Fogbow

bob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 3:05 pm

CNN wrote:CNN will aggressively defend its reporting, which did not even mention the plaintiff in its coverage."

To be fair to Klayman, defamation doesn't require a person to be specifically named, provided the identity of the person targeted is sufficiently inferrable. ("Innuendo" is the legal term of art for this.)

But, yeah: a $450M nastygram will be roundfiled, along with all the other Klayman nastygrams.

KlaymanLaw also allows you to sue one entity for defamation because of what some third party told another third party, and neither third party was a party to the case.

GIL better had better reconsider his Grand Slam Grand Jury nonsense:

Denny’s restaurant sign falls on car in Kentucky, killing 1 and injuring 2
Police say strong winds were a factor in the restaurant's sign falling on top of an occupied car Thursday afternoon, killing a 72-year-old woman.
Jan. 20, 2023, 8:52 AM EST By Marlene Lenthang

A 72-year-old woman was killed and two others were injured when a Denny’s restaurant sign in Kentucky fell from its post and crashed onto an occupied car below. Police responded to a Denny's on the 2000 block of North Mulberry Street in Elizabethtown around 1:30 p.m. Thursday on a report of the fallen sign. Photos show the sign on top of a blue vehicle, crushing in parts of the roof.

First responders extracted two women and a man from the wreckage and they were transported to local hospitals, where the 72-year-old victim died, Elizabethtown Police said in a news release. Her identity has not been released pending family notification. The conditions of the other two victims were not immediately clear Friday morning. "I am able to say with certainty the wind was a factor. Very, very sad situation," Elizabethtown police spokesperson Chris Denham said. Peak wind gusts of 45 to 55 mph were observed across parts of Kentucky on Thursday, the National Weather Service office in Louisville said.

NBC News has reached out to Denny's for comment.

Golf Channel (NBC): Rory McIlroy confirms snub as video shows tee toss; Patrick Reed fires back:

“I was subpoenaed by [Patrick Reed's] lawyer on Christmas Eve,” [Rory] McIlroy explained. “So of course, trying to have a nice time with my family, and someone shows up on your doorstep and delivers that, you’re not going to take that well.

* * *

Larry Klayman, who is part of Reed’s team of lawyers, has alleged that McIlroy, Davis Love III and Tiger Woods are co-conspirators in the PGA Tour’s antitrust scheme to destroy the LIV Golf League. Reed confirmed to a few reporters on-site in Dubai that this particular lawsuit was not issued by him (he is involved in other defamation cases), but rather as part of the larger antitrust lawsuit against the Tour.

According to documents provided by Freedom Watch, Klayman’s public interest group, McIlroy was indeed served his subpoena at 3:50 p.m. on Christmas Eve.

Klayman would be howling if someone served him on Christmas Eve.

bob wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:46 pm Klayman would be howling if someone served him on Christmas Eve.

Absolutely he would. I also believe that the day of service was GIL's choice. Even when he has defendants who waived personal service, he will have them served at home at odd times.

This is one of the ways he uses the cases to harass and embarrass defendants.

In one of the GIL vs the evil DC Board of Professional Responsibility, he sued Porter et al. for defamation because he claimed, on information and belief (i.e. pulled out of his behind), that the Board directed the writing of the Politico article in order to defame him. The judge has ruled that, as in his other cases, they have absolute immunity. This is based on the fact that the offending words theat Political quoted were comments Porter made on the record during a hearing.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 7.19.0.pdf

CBS: Rory McIlroy edges Patrick Reed at 2023 Dubai Desert Classic to cap dramatic week on DP World Tour:

The DP World Tour got the ending it wanted as McIlroy starts his year with a win for the first time

It started with a tee and ended with a putt. From the beginning of the week, Rory McIlroy and Patrick Reed were embroiled in a tussle that ended up lasting all four rounds and culminated with a birdie-birdie finish by McIlroy to win the Dubai Desert Classic for the the third time. McIlroy also begins his year with a win for the first time in his decorated career.

