GIL: Klayman

[Suranis]

The fact that anyone at all is willing to give GIL money to subsidize his habit of filing nonsense lawsuits (not to mention keeping a roof over his head) just boggles my mind. Fools and their money, I guess.

From my limited experiance, its more that they suck in new people that haven't realised they are full of shit constantly, whereas people slowly realise they are doing nothing and drop away. So its not that they have a core of people that constantly give money, its that they fool everyone some of the time but people see through it, so they have to have a constant cycle of new contributors to keep going.

[sterngard friegen]

[northland10]

So, in the Corsi/Klayman v Infowars in WD of Texas, GIL (well, maybe the attorney representing Corsi, though GIL is definitely ghostwriting that one), he filed a MOTION TO HAVE PRESIDING JUDGE DECIDE OUTSTANDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS. This is the case where GIL tried to jump the discovery gun.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .101.0.pdf

If don't know what that is, don't feel bad, neither did the judge. The judge treated it as a motion to recuse. It seems, you might be surprised, he feels the judge is biased. I know. Shocking.

The judge, in his biasedness, gave GIL the finger.. well, in code. He denied the motion, which is proof that he is biased.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... .107.0.pdf

Stupid liberal Bush appointee.

[northland10]

In Florida, in his other case against Inforwars (and Roger Stone this time), the defendants filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority. The notable part is their discussion of his bar issues. I did not realize Pennsylvania had also imposed reciprocal discipline.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 2.56.0.pdf

Of course, Klayman objects and submits a motion to strike. As is his way, he says DC discipline is not final and is temporary and he will prevail (just like he told Nevada). He also points out that Florida has not suspended him. He may not want to say that too loudly. I have a hunch he has not self-tattled.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 2.57.0.pdf

Some later responses were some back and forth about a recent SD of Florida ruling and anti-SLAPP. Either way,

04/21/2021 64 PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING 57 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Notice of Supplemental Authority. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on April 21, 2021. (ahz) (Entered: 04/21/2021)

Judge is probably biased.

Watching Klayman/Corsi v Infowars/Stone makes me feel like I need a shower.

[northland10]

He also had a case in Philadelphia with another attorney (not sure how much he was ghostwriting as he is listed as representing the plaintiffs as well). The judge has the order, though the entire reasoning is in the footnotes.

Executive summary, Twombly Icqbal.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 3.34.0.pdf

[Frater I*I]

Watching Klayman/Corsi v Infowars/Stone makes me feel like I need a shower.

I'm sorry but...




Just hope of a 0-0 tie, and a lot of injuries...

[northland10]

For completeness on Pennsylania.

ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2021, having failed to submit a timely
response to a Notice and Order directing him to provide reasons against the imposition
of reciprocal discipline, and further failing to articulate any meritorious reason that
reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, Larry Elliott Klayman is suspended for ninety
days from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He shall comply
with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

Looks like he has finished this one a couple of weeks ago.

Is he supposed to inform other jurisdictions about his interim suspension? Is he hoping that, when they finally rule, he will have nearly served the 18 months and so does not expect other courts to demand 18 months in their jurisdiction?

[bob]

In fairness, Klayman let his Pennsylvania license lapse years ago; the reciprocal discipline there will have no additional effect on his "practice."

Having said that, I'm surprised Florida* hasn't (yet) instituted reciprocal discipline.


* Maybe that's the answer to my own question: Because Flordia; duh.

[bob]

Latest episode:

Just Klayman and Goodman reading some headlines; not even a pretense of a citizen's grand jury.

Klayman did lie about Loomer's cert. denial (he said Thomas approved of her suit; the opposite is true), and promised to file a new suit.

[Foggy]

... and promised to file a new suit.

Whoa, there's a shocker.

[bob]

Nb.: "have been indicted." Klayman says the verdict forms have been completed, but all-talk Klayman hasn't produced them.

Kerry is next! And then McConnell!


Oh: Klayman's Continental Congress will be on July 5-6. And he'll be unveiling his new political party, New American Independence Party.

And Klayman will be suing Google because he got a YouTube warning.

And, of course: P.S.: Send money.

[Gene Kooper]

Oh: Klayman's Continental Congress will be on July 5-6. And he'll be unveiling his new political party, New American Independence Party.

And Klayman will be suing Google because he got a YouTube warning.

