GIL: Klayman

[bob]

He'd prosecute you if he knew who you were, bob.

BUT I ACCEPTED HIS BUSINESS CARD!

[johnpcapitalist]

It appears that Klayman is a legal juggernaut, where the mere threat of legal proceedings might unleash his vast armies of followers to pressure those he intends to target. Larry's post has attracted around 120 views in more than a day since he posted it. Could it be that Larry's irrelevant, a fate worse than death for someone like him? That was the fate of Capt Karl on Twitter -- thousands of posts which netted him only a few dozen likes.

[bob]

Larry's post has attracted around 120 views in more than a day since he posted it. Could it be that Larry's irrelevant, a fate worse than death for someone like him? That was the fate of Capt Karl on Twitter -- thousands of posts which netted him only a few dozen likes.

Yes.

IIRC, Santilli said Klayman was functionally computer illiterate. (I would believe that.)

Computer literacy aside, Klayman is just bad at social media generally (and too also life).

[Ben-Prime]

He'd prosecute you if he knew who you were, bob.

BUT I ACCEPTED HIS BUSINESS CARD!

To GIL, that practically makes you a client. On the other hand, to GIL, that's no protection from being sued and/or defamed by him.

[sad-cafe]

Not the flex Klayman believes it to be.

Where the f did anyone think this was a tampon

[noblepa]

"For completeness," in the past four years, Klayman has announced or initiated "proceedings" against Bidens (Joe [multiple times], Jill, Hunter, and James); Judges Howell, Marchan, and Metha; Bragg; Garland; Wray; Gerstein (Politico reporter); Fauci; Obama; Clinton; Brennan; Soros; "all J6 committee members"; Omar; Tlaib; Baldwin; Harris; Swalwell; Kerry; McConnell; Burr; and Rosenstein.

As if we needed it, this is simply more proof of his grifting.

As one who graduated law school and passed the bar exam, he HAS to know that Grand Juries do not try or convict ANYONE. A GJ only determines whether or not there is sufficient evidence to hold a trial before a Petite jury, which CAN convict someone.

Furthermore, as a law-school graduate, he also must know that Citizen's Grand Juries are nothing more than live-action role playing by crazy people who think that they can make their own laws.

[bob]

As one who graduated law school and passed the bar exam, he HAS to know that Grand Juries do not try or convict ANYONE. A GJ only determines whether or not there is sufficient evidence to hold a trial before a Petite jury, which CAN convict someone.

Klayman often is sloppy in his writing. But the few times that he's gone beyond his inditements, there were fake judges and a fake trials. No jury because the defendants were deemed to have waived the right to a jury.

Furthermore, as a law-school graduate, he also must know that Citizen's Grand Juries are nothing more than live-action role playing by crazy people who think that they can make their own laws.

Klayman plays along, and cites the usual textproofing that SovCits use to justify their fake proceedings. But Klayman's tell that he actually knows the law is that the fake verdicts and fake sentences just sit in a drawer, accumulating dust. Klayman is smarter than those who present their fake documents to real courts.

Because, ultimately, there is a First Amendment right to cosplay.

[northland10]

p.s. send money

[northland10]

Soooo.. in the Florida Supreme Court. Larry had some "co-counsel" in his Florida SC discipline case, though all the filings were with only his signature. Then things got a bit weird.

15 August - Notice of appearance for a Robert Klein from Miami (appears to have represented at least one other in a bar case).

15 August, the same day, the initial brief was filed. While the new attorney is the one whose name is on it, it most definitely Larry's writing. I recognize his style, especially on the discipline stuff (and his trumpeting his "accolades" including the AT&T breakup thing).

16 August - Motion to Withdraw. This is from the earlier "co-counsel"

Not it goes sideways.

21 August - Order from the clerk, the motion to withdraw is striken.

Richard A. Greenberg's Motion to Withdraw, filed with this Court on August 16, 2024, does not comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.505(f)(1) and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.440(b). Respondent is hereby directed to file a proper motion that complies with the above referenced rules. Richard A. Greenberg will remain counsel of record for Respondent until a proper motion is filed and granted by this Court.

Yeah, they forgot things, like Larry's address, etc.

