Fogbow

I have to admit I was afraid some smartass -- not any one in particular -- was going to try to answer "Simply Irresistible" or "Magically Delicious" or something.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:22 am I have to admit I was afraid some smartass -- not any one in particular -- was going to try to answer "Simply Irresistible" or "Magically Delicious" or something.

Oh, the temptation was there. Then I threw up in my mouth.

orlylicious wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:55 am Thank you, KickahaOta! This is a really fun read, he lays out and whines about all the cases against him.

Should we send this Dennis Montgomery part over to Sharon Rondeau to get a comment from Mike Zullo?

Kinda impressive how Klayman's screed against Montgomery reads like, basically every other screed against Montgomery, yet Klayman sure couldn't stop singing Montgomery's praises when Klayman was representing Montgomery.

Begging the question Raising the issue: Was Klayman lying then or lying now?

(Answer: Yes.)

bob wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:40 pm Begging the question Raising the issue: Was Klayman lying then or lying now?

(Answer: Yes.)

That's the true reason for the animosity with the Clintons, really. Klayman is envious that it is someone else with the rep for parsing the word 'is'. It shoulda been GIL.

It seems his basic argument is "but, Officer, what about those other speeders that didn't get tickets."

Or, "he's still in a court somewherz, why can't I be here?"

FFS, of course, he did. He is suing Judge Kollar-Kotelly, again, and the magistrate judge presiding in the costs phase of ye olde Klayman v Judicial Watch, the original.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 88.1.0.pdf

He has sued before, he complained in appeals and all told him the judge was right and to go pound sand (so he sued them). If you fail, try and try again. He is not a fighter, he's a pouter who wants to harrass.

He got an Obama judge on this one. Don't think he has sued him, yet.

1. Klayman says the insurrectionists were peaceful. But Klayman does not explain the contrary evidence.

2. Klayman says he's filing a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Justice Department for its handling of January 6. But he's already done that; it was dismissed. Methinks Klayman is grifting off an already dead lawsuit.

3. Klayman says the trials against the Bidens (Joe, Hunter, James) are "underway." The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a public trial, but Klayman doesn't explain how the public may view his trials.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:56 pm 1. Klayman says the insurrectionists were peaceful. But Klayman does not explain the contrary evidence.

2. Klayman says he's filing a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Justice Department for its handling of January 6. But he's already done that; it was dismissed. Methinks Klayman is grifting off an already dead lawsuit.

3. Klayman says the trials against the Bidens (Joe, Hunter, James) are "underway." The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a public trial, but Klayman doesn't explain how the public may view his trials.

A $2.3 million award, plus $1M+ attorney fees*, do not pay themselves.

*I think JW requested 1.3M or so for fees. It's hard to remember given all his filings to get rid of the judge.

You know, KKKlaything never did answer my question on Twitter:



Which statute are you trying Joe Hunter under? Maybe review Florida's 843.0855 and see if that applies?

So, how was this epic trial in the storied courtroom of the Southern District of Denny's?

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 12:01 am You know, KKKlaything never did answer my question on Twitter:

https: //twitter.com/KevinVicklund/status/1543382407302225921

Which statute are you trying Joe Hunter under? Maybe review Florida's 843.0855 and see if that applies?

IANAL and even I see what you did there.

northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:50 am Just a quick note on GIL's latest bar fun.


2. In, as the judge referred to it, Klayman III, the Revenge of the Removal, where he filed a third time in state court only to have it removed (recap, Klayman 1 voluntary dismissed, Klayman 2 filed the next day, removed and transferred to join 4 of its friends in DC), the judge has denied the motion to remand. Now on to an MTD, which will result in an annoyed judge dismissing or sending one more to DC.

And why is the judge possibly annoyed? He did not sound like it on paper, but filing a notice in the case that the judge has been referred to the judiciary council usually does not help his mood. He said no to recusing because if judges did that, then parties would just file charges with the judiciary council to get a new judge. Which, of course, is what GIL wanted.

Oh yeah, and no cross-motion for sanctions for GIL. That seems like his latest go to.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.18.0.pdf

If you look at the link above, you may notice the denial of GIL's motion to remand was on 27 June 2022. So what did he file in the Palm Beach County court (i.e. state court) on 27 June 2022?

50-2022-CA-006589-XXXX-MB Circuit Civil CONST CHALLENGE STATUTE/ORD 06/27/2022 KLAYMAN, LARRY V PORTER, JULIA

They\ DC Board has not removed yet, but the summons were not issued until the 15th so they are probably waiting to be served. I suspect the judge in the Florida federal case may not be pleased.

It was Twofer Tuesday (well Multiple Monday actually) as he also filed his PGA tour stupidity the same day.

Those folks who actually read my posts might remember that the DC Court issued an order banning GIL from suing the board, again, but that was issued two days after his latest stupidity.

