Fogbow

Here's the bit, skip up three minutes or so to see the pedophile detector in action!

Years ago I did a brief dive into a couple of of Roy Moore’s eccentric opinions. I recall finding at least one that, although bad and wrong, was thoughtfully researched and gracefully written. Some credit obviously belongs to Moore's clerks, but I would not assume that Moore lacks skills as a lawyer.

So it puzzles me that Moore has signed up for GIL's clown car show. ISTR that he's used GIL in other matters as well.

Although, come to think of it, GIL's services might come cheap, since he has his own grift funding, and Moore is probably smart enough to realize that money spent on better lawyers would be wasted on a long-shot case like this.

chancery wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 4:15 pmISTR that he's used GIL in other matters as well.

Same show, different props: Moore is using Klayman also to sue those who made all those mean attack ads (about the pedophilia allegations).

Although, come to think of it, GIL's services might come cheap, since he has his own grift funding, and Moore is probably smart enough to realize that money spent on better lawyers would be wasted on a long-shot case like this.

This: Moore, like Klayman, isn't it to win it, but to grift off being the victim of the mean ole media.

I would be surprised if Moore were paying for any of this; instead, I assume Klayman's getting a third of zero dollars.

Yeah, it's all theater for GIL and Moore. While Moore is a publicity hound so may have been driven too much by that to remember to consider where he is appearing, he is still a lawyer, and I assume even has lawyers who would make sure due diligence was carried out. If conservatives are so against the media, why would he appear without having at least some idea that he might be being set up?

The last time I did a gig that turned about to be a shit show (not n the same way, but the lady running this little string group for the performance was a crazy lady,,,, I stopped short using a word starting with B). Granted, I was still in high school. My mother may have known more about the lady ahead of time but did not question it or let me know as much deciding that I needed to learn real life. Apparently, this lady had a habit of suing the local symphony for being prejudice against jews, as was her excuse for not getting hired. Just ignore that probably at least half of the audition committee, including the Concertmaster, was Jewish.

Yep, Moore could have been sloppy because of narcissism, but that does not excuse him from being responsible especially as he is a lawyer and should know better. This is their attempt at publicity by going after a well-known star, and to fundraise off their harassment performance.

Moore's cases in Alabama, while started by Klayman, appear to be slowly plodding along without the extra fireworks. One of Klayman's extras appears to be handling the case and given the lack of the normal games, seems to be proceeding as would be expected, or at least without as much nastiness.

"For completeness," the complaint in Bit Player v. The Feebs.

Wilson, a Reagan(!) nominee, caught the case.

Unsurprisingly, Massaquoi is listed as pro se, with Klayman "of counsel/PHV pending." I believe he has done this with some of Loomer's filings. It'll be interesting to see if PHV is granted (and, if granted, whether it gets later yanked).

Class-action certification is requested, and cool $3.5B prayer for relief.

"For completeness," Klayman's presser from yesterday.

It is 15 minutes of Klayman and his client friend (it is still a pro per lawsuit) performatively airing grievances. The camera stays on them, so it was obviously very lightly attended.

Toward the end, an off-camera voice asks Klayman why other capitol trespassers get the velvet treatment while those on January 6 did not. It is such a dumb question, I suspect it may have been a troll.

Klayman wraps by complaining that everyone is just grifting off the insurrection. P.S.: Send Klayman your money.

northland10 wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 10:25 pm I keep wondering who he suing now when I see a new case on Pacer, but then find, oh, it is somebody else who has removed from state court. This has been a popular thing with GIL defendants. I assume he goes to state thinking he is more likely to be able to get to discovery and harass the defendants through depositions.

This time, it is the National Law Review. They were mean and repeated stuff about his discipline issues.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59 ... media-llc/

The judge ordered a joint scheduling report but GIL has not been responsive to attempts at communication so the judge files an OSC. Silly, judge. Does he not realize that Klayman had people to indict, a constitutional convention to run, a press release grifting for his loss handed down by the conservative hating Trump appointee, and a new class-action suit to grift.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.11.0.pdf

it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Within TEN (10) DAYS from the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely participate in the scheduling conference and in the filing of a jointly-proposed scheduling report as previously directed by this Court.

2. Failure to respond timely to this Order may result in a final order of dismissal without prejudice without further warning from the Court.

3. Defendants’ informative motion [DE 3] is DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice to renew following submission of Plaintiff’s show cause statement.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 12th day of July, 2021.

As of today 20 July, nothing filed yet.