22 August - Amended motion to withdraw (prior counsel wants out now!!)

26 August - Clerk is again a meany. Strikes the brief.

Richard A. Greenberg's motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Larry Elliot Klayman is hereby granted. Respondent's initial brief, which was filed with this Court on August 15, 2024, does not comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210 and is hereby stricken. Respondent is hereby directed, on or before September 3, 2024, to file an amended initial brief which is double-spaced and submitted in either Arial 14 point font or Bookman Old Style 14 point font. It shall contain, in the following order: a cover sheet, a table of contents, a table of citations, a statement of the case and of the facts, a summary of the argument, an argument, a conclusion, and include a certificate of compliance which immediately follows the certificate of service. The brief must not exceed 13,000 words for computer-generated briefs. The table of contents and citations, the certificates of service and compliance, and the signature block for the brief's author shall be excluded from the computation.

The font is larger than what GIL normally uses but it Times New Roman in most places (I checked the PDF).

[northland10]

There is a new Klayman bar discipline case in the DC Court of Appeals, and a Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility was filed earlier this week

The Board's report concerns Klayman's efforts in the Bundy case ("omissions" on his PHV application, and the lawfare that ensued).

I only skimmed the R&R, but (for ), the Ghost of Rotunda still haunts the lands.

The recommendation is an 18-month suspension, with a fitness tail.

I forgot to skim through it but I see the Board knows how to state the obvious:

Here, Respondent has given the Board every reason to have a serious doubt that he will conform his conduct to the Rules in the future. Over the course of years, he has demonstrated a persistent lack of candor with tribunals. He has not taken responsibility for his actions and has maintained that he would engage in the very same misconduct again should the circumstances arise. Even before this very Board, he has attempted to mischaracterize the course of the proceedings. Under these circumstances, we are compelled to recommend that he be required to demonstrate his fitness to practice law prior to being reinstated.

the Ghost of Rotunda still haunts the lands.

33 times according to a search.

[northland10]

And so far in his DCs discipline in the DC Court of Appeals

07/30/2024 Filed Report And Recommendation Of The Bd On Prof. Responsibility recommending that Respondent be suspended for eighteen (18) months with a requirement that he prove his fitness to practice law prior to reinstatement

07/31/2024 Filed Record Exhibits - 184 Exhibits Saved in X:/Shared

08/13/2024 Filed ORDER to show cause why this Court should not issue an order that the respondent remain suspended pending final disposition.

08/14/2024 Filed Motion For Extension Of Time to File Response (Respondent) Denied as Moot

08/16/2024 Filed Exceptions to Recommended Discipline (Respondent)

08/19/2024 Filed Exceptions (Petitioner Bar Counsel)

08/20/2024 Filed Briefing Order

Since he has yet to file for reinstatement, remaining suspended is sort of moot right now, but just in case he decides to petition to be reinstated, it covers that basis.

[northland10]

"For completeness," Klayman filed in S.D. Fla., and not the Florida state courts.

I believe Klayman's Florida license remains in good standing.

For completeness, this summer the SD of Florida suspended Klayman based on the DC discipline. However, the Rokit World case had been dismissed sua sponte in April, long before the district suspended him.

It was initially dismissed with leave to amend as the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege subject matter jurisdiction.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 68.4.0.pdf

Klayman amended
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .5.0_1.pdf

Court said, still not there, bye bye
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .6.0_1.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... g-limited/

So, in short, filing in California is done not because of discipline but because Florida was an improper venue.

Here is a post I did on it at the time.
viewtopic.php?p=187077#p187077

So, he is trying again in the MD of Florida. This time he has them suing 2 different orgs. He claims that Rokit does substantial business in Florida and supposedly has some office in Florid but the judge in both cases have sua sponte issued a show cause order for want of jurisdiction as he has failed to show the court has jurisdiction. The defendants are not in the US.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... g-limited/

Rokit World v Rocket Ball has some more jurisdictional issues as well.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... -ball-ltd/

As best as I can tell, Rokit's primary places of business are England/Ireland/California and maybe some Texas.

I cannot actually find any office for them in Jacksonville as Larry claims.

[keith]

So what exactly is the suing company's (ROKiT) line of business?

I spot somebody with that name selling phones with health apps, vintage clothing, and audio speakers.

Are they a holding company for different businesses doing different lines of business or what?

