Another biased judicial rejection of GIL's fundamental rights!
In the Klayman v. Porter et al case in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Singhal has dismissed the case due to claim splitting (in other words, "litigating the same damn thing again").
The present case involves both the same parties and arises from the same transaction or series of transactions as the previously filed case. Although the Complaint only seeks injunctive relief, it involves the same alleged wrongdoing as the previous case. Plaintiff acknowledges as much by describing the present case as arising from “Defendants’ continued pattern and practice of unethical, illegal and unconstitutional conduct aimed at removing him from the practice of law by curtailing and ultimately silencing his conservative/libertarian private and public interest advocacy.”
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 8:12 pm
by northland10
KickahaOta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:12 pm
Another biased judicial rejection of GIL's fundamental rights!
In the Klayman v. Porter et al case in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Singhal has dismissed the case due to claim splitting (in other words, "litigating the same damn thing again").
The present case involves both the same parties and arises from the same transaction or series of transactions as the previously filed case. Although the Complaint only seeks injunctive relief, it involves the same alleged wrongdoing as the previous case. Plaintiff acknowledges as much by describing the present case as arising from “Defendants’ continued pattern and practice of unethical, illegal and unconstitutional conduct aimed at removing him from the practice of law by curtailing and ultimately silencing his conservative/libertarian private and public interest advocacy.”
The judge is really going to love it when Porter, et al remove his latest case he filed in Palm Beach County court.
northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 8:18 pmThose folks who actually read my posts ...
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:11 pm
by Tiredretiredlawyer
Moi aussi!
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:41 pm
by chancery
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:29 pm
by woodworker
I just subscribe for the pictures.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:24 pm
by Luke
GIL must be furious that his nemesis Tom Fitton filed a Motion To Unseal on the FBI search warrant first. Judicial Watch wins again and gets that sweet grift from the marks. GIL is left in a humid room with Ed Hale and a swamp cooler conducting fantasy trials for nothing. Good thing Foggy is painting his house black for a few days.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:28 pm
by bob
orlylicious wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:24 pm
GIL must be furious that his nemesis Tom Fitton filed a Motion To Unseal on the FBI search warrant first. Judicial Watch wins again and gets that sweet grift from the marks. GIL is left in a humid room with Ed Hale and a swamp cooler conducting fantasy trials for nothing. Good thing Foggy is painting his house black for a few days.
IKR?!
I mean, Mar-a-Lago is just down the roadfrom Klayman's mailbox. Klayman knows how to spam the S.D. Fla's docket, yet he isn't.
As with Judicial Watch, it would benefit Klayman if he filed and was dennied; the grift would never end.
Instead, this is Klayman's doorprize:
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:54 pm
by Luke
Exactly Bob, GIL is too old and worn out for door prizes. He needs to go for the big score! Hope GIL doesn't take this the wrong way but We The People DEMAND answers from GIL & Freedom Watch!
OrlyLicious @Orly_licious 24s
Replying to @LarryEKlayman
Larry, why didn't @FreedomWatch file a Motion To Unseal on the #FBISearchWarrant first? Aren't you in Palm Beach near Mar-A-Lago? You must be furious Tom Fitton (not even a lawyer) & Judicial Watch won again & will raise tons of money for it. #TrumpRaid https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64 ... h-warrant/
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:37 pm
by Gregg
Listen kids. If there was ANYTHING in that search warrant that might possibly be somehow twisted to look bad for the DOJ, FBI and sane world, we would know.
It would be blasting full bore on every right wing channel, show, blog and the Republican Clown Caucus would be screaming in apoplectic rage about it. Know how I know this? Trump was given a copy of the warrant. Trump was provided a list of what was taken from Mar A Griftco. Trump's lawyers were present for most of the search.
Whatever that warrant says, it ain't nothing good for The Mouse of Mar A Lago.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:11 pm
by northland10
Oyez, Oyez.. Today was the oral arguments in Klayman v Rao with the panel of visiting judges (since a bunch of the circuit judges were defendants). I have not had a chance to listen.