Klayman suing yet another media outlet for reporting on his being disciplined:

Techdirt is choosing to remain state court and file an anti-SLAPP motion.

Good one

bob wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:58 pm Klayman suing yet another media outlet for reporting on his being disciplined:

Techdirt is choosing to remain state court and file an anti-SLAPP motion.

The entertainment value of Techdirt's lawyers' response is lessened by their omission of the line of argument that Klayman is libel-proof for many reasons, not the least of which is the treatment of his daughters that earned him the sobriquet of "Grossly Inappropriate Larry" on this site.

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:42 pm https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.11.0.pdf

it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Within TEN (10) DAYS from the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely participate in the scheduling conference and in the filing of a jointly-proposed scheduling report as previously directed by this Court.

2. Failure to respond timely to this Order may result in a final order of dismissal without prejudice without further warning from the Court.

3. Defendants’ informative motion [DE 3] is DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice to renew following submission of Plaintiff’s show cause statement.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 12th day of July, 2021.

As of today 20 July, nothing filed yet.

As of noon ET on July 23, 2021 (day 11), there is still no response to the OSC on the docket.

bob wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:58 pm Klayman suing yet another media outlet for reporting on his being disciplined:

Techdirt is choosing to remain state court and file an anti-SLAPP motion.

Did anyone else find this brief hard to read? Part of the problem seems to be a small typeface size and excessively long lines. But it's also wordy; too much repetition, too many adjectives, too much unnecessary intensity. I wouldn't say it's bad, but it didn't particularly grab me.

chancery wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:52 pm Did anyone else find this brief hard to read? Part of the problem seems to be a small typeface size and excessively long lines. But it's also wordy; too much repetition, too many adjectives, too much unnecessary intensity. I wouldn't say it's bad, but it didn't particularly grab me.

To make GIL complaints easier to read, I suggest playing the Twombly/Iqbal game. Every time you find conclusory allegations lacking a factual basis you take a drink.

For use after reading, here is The Fogbow Virutal Drunk Tank.
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=120

You're welcome.

Thanks Northland, that’s good advice.

But the papers I’m having trouble with are the SLAPP motion papers filed by ArsTechniva.

I can usually get a good sense of a brief with a quick skim, but the first time through this one left almost no impression. Too much characterization and not enough substance.

chancery wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:52 pm Did anyone else find this brief hard to read? Part of the problem seems to be a small typeface size and excessively long lines. But it's also wordy; too much repetition, too many adjectives, too much unnecessary intensity. I wouldn't say it's bad, but it didn't particularly grab me.

I skimmed it and thought the same thing. My suspicion is that this was bashed together quickly from a winning template in a prior case. I would have to suspect that getting this complaint dismissed would be a slam dunk because of the law, so I don't think there's any need for oodles of brilliant original legal scholarship.

Last week, Klayman Freedom Watch sued (in federal court) Google (again), claiming YouTube deleted a COVID-conspiracy video and suspended the account.

Freedom Watch's channel is still up. But the last video is four days old. So maybe uploading was suspended?

Klayman doesn't request 37 gazillionity dollars this time; his ask is much more modest: a declaration that section 230 is unconstitutional. (Hence why he's in federal court.)

He sent a notice to the court that the case was related (or really like) the Trump v YouTube case so they reassigned it to the judge in that case, the chief judge in the circuit.

After waiting for 15 years, we have a result in Klayman v Judicial Watch (i.e. his big loss to them),

I have not had a time to read the whole thing yet, just the beginning and end. GIL can claim the judge hates conservatives now...

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 908320.pdf

RAO, Circuit Judge: Larry Klayman founded and ran Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group with the motto “Because No One is Above the Law.” This appeal concerns his departure from Judicial Watch in 2003 and the resulting hostility between Klayman and the Judicial Watch officers
currently at its helm. Klayman filed a complaint against Judicial Watch and those officers asserting an array of claims, and Judicial Watch fired back with a series of counterclaims. During the fifteen years of ensuing litigation, Klayman lost several claims at summary judgment and then lost the
remaining claims after a jury trial. The jury ultimately awarded Judicial Watch $2.3 million. On appeal, Klayman raises numerous issues spanning every stage of litigation, including discovery, pretrial, trial, and post-trial. Despite the volume of his challenges, none is meritorious. We affirm the district court.

to the end

Klayman’s multitude of asserted errors fail. Judge Kollar-Kotelly presided over this litigation commendably, without any error that Klayman has identified. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court in full. The district court did not err when it sanctioned Klayman, granted partial summary judgment, admitted evidence, instructed the jury, or entered judgment on the jury’s verdict.

