GIL: Klayman

[bob]

Front Office Sports: Why Are Defamation Lawsuits By Athletes Growing?:

From Patrick Reed to Brett Favre, current and former pro athletes have sued over 30 media personalities or outlets for defamation over the last 12 months.

Granted, LIV Golf’s Reed does account for about half of those. . . .

Reed originally sued Golf Channel, and analyst Brandel Chamblee in a Texas federal court before Reed’s conservative activist attorney Larry Klayman dropped that lawsuit in August. Hours later, he had re-filed the case in Florida federal court — and the defendant list got longer.

There are currently eight active defendants in that lawsuit, which was dismissed once by the judge. The amended lawsuit remains ongoing. Reed also sued The Associated Press and eight others.

“These calculated, malicious, false and/or reckless attacks have had a direct effect on Mr. Reed’s, his colleagues and his family’s livelihood, and he has suffered major damages through the loss of not just one but multiple multi-million dollar sponsorship deals and his business endeavors,” Klayman wrote in the lawsuit against The Associated Press in November.

[Dave from down under]

I'd say GiL's law suits being

“... calculated, malicious, false and/or reckless attacks have had a direct effect on Mr. Reed’s, his colleagues and his family’s livelihood, and he has suffered major damages through the loss of not just one but multiple multi-million dollar sponsorship deals and his business endeavors,”

[Luke]

Hmmm. Neither GIL nor Freedom Watch have posted on Twitter in 28 days. Noticed it looking at our Birther/SovCit watch page: https://www.protopage.com/birthers

[northland10]

Hmmm. Neither GIL nor Freedom Watch have posted on Twitter in 28 days. Noticed it looking at our Birther/SovCit watch page: https://www.protopage.com/birthers

He has not posted on their Facebook page either since Feb 10. Same goes with the blog.

[bob]

He has not posted on their Facebook page either since Feb 10. Same goes with the blog.

My WAG is that Facebook and his blog were just automated postings from Twitter.

Whether Klayman's Twitter silence is voluntary or he's in some sort of tweeting jail, I don't know. But the latter wouldn't surprise me.

[northland10]

He has been filing, and losing since February 10.

In his discipline case with the DC Circuit:

01/24/2023 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER [1982798] filed setting briefing schedule: APPENDIX due 03/15/2023. RESPONDENT Brief due on 03/15/2023 [22-8521] [Entered: 01/24/2023 11:08 AM]

01/25/2023 Open Document MOTION [1983184] Stay Appeal filed by Larry Elliott Klayman (Service Date: 01/25/2023 by CM/ECF NDA) Length Certification: 762 Words. [22-8521] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 01/25/2023 08:09 PM]

01/30/2023 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER [1983776] filed denying motion to hold case in abeyance [1983184-2] Before Judges: Henderson, Katsas and Rao. [22-8521] [Entered: 01/30/2023 01:37 PM]

02/16/2023 Open Document MOTION [1986304] for reconsideration of order [1983776-2] filed by Larry Elliott Klayman (Service Date: 02/16/2023 by CM/ECF NDA) Length Certification: 679 words. [22-8521] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 02/16/2023 03:35 PM]

02/21/2023 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER [1986781] filed denying motion for reconsideration [1986304-2] Before Judges: Henderson, Katsas and Rao. [22-8521] [Entered: 02/21/2023 01:56 PM]

02/24/2023 Open Document MOTION [1987525] to recuse filed by Larry Elliott Klayman (Service Date: 02/24/2023 by CM/ECF NDA) Length Certification: 4401 words. [22-8521] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 02/24/2023 08:52 PM]

03/13/2023 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER [1989857] filed denying motion to recuse [1987525-2] Before Judges: Henderson, Katsas and Rao. [22-8521] [Entered: 03/13/2023 02:09 PM]

03/13/2023 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER [1989870] filed scheduling oral argument on Tuesday, 05/09/2023. [22-8521] [Entered: 03/13/2023 02:48 PM]