And, he will soon be suing Google because all of the top Google searches for NAIP will be about the National Agricultural Imaging Program that is run by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

What is NAIP? The National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) acquires aerial imagery during the agricultural growing seasons in the continental U.S. A primary goal of the NAIP program is to make digital ortho photography available to governmental agencies and the public within a year of acquisition. See NAIP Imagery

GIL will also be incensed that NAIP imagery is free to the public, the ultimate insult to grifters.

[northland10]

One of GIL's cases against Porter had been wrapped up in whether it was related to his other cases against Fox, Porter and Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The judge decided it was not and has kicked the case back to for random assignment (it was originally assigned to him as related).

He does stop to remind Klayman that, despite Klayman's request for recusal, this is not a recusal and that the recusal request is full of shit (well he used more legal-like terms).

GIL wins, until the next judge dismisses it, after multiple recusal requests.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... 0cv3109-41

[bob]

The judge decided it was not and has kicked the case back to for random assignment (it was originally assigned to him as related).

Ugh:

The cases focus on different events, involve different time periods, and turn on distinct legal theories.

"Please throw more shotgun pleadings at the wall like cooked spaghetti, Mr. Klayman."

(The cases all spring from the same operative fact: Klayman's continued lawfare against the D.C. bar.)

[bob]

So: In Racist Cops v. Philadelphia, the court previously granted the defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss. But vacated that order once Klayman got serious about this case. The judge then granted the renewed motion to dismiss, with leave to amend -- and this "curious" caveat:

Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint consistent with this Order and with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, if desired, on or before May 7, 2021.

A judge telling a lawyer to comply with Rule 11 (aka "the sanctions rule") is unusual and beyond the usual polite judgespeak.

Klayman gotta Klayman, so on Friday he asked for an extension of time. Well:

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF MAY FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT CONSISTENT WITH FED.R.CIV.P. 11, IF DESIRED, ON OR BEFORE 5/7/21

"Did I stutter?"

* John Younge; curiously, an Obama nominee that the Senate killed. So the repeached Florida Man renominated him (twice!), and the Senate confirmed Younge on a voice vote.

[northland10]

[Foggy]

DENIED

Well that obviously calls for a motion to recuse.

[Estiveo]

Klayman v. Wonkette defamation case goes about how one would expect.

[Luke]

John M. Phillips @JohnPhillips 1h
We will seek fees/costs & fight any attempt at appeal. “Defendants’ insinuation that sexual harassment is a “favorite hobby” of Plaintiff, or that he sued all members of a race and subpoenaed a former president’s genitals, are obvious exaggerations intended for comedic effect.”

[bob]

Defendants' references to Plaintiff as "Batshit", a "grifter" and a "bigot", are the types of "vigorous epithets" the Supreme Court characterizes as rhetorical hyperbole.

ALLEGEDLY.

Full Wonkette: Court-Ordered, Judge-Approved Things Wonkette Can Say About Larry Klayman: A List!

[woodworker]

The Judge no likee or respect GIL:

GIL argues that he is NOT a public figure:

"II. Plaintiff is a Public Figure. Plaintiff’s status as a public figure is a question of law to be determined by the Court. See Saro Corp. v. Waterman Broad. Corp. , 595 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The Supreme Court of the United States in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974), summarized who obtains public figure status for the purposes of defamation actions:

“[The public figure] designation may rest on either of two alternative bases. In some
instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. In either case such persons assume special prominence in the resolution of public questions (emphasis added). The Fourth District Court of Appeal as described these two types of public figures as “general public figures” and “limited public figures” respectively. See Mile Marker, Inc. v. Petersen Publ'g, L.L.C., 811 So. 2d 841, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

First, the Court finds that Plaintiff is a general public figure. Plaintiff’s own allegations characterize him as a syndicated radio talk show host and a “prominent figure” in conservative and libertarian movements. (Complaint, ¶ 3). In addition, other courts evaluating other pro se defamation claims filed by Plaintiff have determined Plaintiff to be a general public figure. Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc. 802 F. Supp. 2d 137, 150 (D.D.C. 2011) (“Court considers Klayman a public figure”); Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1251 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (“Because of Klayman's notoriety and high-profile work in the public realm, the Court considers Klayman a public figure.”); Klayman v. City Pages , 650 Fed. Appx. 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2016) (noting that the parties stipulated that Mr. Klayman is a public person).
. . .


Silvester v. American Broadcasting Companies
, 839 F.2d 1491, 1494 (11th Cir.1988)). The Court is hard-pressed to find a way in which that criteria does not apply to a nationally syndicated radio host and prominent conservative figure. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is a public figure."