So, let's see if I can remember how many cases we have/had:

1. The earlier Klayman v Lim and Klayman v Fox. Dismissed and affirmed on appeal
2. 2 cases against Porter/Kaiser filed in DC - open
3. One case filed in ND of Texas - transferred to DC,
4. On case filed in some district in California - transferred to DC (4 cases that have essentially been combined, some are just on hold until the primary one is one).
5. Filed in Palm Beach County, Removed to Federal, voluntarily dismissed
6. Filed in Palm Beach County the next day, Removed to Federal, transferred to DC, appeal in process
7. Filed in Palm Beach County, Removed to Federal, motion to remand, motion for sanctions, and motion to execute defendants, all denied. Motion to dismiss pending (2 possible results - dismissed or transferred to DC, appeal guaranteed). According to GIL, he apparently filed a complaint against this judge with the judicial council (same judge as above).
8. Filed in Palm Beach County the same day, summons recently issued, pending.

Oh yeah, he sued the DC Board in 2014, I think over the investigation of the most recent pending discipline*. He received an extension for filing a petition with SCOTUS, but I do not actually see the Writ on the docket.

I did some of this by memory, so I may have missed one.**

* In the report from the board:

While retained to represent a client in a sexual harassment allegation against a coworker, and while unsuccessfully pursuing his own romantic interest with the client, Klayman violated a number of Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to effectively communicate with his client and to follow her instructions about the objectives of the representation, representing her under a conflict of interest, and breaching his duties of confidentiality to her, among other Rule violations.

** There is probably a new one filed while I was typing all this up.

*** There is no third footnote, but all these extra notes got me feeling all Bob like so had to do the some jerk footnote. On a sidefootnote, Grammarly really hates this post but I'm to exhausted from writing this up to fix anything.

HHHHOOOORRRRAAAAYYYY for Rebecca and Wonkette!

Now Wonkette and Judicial Watch are in a cage match to garnish the money Klayman doesn't have!

But...

The court said they will hold a hearing on attorney fees, etc., at a later date IF an appropriate motion is filed by Wonkette et al. Doesn't look like GIL's status at the bar is at risk.

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:40 pm The court said they will hold a hearing on attorney fees, etc., at a later date IF an appropriate motion is filed by Wonkette et al.

Translation: "Please file the smackdown motion; my shipping clerks deserve a little fun."

Doesn't look like GIL's status at the bar is at risk.

We are talking about the Florida Bar; Klayman's probably up for Super Duper Lawyer of the Year, or something.

Who else thinks it's about time GIL got a shock collar that gives him 50,000 volts to the scrotum every time he files a stupid motion?

Talk about must see TV.

Gregg wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:42 pm Who else thinks it's about time GIL got a shock collar that gives him 50,000 volts to the scrotum every time he files a stupid motion?

Talk about must see TV.

Please tell me they won't zoom in on the actual point of shock contact. Because ew.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 1:25 am

Gregg wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:42 pm Who else thinks it's about time GIL got a shock collar that gives him 50,000 volts to the scrotum every time he files a stupid motion?

Talk about must see TV.

Please tell me they won't zoom in on the actual point of shock contact. Because ew.

Close in on the face. For the good of all mankind.

The GIL complaint/motion/response/brief drinking game:

1. Take a drink every time GIL uses the words/concept leftist, communist, Judeo-Christian, bias, cancel, etc.*
2. Guzzle every time Gil makes a conclusory allegation without a factual basis. For extra effect, shout TWOMBLYYYY!!! before taking a drink (you can choose to shout IQBAL instead if you want to mix it up).

Bonus round:

3. While reading an amended complaint, or corrected amended complaint, or a second amended supplemental corrected complaint, add a drink for every original claim from the original complaint he did not change despite the judge already stating that they were useless in a previous order.

The Virtual Drunk Tank is here. (Foggy, some days I can remember to give the link to the topic to which I referred, um, to.)

* Do not play the first part on motions for recusals, reconsideration, rehearings, or responses to orders for recusals, reconsiderations, or responses.

Drink responsibly.

It's dead Jim.. well sort of but probably not really. In either case, it's time for GIL to get out the checkbook.

For the sweet sixteen birthday of Klayman v Judicial Watch:

SCOTUS Docket wrote:Apr 20 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
May 16 2022 Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Jun 09 2022 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Jul 07 2022 DISTRIBUTED.
Aug 01 2022 Rehearing DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

The original case is still open as they determine attorney fees due to JW and GIL files endless notices that are actually Motion to Recuse sequels.

The Excerpts of the Criminal Trials of Joe, Hunter, James Biden & Dr. Anthony Fauci!



This is "just" the "trial" of the Bidens; the Fauci "trial" will be later.

Klayman calls the "judge" Michael Pendelton.

There's a California attorney with the name who's a SVP with Guitar Center. But I doubt it is the same person. Guitar Center's Pendelton signed a letter in support of Black Lives Matter.

Klayman's Pendelton has been a guest on Klayman's podcast (and Pendelton is called a "conservative lawyer" there). And over a decade ago filed a daffidavit in support of Klayman's crusade against Judicial Watch. The one that cost Klayman two million.

But it is otherwise hilarious and dull: Klayman doing his usual spiel in an empty room.

At around 10:45 there's some cute but all too brief cosplaying. At around 14:30, there's an excerpt of the "testimony" of birther Vallely.

Klayman says the trial is for the court of public opinion, yet comments are turned off for the video.

ps.: Send money.