[bob]

GolfMagic: Report: Tiger Woods 'fought tooth and nail' to hide damning PGA Tour docs:

Right-wing attorney Larry Klayman has made a series of accusations against PGA Tour legend Tiger Woods and commissioner Jay Monahan.

Tiger Woods 'fought tooth and nail' to prevent documents that outlined his alleged involvement in the PGA Tour's scheme to monopolize the golf industry from being made public, according to right wing American attorney Larry Klayman.

Klayman made the claim after his lawsuit against the PGA Tour was dismissed last week by a circuit court judge in Palm Beach County, Florida.

* * *

But Klayman has appealed and also plans to sue PGA Tour commissioner Jay Monahan, 54, and Woods, 48, for fraud.

In news release, Klayman criticised Delgado's ruling and accused the judge of allowing 'the case to be turned into a virtually secret star chamber, with little to no public access'.

Klayman also accused Delgado of not having enough time to properly delve 'thoroughly into the facts' and 'got tired' after being overwhelmed by the 'mountains of pleadings thrown at him' by the attorneys for the Tour and the 15-time major champion.

Of Woods, he wrote: "During the limited discovery that ensued, Tiger Woods, who sits on the PGA Tour's advisory committee and is a PGA Tour official, was forced to produce documents about his alleged involvement in the anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the golf industry.

"The PGA Tour and Monahan, along with lawyers for Woods, fought tooth and nail to keep the Woods documents from being made public."

Klayman also accused Rory McIlroy of 'monopolistic acts'.

First rule windmill tilting: Don't tilt at deep-pocketed windmills with an army of lawyers.

Bonus: GolfWeek (USA Today): PGA Tour secures dismissal of fourth amended complaint in suit brought by attorney Larry Klayman:

Attorney Larry Klayman loses again.

Now that is a well-written lede! Continuing:

A Palm Beach County (Fla.) circuit court judge last Friday dismissed a lawsuit accusing the PGA Tour of overcharging for tickets at five events held in 2023 and 2024.

* * *

Klayman alleged that the Tour overcharged his spectator admission tickets by 10 percent to 34 percent in violation of the Florida Antitrust Act and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act.

The five events in question:

2023 Honda Classic
2023 Arnold Palmer Invitational
2023 Players Championship
2023 Valspar Championship
2024 Genesis Open

The latter wasn’t applicable since the event happened in California, and Florida law governs only alleged injuries that occur in the Sunshine State. The potential damages from the Florida events were estimated to be only $174 and Delgado noted that applicable state law requires that damages exceed $30,000 in order for the court to recognize subject matter jurisdiction.

[northland10]

His latest discipline case in the DC Court of Appeals is an exercise in how many extensions he can request.

07/30/2024 Filed Report And Recommendation Of The Bd On Prof. Responsibility recommending that Respondent be suspended for eighteen (18) months with a requirement that he prove his fitness to practice law prior to reinstatement
07/31/2024 Filed Record Exhibits - 184 Exhibits Saved in X:/Shared
08/13/2024 Filed ORDER to show cause why this Court should not issue an order that the respondent remain suspended pending final disposition.
08/14/2024 Filed Motion For Extension Of Time to File Response (Respondent) Denied as Moot
08/16/2024 Filed Exceptions to Recommended Discipline (Respondent)
08/19/2024 Filed Exceptions (Petitioner Bar Counsel)
08/20/2024 Filed Briefing Order
09/10/2024 Filed Motion For Extension Of Time to File Response to OTSC and Brief (Respondent)
09/12/2024 Filed Supplement to Motion for Extension of Time (Respondent)

I don't why the motion for extension on 14 August was denied as moot or what response he was trying to extend. There are no docs available. He does like to file supplements lately. Probably wants to add all the extra stuff he files in every discipline case now. Or maybe needed more Rotunda stuff.

[northland10]

In his latest DC discipline case before the DC Court of Appeals:

09/23/2024 Filed Motion To Stay Suspension (Respondent)

Um, he is still suspended from the previous suspension, not having proved fitness (as far as I can tell). The court did order:

08/13/2024 Filed ORDER to show cause why this Court should not issue an order that the respondent remain suspended pending final disposition.

However, again, I do not see anything that would show he has followed through with showing fitness. Therefore, a stay in suspension would be moot in the current case.

He did again file a motion for an excess-paged brief because, of course, he did.