III.

"Plaintiff’s Allegations of Actual Malice are Insufficient as a Matter of Law

As originally explained in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), a public figure plaintiff must establish “actual malice” on behalf of the publisher in order to maintain a defamation action. Under the actual malice test a public figure plaintiff must establish that the disseminator of the information either knew the alleged defamatory statements were false, or published them with reckless disregard despite awareness of their probable falsity. Mile Marker, Inc. v. Petersen Publ'g, L.L.C., 811 So. 2d 841, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Further, the claimant must prove the existence of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Id.


The allegations presented by Plaintiff on the issue of malice are insufficient as a matter of law. As Plaintiff should be well aware, “the defendants’ failure to investigate and poor journalistic standards is insufficient to establish actual malice.” Klayman v. City Pages, 650 Fed. Appx. 744, 750 – 51 (11th Cir. 2016).
See also Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686, 703 (11th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “[a]ctual malice requires more than a departure from reasonable journalistic standards” and that “a failure to investigate, standing on its own, does not indicate the presence of actual malice”). The mere refusal to correct a publication also falls short of alleging actual malice. Klayman, 650 Fed. Appx. at 751 (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 286, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964))."

All bolding my emphasis.

And further below:

"Defendants’ references to Plaintiff as “Batshit”, a “grifter” and a “bigot”, are the types of “vigorous epithets” the Supreme Court characterizes as rhetorical hyperbole."


Nothing like citing to cases in the record where the plaintiff here is a named plaintiff there and already lost.

So, please keep it up Grossly Inappropriate Larry, we need more entertainment. And we should all send money Wonkette's way for fighting the good fight.

[bob]

Klayman blows off misses a status conference in Moore v. Borat:

Today was Citizen's Grand Jury Day:

[Luke]

That was probably not a great status conference to blow off. That darn GIL!

MOORE v. COHEN
~Util - Set Deadlines AND Order to Show Cause — Document #140
District Court, S.D. New York
Docket Number: 1:19-cv-04977 Date Filed: May 6th, 2021 Uploaded: May 6th, 2021

Description
ORDER. On April 28, 2021, the Court ordered the parties in this action to appear for a telephone conference today, May 6, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. to resolve several pending disputes in this case. Dkt. 137. Plaintiffs' counsel failed to appear for this conference, but later in the day filed a letter apologizing for missing the conference and explaining that it was not properly calendared on his end. Dkt. 139. At the conference, the Court directed Defendants' counsel to send Chambers a link to the video of Sacha Noam Baron Cohens deposition, which took place on January 13, 2021. The Court confirms receipt of the link and its ability to view the video. The video shall remain confidential pending the Court's decision on Plaintiffs' challenge to the videos confidentiality designation. It is further ordered that: (1) If Plaintiffs wish to file a reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to recuse and/or disqualify the undersigned, Dkt. 138, Plaintiffs shall file their reply by no later than May 10, 2021. (2) Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a letter by May 19, 2021, showing cause why the Court should not refer him to the Grievance Committee of this Court based on his failure to notify the Court of disciplinary sanctions imposed on him in In re Klayman, 228 A.3d 713 (D.C. 2020) and In re Klayman, 991 F.3d 1389 (D.C. Cir. 2021), as required by Local Civil Rule 1.5(h). SO ORDERED. (Replies due by 5/10/2021.) (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 5/6/2021) (rjm) (Entered: 05/06/2021)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15 ... e-v-cohen/





Another video from today:




GIL is sinking into the sunset, these view counts are Taitz Report level. Epic failures.

GIL Fail.JPG (214.53 KiB) Viewed 4854 times

[neonzx]

So this comes up for me on his content... LOL

[Luke]

Same here Neon, and it's not pre-roll, it's embedded in the content which is really, really strange. Not sure I've ever seen it, it's like he ran it on his own in the content. Can't imagine McD would be too happy with this. Let's find out.





This guy is interesting, @McDTruth, he's a franchise owner who gets pissed off with $McD often. We've corresponded a bit, he will be unhappy about GIL doing this. He features in this interesting Wired article about the Frobot:

They Hacked McDonald’s Ice Cream Machines—and Started a Cold War
Secret codes. Legal threats. Betrayal. How one couple built a device to fix McDonald’s notoriously broken soft-serve machines—and how the fast-food giant froze them out.
https://www.wired.com/story/they-hacked ... -cold-war/