03/13/2023 Open Document MOTION [1989948] Stay filed by Larry Elliott Klayman (Service Date: 03/13/2023 by CM/ECF NDA) Length Certification: 302 words. [22-8521] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 03/13/2023 08:28 PM]

03/14/2023 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER [1990096] filed denying respondent's motion to stay [1989948-2]. [22-8521] [Entered: 03/14/2023 04:10 PM]

He tried to use the "5th circuit is not punishing me yet because I filed a new case in DC Superior court so you should do the same" approach, mixed in with, I have an open case against you (in SCOTUS). Winning? Not so much.

The petition for his case against the DC Circuit judges will be listed as denied on the order list next Monday.

Oh yeah, and his suspension by the DC Court of Appeals? SCOTUS already denied that at the 3 March conference. Their ruling stands.

[chancery]

Forgive my laziness, but has the clock on GIL's ... OK, I did check the length of the suspension ... 18 month suspension started to run for all purposes?

Also, a technical question.

There's a necessary lag between the beginning of a suspension and the beginning of reciprocal discipline in another jurisdiction, and the lag can be extended if the perp subject of the discipline contests reciprocal discipline. Suppose, for example, that a disciplined lawyer succeeds in delaying imposition of reciprocal discipline until one month before expiration of the original order. Does the reciprocal discipline expire in one month, or does it last the full 18 months in that jurisdiction?

northland110, perhaps you know?

[northland10]

Forgive my laziness, but has the clock on GIL's ... OK, I did check the length of the suspension ... 18 month suspension started to run for all purposes?

Also, a technical question.

There's a necessary lag between the beginning of a suspension and the beginning of reciprocal discipline in another jurisdiction, and the lag can be extended if the perp subject of the discipline contests reciprocal discipline. Suppose, for example, that a disciplined lawyer succeeds in delaying imposition of reciprocal discipline until one month before expiration of the original order. Does the reciprocal discipline expire in one month, or does it last the full 18 months in that jurisdiction?

northland110, perhaps you know?

I will start on the first, non-technical, question as I can answer that (IANAL but I have read the orders). He could have started the clock when he was on interim suspension back in January 2021, but he played games and claimed he did not have to submit the DC Section 14(g) Affidavit. The DC Court of Appeals said, nope, you be wrong so the clock had not started. He did file the affidavit on 17 October 2022 so the 18-month suspension starts to run from that date.

That said, the suspension is 18 months with fitness. I don't really know what that means but his constant suing of the DC board, including some new case where he sues the complainant and the DC board in DC Superior Court, can't possibly help his ability to show fitness. He also has, or had, 3 other cases pending, according to various court filings (I could see one of those being dropped because Montgomery is not a good witness, but one is for him suing the entire DC Court of Appeals).

As for reciprocal discipline, I am not sure about that. In his 90-day suspension, some courts made him start serving his 90 days even after the original one was completed, but others have done nothing (I'm looking at you Florida).

One of his arguments in the cases against the DC Board (another of which was dismissed today and I will post after I finish reading) was that the board was tattling on him to the jurisdictions, which according to the judge, is all fine and dandy and actually, sort of expected.

Spoiler alert.. His cases are getting Youngered by the minute.

Edit: I forget which jurisdiction it was, but the one that made him serve his 90 days after the DC one had completed gave me a sense that they were a bit annoyed with him for not self-tattling. Had he informed them initially as is required, they would have had the 90 days then and it would have been over but instead, they were informed by the DC Board.

[northland10]

I said above I was still reading, and I was, but now I am done. In one of his other cases against the DC Board of Harassing Conservative Judeo-Christian Attorneys, the shocking...

...did not happen. He was Youngered.