Note, you will need to go to YouTube to listen as the video cannot be played back on another site.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:39 pm
by bob
northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:11 pm
Oyez, Oyez.. Today was the oral arguments in Klayman v Rao with the panel of visiting judges (since a bunch of the circuit judges were defendants). I have not had a chance to listen.
I'm starting to listen. Klayman's off to a great start by ... rehashing his losing Klayman v. Judicial Watch.
Klayman, in an unforced error, pisses away his time by whining about how the Judicial Watch jury heard allegations about his misconduct with his ex-wife and former client. Which it has nothing to do with why he's suing the D.C. Circuit. Soon followed by, "I'm not trying to re-litigate cases!"
Then Klayman goes into his spiel, as if that's at all relevant. Dude doesn't know the difference between his podcast and a court.
Klayman's big gotcha is repeatedly saying that a court (the D.C. Ct. App., I believe) said it was "commendable" that it took 16 years to litigate Klayman v. Judicial Watch. (Spoiler: Klayman's misrepresenting the ruling.)
The panel softballs the DOJ's attorney, who leads with the obvious: "If you lose your case, you can't sue the judge."
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:07 pm
by bob
I find this mildly unbelievable because Klayman's incompetence is not limited to the law.
Today, Patrick Reed, among the world’s most accomplished, young professional golfers, with only one of his many victories coming at the 2018 Masters tournament, sued Brandel Chamblee and NBC’s Golf Channel for defamation. See Reed vs. Chamblee, et. al, Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-2778 (S.D. Tx.). Mr. Reed recently joined the LIV Golf Tour. Chamblee, Golf Channel, and the PGA and DP World Tour and their Commissioners Jay Monahan and Keith Pelley, are alleged to be co-conspirators for their anticompetitive conduct and anticompetitive practices in order to destroy the upstart LIV Golf Tour, Mr. Reed, and fellow LIV Golf Players in order to annihilate any competition with the PGA Tour and DP World Tour even if it means violating antitrust laws and going to extreme and scandalous measures to defame, Mr. Reed, fellow LIV Tour players, and LIV Golf.
* * *
Larry Klayman, Esq., the founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor, both civil and criminal, and in private legal practice, had this to say in filing the complaint on behalf of Mr. Reed:
Klayman wrote:The motivation of the defendants, Chamblee and NBC’s Golf Channel, is evident. Working as the surrogate agents for the PGA Tour and DP World Tour and their lawless leadership, their mission is to destroy a top LIV Golf Tour player, his family, as well as all of the LIV Golf players, to further their agenda and alleged collaborative efforts to destroy the new LIV Golf Tour.
When your work gets noticed:
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:31 am
by bob
Klayman was against LIV until he told to be for it:
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2022 9:25 am
by northland10
bob wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:21 pm
When your work gets noticed:
A slight addendum, though not a correction to the list of losses. In Moore v. Senate Majority PAC,
After a jury trial with the 2 remaining defendants, Senate Majority PAC and Waterfront Strategies:
FINAL JUDGMENT The court ENTERS A FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Moore and against SMP on Moore's defamation and invasion of privacy-false light claims in the amount of $8,200,000.00. The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Moore's claims against Waterfront. Signed by Judge Corey L. Maze on 8/15/2022. (SRD) (Entered: 08/15/2022)
However...
Moore fired Klayman, and Melissa, in March (I think GIL said he took a powder but, yeah, who believed that). He then was his own attorney until retaining other ones who probably know how actually to litigate to win, not harass.
I'm sad for Ragsdale and Elias though.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2022 12:07 pm
by bob
FINAL JUDGMENT The court ENTERS A FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Moore and against SMP on Moore's defamation and invasion of privacy-false light claims in the amount of $8,200,000.00. The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Moore's claims against Waterfront. Signed by Judge Corey L. Maze on 8/15/2022. (SRD) (Entered: 08/15/2022)
Thanks for the update; perhaps Wikipedia will be updated as well.