This is the one where Judicial Watch countersued, and won $2.3M.

D.C. Cir. isn't fooling around; its opener:

D.C. Cir. wrote:Klayman’s time at Judicial Watch came to a close after a meeting in May 2003 with two Judicial Watch officers, President Thomas Fitton and Secretary Paul Orfanedes. Klayman told them that his then-wife [...] had filed a complaint for divorce alleging infidelity and physical abuse, and he showed them a copy of the divorce complaint. Klayman admitted he was pursuing a romantic relationship with a Judicial Watch employee. Klayman also told Fitton and Orfanedes about a violent altercation he had with [his wife]. As [she] later testified [at a deposition], Klayman “put his hands around [her] neck, and he started to shake [her] and bang [her] head against the car window.” [...] Klayman then “punched his hand into the radio,” resulting in a broken hand.

The court recites these facts to explain why Klayman left Judicial Watch, which led to the (now contested) severance agreement between them. And to explain that Klayman's statements that he left to run for a Senate seat were false.

The crux of the case is Klayman's failure to follow the court's orders. Because he failed to comply fully with discovery or the pre-trial statement (used to frame the trial), the court sanctioned him by essentially preventing him from presenting any evidence (other than his own testimony). D.C. Cir. affirmed those sanctions. In other words, Klayman fucked around, and then found out.

It reminds me of Klayman's games in Montgomery's failed defamation lawsuit.

Klayman also proposed the jury instruction:

The Court has imposed sanctions on Larry Klayman, which limits his ability to testify and present evidence to prove the counts of his second amended complaint against Judicial Watch and evidence of damages as well as in his defense. Larry Klayman contends that these sanctions were the result of personal animus towards him and my political prejudice against him, since I was appointed by President Bill Clinton and my husband actually defended Secret Service agents in the Monica Lewinsky scandal of the late 1990’s. Larry Klayman has sued both Bill and Hillary Clinton many times, both as the founder, former chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch, and thereafter.

In addition, Larry Klayman contends that I have acted unethically and has filed two ethics complaints before the Judicial Council of this Court and has at least one pending now. Larry Klayman has previously moved to disqualify me under 28 U.S.C. § 144, and he contends that I necessarily should have recused myself under that statute or at least had another judge or judges rule on his motion. I refused to do either.

The district court surprisingly refused to do so, and the D.C. Cir. unsurprisingly affirmed the district court's refusal.

On appeal, Klayman raises numerous issues spanning every stage of litigation, including discovery, pretrial, trial, and post-trial. Despite the volume of his challenges, none is meritorious. We affirm the district court.

Sweet!

So, how do they get Gil to pay up? How much is he worth? (Not a qualitative question)

Uninformed wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:19 pm So, how do they get Gil to pay up?

Good question. Judicial Watch can force Klayman into what is called a debtor's examination, in which Klayman has to disclose his assets (so Judicial Watch can seize them). But Klayman will Klayman, and will throw paper to cause delay and run up costs.

Judicial Watch may ultimately just use this as a marker: In the event that Klayman ever wins another court case, Judicial Watch could swoop in and claim his proceeds in satisfaction of this debt. (Just like his ex- did when Klayman won a different lawsuit against Judicial Watch; the ex- essentially collected his prize to help pay off the money he owed her.)

But, IIRC, Klayman also still owes his ex- money. So Judicial Watch and the ex- (and others?) will all be chasing the same dollars.

How much is he worth? (Not a qualitative question)

Also a good question. During the great recession, Klayman claimed he was broke.

But, now, Klayman Freedom Watch is holding constitutional conventions and citizen grand juries; somebody is picking up the tab for those. But I presume Klayman's clever enough to structure his dealings so he appears to be cash poor (even though he has easy access to OPM).

We lost in the Great Crash the financial disclosures for Freedom Watch. IIRC, it was taking in around a mil annually, and Klayman was drawing a $200k+ salary (from that million).

I suspect GIL has been getting a salary but also getting paid through legal costs that Freedom Watch pays to him or his "law firm" for representation.

Great find, Northland! Loved the graphic!!

There is NO WAY GIL has 21.4K Followers. He's lucky to get 5 or 6 likes on a tweet. He must have bought the followers.

No mention of his SMACKDOWN, he's staying laser focused on what's REALLY important. Think the outfit is a photoshop or was he really wearing it?

Any day now!