Prior to the tournament, McIlroy ignored Reed's approach on the driving range in Dubai, citing that Reed's lawyer, Larry Klayman, had served McIlroy a subpoena at his home on Christmas Eve. Reed tossed a tee in the general direction of McIlroy (which, this being golf, became a massive storyline) and later referred to McIlroy as an "immature little child."

Then the tournament started.

Klayman wins again.

From last month, but it details Klayman's attempts to serve Tiger Woods:

So much winning. I think it may be time to consider changing the term shotgun pleading to Klayman pleading.

In the 11th circuit opinion for Klayman v. CNN

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinion ... 212480.pdf

11th circuit wrote:PER CURIAM:
Larry Klayman sued Cable News Network (CNN), its President Jeffrey Zucker, and CNN reporter Oliver Darcy for defamation after a CNN article mentioned him in 2020. We affirm the district court’s dismissal as to Zucker and Darcy for lack of personal jurisdiction, and we affirm its dismissal as to CNN on the ground that Klayman’s complaint was a shotgun pleading.

In a response in the district court, Klayman added in a footnote:

11th circuit wrote:However, should the Court find Mr. Klayman’s complaint deficient in this regard, Mr. Klayman respectfully requests leave to amend

To which the 11th noted (bold emphasis, the court - highlighted emphasis, mine).

11th circuit wrote:The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and gave Klayman “one final opportunity to file an amended pleading consistent with this Order on or before July 15, 2022. Any such amended pleading,” the court instructed, “must adequately allege facts sufficient to establish the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over all defendants, must avoid the pitfalls of shotgun pleadings; and must plausibly allege all essential elements of any defamation claims.” Klayman did not amend his complaint; instead, he waited until July 22, 2022 and filed a notice of appeal.

Klayman stated in his appeal:

11th circuit wrote:Klayman now asserts that amendment would have been futile.

Well, I sort of agree to that one. His amended complaints never address the court's stated requirements but just restate the same, add some new counts, and maybe a few new defendants.

IANAL, but I might be embarrassed if a court stated this about my brief.

11th circuit wrote:We also affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint as to CNN because it is a classic shotgun pleading. We will construe Klayman’s appellate brief generously so as not to have abandoned argument about the shotgun-pleading issue. Nonetheless, we agree with the district court that Klayman’s pleading fails to meet Rule 8 requirements.

For Bob, and others who follow such things, the panel was Trump (Newsom), Trump (Luck), and Carter (Anderson now on senior status)

GIL gets two opportunities this month to be rejected by SCOTUS in March. For those paying attention, he filed two petitions for a writ of mandamus. I suspect he went that route because he missed the deadlines for a cert petition. Even if mandamus would be the proper route, I don't know why he sat on these if they really were important (and one of them sort of is, for him).

22-619 - This is an appeal to his suspension by the DC Court of Appeals. He was suspended in September but did not bother to file this until January. It is scheduled for the 17 March Conference.

22-637 - This is the case against Rao and a bunch of other judges on the DC Circuit. The decision was also in September. In this petition, his question ends with:

The question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the District Court to conduct a new trial in the JW Case?

Yes, he is asking SCOTUS who already passed on the Judicial Watch 2006 case to accept this writ and order a new trial for the JW 2006 case. Yeah, that's how it works.

Respondents waived the right to respond. Conference 3 March.

Checked the ages on GIL and some of the guys:

Larry Klayman Age 71 years July 20, 1951
Tom Fitton 54 years
Dennis L. Montgomery 69 years
Jerome Corsi 76 years August 31, 1946

GIL seems far older than 71. He definitely seems to be slowing down/losing a step. He's never going to get rid of those JW sanctions, that must weigh over his head every night. Good.

Didn't look at his "charity" tax filings, wonder if the grift is slowing down too also. He's been on a long losing streak and can't imagine the marks are donating much to the Denny's Grand Slam Grand Juries.