ORDER. In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion issued on this same date, it is hereby ORDERED that the 25 Defendants' Joint Motion to Consolidate and Motion to Dismiss Related Case is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The motion is DENIED in all other respects. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's 18 Motion for Transfer and Remand or Alternatively Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction is DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forthwith mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff's address on record. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on March 14, 2023. (lcrbw3) (Entered: 03/14/2023)

Don't freak on the denial in part. The defendant's motion that was denied was the one to consolidate with existing cases which no longer exist because they were previously dismissed.

Don't worry that you are missing Iqbal since this is about the board's jurisdiction and not defamation, Iqbal still slides in for an appearance.

Thus, the allegations asserted in this case are “far from sufficient to permit a ‘plausible’ inference of the type of ubiquitous tribalism that [any potential] claim of bad faith [would] posit[,]” Klayman II, 2019 WL 2396539, at *3 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)),

Part of GIL's claim was that when this was a Florida state case (this one was originally filed in the state court, then removed, then transferred to DC), was that it was under $75K. The judge did not mention it in this ruling but the 11th circuit recently said BS on that claim.

The ruling:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.28.0.pdf

Looking at the docket, there are two more pending but looks like they have stalled. I assume they will be dumped in due course. There are also 2 currently sitting and waiting for the DC Circuit.

[northland10]

IN both the Reed cases (the golf ones) the judge has ordered a hearing in July and stayed all discovery and other stuff that Bob or others can explain.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 5.41.0.pdf

[northland10]

For completeness, in his petition for a writ of mandamus regarding the DC Court of Appeals suspending him for 18 months, with fitness, SCOTUS says, the obvious.

MANDAMUS DENIED
22-619 IN RE LARRY E. KLAYMAN

Why not a petition for cert? I think he blew the deadline for a cert petition on this and the case against the DC Circuit judges.

These were such high priorities who could not even submit them on time.

[northland10]

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).

Of course, he filed a petition for rehearing. In it, he goes on again about the visiting circuit judges agreeing with him until they didn't an cites some cases from the 1990s and 1984. While he mentions that intervening circumstances are the only reason a petition for rehearing would be allowed, he does not actually present them. His intervening circumstances are others have issues with "judicial immunity" so the court must act.

Oh yeah, and since this is a petition for a writ of mandamus, it can proceed differently because he is not asking for an amount in damages.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... earing.pdf

[Reality Check]

Of course, he filed a petition for rehearing. In it, he goes on again about the visiting circuit judges agreeing with him until they didn't an cites some cases from the 1990s and 1984. While he mentions that intervening circumstances are the only reason a petition for rehearing would be allowed, he does not actually present them. His intervening circumstances are others have issues with "judicial immunity" so the court must act.

Oh yeah, and since this is a petition for a writ of mandamus, it can proceed differently because he is not asking for an amount in damages.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... earing.pdf

Exactly, I noticed that too. He quotes Rule 44 then goes off on how mean the courts have been to him.

[gshevlin2]

Larry now has a new line of lucrative work - representing flaky F1 sponsors in a Lolsuit against a Formula 1 team.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/forme ... /10453045/

[jcolvin2]

Larry now has a new line of lucrative work - representing flaky F1 sponsors in a Lolsuit against a Formula 1 team.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/forme ... /10453045/

Trying to convince a federal court to overturn an international arbitration award is quite the uphill challenge. I hope GIL is up for it.

[bob]

Trying to convince a federal court to overturn an international arbitration award is quite the uphill challenge. I hope GIL is up for it.

The more interesting part of the story has to be how Klayman convinced Jonathan Kendrick (ROKiT's owner) to spend more money on this soured deal. Perhaps Klayman's tilting at the PGA was a loss leader intended as marketing for others aggrieved in the sporting world. There's no big whale in the fake-grand-jury grift, but there are many in the world of professional entertainment sports.

ROKiT was co-founded by billionaire John Paul DeJoria, so Klayman must be dreaming about the future paychecks.

[gshevlin2]

Trying to convince a federal court to overturn an international arbitration award is quite the uphill challenge. I hope GIL is up for it.