The defamation cases against Cohen and SMP were based on similar facts but ultimately were different, so I'm not surprised that the results were different.
But I am curious when Moore figured out Klayman was a terrible lawyer, and whether Moore believes he could have won against Cohen if he had initially retained competent counsel.
FINAL JUDGMENT The court ENTERS A FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Moore and against SMP on Moore's defamation and invasion of privacy-false light claims in the amount of $8,200,000.00. The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Moore's claims against Waterfront. Signed by Judge Corey L. Maze on 8/15/2022. (SRD) (Entered: 08/15/2022)
Thanks for the update; perhaps Wikipedia will be updated as well.
The defamation cases against Cohen and SMP were based on similar facts but ultimately were different, so I'm not surprised that the results were different.
But I am curious when Moore figured out Klayman was a terrible lawyer, and whether Moore believes he could have won against Cohen if he had initially retained competent counsel.
I forgot what and don't have time to go back and check, but there was some messiness with depositions and discovery in one of the Moore Alabama cases. It's possible that Klayman's actions were finally noticed by Moore, especially if it created the possibility that the case would be sanctioned out the door.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:25 pm
by W. Kevin Vicklund
If I were Chamblee's lawyer, those tweets by GIL would be getting quoted in my response.
The legal row surrounding golf’s bitter split has further escalated after Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy were served notice of a subpoena to reveal details of a PGA Tour players’ meeting last week.
* * *
Larry Klayman, a lawyer who is representing the lead plaintiff* in a case against the PGA Tour, suggested that the Tour should be renamed ‘LIV Light' and wants the release of documents and audio or visual recordings of a meeting that took place last week in Delaware at the BMW Championship.
Woods, etc., undoubtedly will move to quash, and they'll undoubtedly will succeed.
* Klayman is the lead, backup, and only plaintiff in this case, and he represents himself.
The legal row surrounding golf’s bitter split has further escalated after Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy were served notice of a subpoena to reveal details of a PGA Tour players’ meeting last week.
* * *
Larry Klayman, a lawyer who is representing the lead plaintiff* in a case against the PGA Tour, suggested that the Tour should be renamed ‘LIV Light' and wants the release of documents and audio or visual recordings of a meeting that took place last week in Delaware at the BMW Championship.
Woods, etc., undoubtedly will move to quash, and they'll undoubtedly will succeed.
* Klayman is the lead, backup, and only plaintiff in this case, and he represents himself.
.
In addition to bob's usual spot-on analysis and explanation, the so-called meeting Klayman speaks of was not a meeting called by nor held by the PGA or the PGA Tour. It was Tiger who called about 15 guys together to talk about (presumably) the PGA and LIV amongst other things. The rest of the time was used for Tiger and Rory to announce a new collaborative business venture. Also nothing to do with LIV.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2022 6:18 pm
by realist
bob wrote:* Klayman is the lead, backup, and only plaintiff in this case, and he represents himself.
And that word standing rears its ugly head again.
But Klayman will reach his goal of grifting some more bucks from the ignorant.
bob wrote:* Klayman is the lead, backup, and only plaintiff in this case, and he represents himself.
And that word standing rears its ugly head again.
But Klayman will reach his goal of grifting some more bucks from the ignorant.
That $2 million award (plus one million+ potential for attorney fees) won't pay itself.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:57 pm
by northland10
In some of his cases against the DC attorney discipline folks:
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must (1) grant the defendants’
motion for injunction, (2) grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss, (3) deny as moot the
defendants’ motion for interim relief, (4) deny the plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions, and (5)
deny as moot the defendants’ motion to strike.
but We The People DEMAND answers from GIL & Freedom Watch!
@Orly_licious 24s
spiel, as if that's at all relevant. Dude doesn't know the difference between his podcast and a court.