NADT, but the Dead Birthers topic has cleared space for all these pustules when they are ready to join The Putz and others who have returned electrons to the universe.

I know little about law in my country, let alone yours, but I am astonished that this gentleman is allowed to launch all these doomed actions. He must waste thousands of hours of the courts’ time, let alone his own. Why does he do it? Is it a question of thinking that one day, if he throws enough, something will stick? Or does he think he gains kudos simply by launching an action? Does he think he is owning the libs? A strange man indeed.

Cyrus Breckenridge wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 4:03 am I know little about law in my country, let alone yours, but I am astonished that this gentleman is allowed to launch all these doomed actions. He must waste thousands of hours of the courts’ time, let alone his own. Why does he do it? Is it a question of thinking that one day, if he throws enough, something will stick? Or does he think he gains kudos simply by launching an action? Does he think he is owning the libs? A strange man indeed.

Mental Defect

Cyrus Breckenridge wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 4:03 am Why does he do it? Is it a question of thinking that one day, if he throws enough, something will stick? Or does he think he gains kudos simply by launching an action? Does he think he is owning the libs?

Klayman essentially created the lawsuit-as-publicity-to-grift-off. Klayman files; libs are "owned"; marks (whales and minnows, but fewer whales these days) open their wallets to buy more "owning"; the lawsuit is quietly dismissed, so Klayman rinses, washes, and repeats with a new one.

Back in the day (i.e., the 90s), Klayman had a dual purpose: slow down the enemy. It was asymmetric warfare for Klayman to pay pennies to sue the Big Dog, which weakened his ability to govern. Anyone who has worked in the White House will tell you it is always a race against time.

The publicity also glistened Klayman's ego.

He also uses lawsuits to harass adversaries or, as part of the publicity-grift profession, to be seen harassing others. His constant cases against the DC Board of GIL Haters (also known as the DC Board of Professional Responsibility) and Judicial Watch are pure personal harassment related along with trying to slow down the inevitable. The PGA and some others are grift-publicity cases.

The 2 SCOTUS petitions are last-ditch efforts to slow down what is already a done deal (the 2M+ award in the JW case and his current suspension). I have no clue why he sat on them for so long and did not file something soon after he was denied in the DC Circuit (federal appellant) for the Rao case or the DC Court of Appeals (the District of Columbia's "state court") for his suspension from practicing law.

Klayman finds himself unloved by the 11th Circuit for the second time in a month. For those who forgot or gave up trying to keep track, GIL sued Porter/Fox/Kaiser/DC Board of Klayman Haters (i.e. professional responsibility) multiple times in a Florida state court. This was the result:

1. Filed a case in state court, which was removed by the defendants to Federal Court, and then voluntarily dismissed by Klayman.

2. Filed a new case in state court but with the amount included under $75k, which was removed to the federal court, and then transferred to DC to hang out with 6 or so other pending cases against the plaintiffs.

3. The day the case was transferred, he filed yet another one in state court but removed the amount and only asked for other relief. Again, it was removed, his motion to remand was denied, and the case was dismissed.

He appealed:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinion ... 213025.pdf

11th Circuit wrote:Larry Klayman appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to remand and dismissing his complaint for improper claim splitting. After careful review, we affirm.

I found the wording of this statement on claim splinting interesting.

11th Circuit wrote:The claim-splitting doctrine applies in these circumstances to shield the defendants from Klayman’s “vexatious and duplicative litigation.” See Kennedy, 998 F.3d at 1236; Vanover, 857 F.3d at 841.

While they are quoting for Kennedy, they could have worded it to just say "shield the defendants from 'vexatious and duplicative litigation'" or even left off vexatious. However, they said Klayman's "vexatious and duplicative litigation." I realize, this is obvious but I don't always expect a court to say it out loud that way.

The panel was Rosenbaum (Obama), Brasher (Trump), and Anderson (senior judge, Carter). The opinion is per curiam.

