally at the expense of the American people and our nation. It's time, however, that they finally be held legally accountable." For more information, contact daj142182@gmail.com or (424) 274-2579.Complaint: http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150324-filed Clinton RICO complaint.pdfUpdated Complaint: http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150703-Filed Motion to Amend and Amended Complaint Klayman v. Clinton.pdfFiled Opposition to Motion to Dismiss: http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150703-Filed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Klayman v. Clinton.pdfThough unbelievable they are letting this go so far with an alleged sexual abuser of his own children. He should burn in hell. Magistrate's findings at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/pdf_viewe ... 56.pdf{¶23} In his third assignment of error, Klayman argues that the magistrate's finding that he engaged in inappropriate touching of his child was against the manifest weight of the evidence.{¶24} A judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed by a reviewing court as against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). A reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court where there exists some competent and credible evidence supporting the judgment rendered by the trial court. Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 614 N.E.2d 742 (1993). Where the decision in a case turns upon credibility of testimony, and where there exists competent and credible evidence supporting the findings and conclusions of the trial court, deference to such findings and conclusions must be given by the reviewing court. See Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984); Cohen v. Lamko, Inc., 10 Ohio St.3d 167, 462 N.E.2d 407 (1984).{¶25} The issues raised by Klayman involve credibility assessments made by the magistrate. Klayman challenges these findings. The magistrate heard evidence from the children's pediatrician who reported allegations of sexual abuse to children services, and fro
m a social worker at children services who found that sexual abuse was "indicated." Although the social worker's finding was later changed to "unsubstantiated" when Klayman appealed, the magistrate explained that the supervisor who changed the social worker's finding did not testify. The magistrate pointed out that he was obligated to make his own independent analysis based upon the parties and the evidence before him. In doing so, the magistrate found on more than one occasion [Klayman] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with the children. His conduct may not have been sexual in the sense that he intended to or did derive any sexual pleasure from it or that he intended his children would. That, however, does not mean that he did not engage in those acts or that his behavior was proper.{¶26} The magistrate further found it significant that although Klayman denied any allegations of sexual abuse, he never denied that he did not engage in inappropriate behavior with the children. The magistrate further found it notable that Klayman, "for all his breast beating about his innocence * * * [he] scrupulously avoided being questioned by anyone from [children services] or from the Sheriff's Department about the allegations," and that he refused to answer any questions, repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, about whether he inappropriately touched the children. "Even more disturbing" to the magistrate was the fact that Klayman would not even answer the simple question regarding what he thought inappropriate touching was. The magistrate stated that he could draw an adverse inference from Klayman's decision not to testify to these matters because it was a civil proceeding, not criminal.{¶27} After reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in overruling Klayman's objections regarding the magistrate's finding that Klayman inappropriately touched the children.   



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

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#40

Post by Piffle » Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:53 pm



 The Hill:July 13, 2015, 08:00 amClintons ordered to answer questions in private email lawsuitBy Jesse Byrnes Bill and Hillary Clinton have been ordered to answer questions later this month in a lawsuit over their use of a private email server, according to court documents filed by the conservative Freedom Watch group. Hillary Clinton, a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, will give her deposition on July 28 in Washington, D.C., and former President Bill Clinton will be deposed there the following day, according to the documents.<snip>Meh, just a rehash of GIL's press releases. I believe it's already been pointed out above that the Clintons have been ordered to answer questions only in the sense that Klayman "ordered" them to show up for fanciful depositions in a suit he does not have standing to maintain.Klayman can order the sun to stop revolving around the earth for all I care. 



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43447
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#41

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:10 pm



The notices of deposition weren't cleared with opposing counsel in advance (obviously) and aren't set to take place in the District where the case is pending nor in the District of the residence of the deponents. Those are two reasons why they won't take place. Nothing has been ordered by a court. Grossly Inappropriate Larry hasn't even issued a subpoena ordering the Clintons to appear. All he's done is "notice" their appearances.I think we can safely predict that a protective order prohibiting these depositions will be issued upon motion demanding the same.As a result, Grossly Inappropriate Larry's proclamation that the Clintons have been ordered to have their depositions taken reminds me of this bogus discovery proclamation by another clounselor at law:



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#42

Post by bob » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:31 pm



We /topic/7793-klayman-v-clinton-et-al-rico/">already have a thread for this lawsuit.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#43

Post by mimi » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:33 pm



Why is the headline at the Hill (and other places): Clintons ordered to answer questions in private email lawsuit.That's just bullshit.  



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43447
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#44

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:29 pm



Because so many reporters are Rharon-class researchers who drink up any bilge served by those writing press releases.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34371
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#45

Post by realist » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:27 pm



We /topic/7793-klayman-v-clinton-et-al-rico/">already have a thread for this lawsuit.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#46

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:43 pm



The notices of deposition weren't cleared with opposing counsel in advance (obviously) and aren't set to take place in the District where the case is pending nor in the District of the residence of the deponents. Those are two reasons why they won't take place. Nothing has been ordered by a court. Grossly Inappropriate Larry hasn't even issued a subpoena ordering the Clintons to appear. All he's done is "notice" their appearances.I think we can safely predict that a protective order prohibiting these depositions will be issued upon motion demanding the same.Motion to stay discovery has been filed.  55Filed & Entered:  07/02/2015Motion to StayDocket Text: MOTION to Stay Discovery by Hillary Rodham Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton. Responses due by 7/20/2015 (Marcus, Jeffrey) BTW, Klayman sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (in a futile effort to salvage his ill-pled frivolous suit), which is opposed by all defendants.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43447
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#47

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:00 pm



We /topic/7793-klayman-v-clinton-et-al-rico/">already have a thread for this lawsuit.Can we have merger, please?



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34371
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#48

Post by realist » Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:41 am



I'll do the best I can, considering the reliability of this software. 


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#49

Post by bob » Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:59 pm



Taitz Esquire is remarkably good at critiquing other's "work":no, they were not ordered by a judge to appear in depositions. A plaintiff penned this notice of a deposition. I am sure that they will file an objection and will never show up.  *  *  *no, this is an automatic date setting given as the case is filed and before the motion to dismiss is filed and ruled upon. In most of my cases against Obama there were automatic dates for trial, however these dates meant absolutely nothing. In all of them the defendants filed motions to dismiss and the judges dismissed the cases against Obama. I expect that Clintons will file a motion to dismiss citing lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the judge will dismiss the case shortly. I might be wrong, but I am 99.9% sure that is what will happen.http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/real-clear- ... /#comments


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Klayman v. Clinton 9:15-cv-80388 (S.D. Florida)

#50

Post by SueDB » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:42 pm



Taitz Esquire is remarkably good at critiquing other's "work":no, they were not ordered by a judge to appear in depositions. A plaintiff penned this notice of a deposition. I am sure that they will file an objection and will never show up.  *  *  *no, this is an automatic date setting given as the case is filed and before the motion to dismiss is filed and ruled upon. In most of my cases against Obama there were automatic dates for trial, however these dates meant absolutely nothing. In all of them the defendants filed motions to dismiss and the judges dismissed the cases against Obama. I expect that Clintons will file a motion to dismiss citing lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the judge will dismiss the case shortly. I might be wrong, but I am 99.9% sure that is what will happen.http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/real-clear- ... /#comments Just like a broken clock....


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”