Three cheers for Northland's outstanding updates on GIL. Absolutely knows more about GIL's cases than GIL, I'd bet on it. If he isn't reading here, he's missing a tremendous resource. Maybe he should be banned from being able to see this topic under the "no helping" rule. On the other hand, seeing the rightful mocking and humiliation in this topic could be worth it.

Has GIL won anything lately? When was his last success? #LOSER

orlylicious wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:39 am Three cheers for Northland's outstanding updates on GIL. Absolutely knows more about GIL's cases than GIL, I'd bet on it.

There's a safe bet. N10 knows more than the lawyers litigating against GIL, which is sad, but almost surely true.

Has GIL won anything lately? When was his last success? #LOSER

He won that one case in Florida against Judicial Watch, IIRC, and his wife jumped in immediately to seize all the proceeds for her unpaid child support and alimony judgments against him. In other word, while I'm fuzzy on the details, the only case he won, he lost that too. Orly Taitz did that, too also.

However, it's a little unfair to make fun of him for losing every lawsuit. I do it anyway, but it's not fair.

He doesn't try to win any of his cases, except the ones to keep his law license, and those he''s too deep to climb out. But all the political cases are filed just to make noise, and not because he thinks he can win anything in court. In fairness, he has elevated harrassment litigation to an art form. He files cases, announces them, loses them, and moves on to the next. When he's not even trying, it's kind of silly to say, "Oh, you lost, dummy."

He sort of had a win, or win adjacent, on his never ending JW case from 2006. The magistrate judge's recommendation disallowed some of the JW's attorney fee request (I don't remember the amount and and on mobile so don't have it handy but it was not insignificant).

GIL being Gil could not just accept the gift. He has filed a new motion for sanctions based on his claim that JW committee fraud by including the later disallowed fees in their original motion. He also asked the case be transferred to a different court and jurisdiction, again.

He still thinks he is litigating the original case the SCOTUS already denied. On Monday, will will see his writ of mandamus petion in the Rao case on the denial list.

viewtopic.php?p=159022&hilit=magistrate#p159022 Magistrate judge knocked nearly $1 million off $1.6+ million ask.

I think he had some case against the Intelligence services or something that he technically won, but then the case became moot because the law changed. I think it was something to do with the Snowden fiasco, but I cant remember. Regardless it was his only victory and achieved nothing.

Suranis wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 5:25 pm I think he had some case against the Intelligence services or something that he technically won, but then the case became moot because the law changed. I think it was something to do with the Snowden fiasco, but I cant remember. Regardless it was his only victory and achieved nothing.

Sorta.

Klayman repeatedly sued the NSA over its collection of metadata. The district court agreed with Klayman, but the appellate court stayed enforcement for various reasons.

Congress eventually changed the law, but that didn't stop Klayman from amending the lawsuit to get increasingly crazy. Klayman finally went a bridge far and made claims even the district court couldn't abide.

Klayman nonetheless took credit for the law's change.

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 4:11 pm viewtopic.php?p=159022&hilit=magistrate#p159022 Magistrate judge knocked nearly $1 million off $1.6+ million ask.

Thanks, I forgot I already posted it, so I did not need to wait to get home.

That post even had a link to his motion for sanctions and stuff.

So his list of victories stands as thus:

Suit against Clinton, won in district court, overturned on appeal with trial judge receiving sharp reprimand
Suit against NSA et al., won in district court but stayed and then dismissed as moot after the law changed (prolonged to the point of mootness by his shenanigans)
Defamation suit against JW based on Orly Taitz's contested reporting, award seized by ex-wife

Honorable mention:
Reduced sanctions requested by $1 million, immediately continued behaviour that garnered sanctions
Several clients won their cases after he no longer represented them

For the record, in his case against Rao and most of the DC Circuit (which he was basically asking SCOTUS to kick the JW case back to the district court, even though they already denied it):

Mar 06 2023 Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Jackson was a defendant in Rao and Kavanaugh was previously on the DC Circuit and also recused from the JW petition (as did Jackson).