The more interesting part of the story has to be how Klayman convinced Jonathan Kendrick (ROKiT's owner) to spend more money on this soured deal. Perhaps Klayman's tilting at the PGA was a loss leader intended as marketing for others aggrieved in the sporting world. There's no big whale in the fake-grand-jury grift, but there are many in the world of professional entertainment sports.

Rokit has a track record of not paying some of their sponsorship bills, and setting up numerous front companies that are not related to their core entities for sponsorship purposes, making it almost impossible for creditors to recover monies owed, since those front companies turn out to have no assets.
Rokit sponsored Tatiana Calderon 2 years ago in Indycar with A.J. Foyt Racing, but promised payments never arrived, and the car was parked by Foyt mid-season and never ran again.
Flaky lawyer meets flaky sponsor. A marriage made in Hell.

[gshevlin2]

https://www.sportico.com/business/spons ... 234690627/

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Ah, the Trump business model.

[Luke]

It's now been 53 days since GIL has posted on Twitter. (107 days for Orly Taitz.)

[northland10]

Trying to convince a federal court to overturn an international arbitration award is quite the uphill challenge. I hope GIL is up for it.

The more interesting part of the story has to be how Klayman convinced Jonathan Kendrick (ROKiT's owner) to spend more money on this soured deal. Perhaps Klayman's tilting at the PGA was a loss leader intended as marketing for others aggrieved in the sporting world. There's no big whale in the fake-grand-jury grift, but there are many in the world of professional entertainment sports.

ROKiT was co-founded by billionaire John Paul DeJoria, so Klayman must be dreaming about the future paychecks.

The case was filed in the SD of Florida on 29 March. On 31 March, they hit a snag.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 68.4.0.pdf

On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs, Rokit World, Inc. and Rokit World Limited filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] asserting four claims for relief. (See id. ¶¶ 39–62). Because the Complaint does not sufficiently allege the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, it is due to be dismissed.

Plaintiffs allege subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. section 1332.

The Complaint also sufficiently alleges the United Kingdom citizenship of the three individual Defendants, Claire Williams, Michael
O’Driscoll, and Doug Lafferty. (See id. ¶¶ 6–8). But because Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege their own citizenships or the citizenship of Defendant, Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited, the Court is unable to determine whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction under section 1332.

GIL neglected to provide the citizenship of the parties? I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya.

Spoiler, as far as I can tell, Rokit is out of California and the UK. The court dismissed the complaint and has given him to 6 Apil to file an amended complaint that corrects the big gaping flaw in the complaint.

In the real world, it would have been filed wherever Rokit is at, but Klayman is basically stuck with only using Florida right now.

GIL will pick one or all of the following:

1. Voluntarily dismiss and refile in state court.
2. File an amended complaint that uses a bunch of BS to explain away the jurisdiction thing.
3. Tell the chief judge she is biased against white male conservatives.
4. Change the Plaintiff to a company incorporated in Florida this week.
5. Add an individual plaintiff and claim they live in Florida by using somebody else's address for them (he's done it before)
6. Find some individual in Williams who has mentioned the state of Florida before and add them as a defendant.
7. File essentially the same complaint again, with no changes.

I did a search for Florida in the complaint. It occurs twice. Once in the court name, and once in the "Florida Bar" number Klayman provides. Nowhere else does he mention the state (he does not say anything about the location of Rokit).
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 68.1.0.pdf

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

[northland10]

The case was filed in the SD of Florida on 29 March. On 31 March, they hit a snag.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 68.4.0.pdf

On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs, Rokit World, Inc. and Rokit World Limited filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] asserting four claims for relief. (See id. ¶¶ 39–62). Because the Complaint does not sufficiently allege the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, it is due to be dismissed.

Plaintiffs allege subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. section 1332.

The Complaint also sufficiently alleges the United Kingdom citizenship of the three individual Defendants, Claire Williams, Michael
O’Driscoll, and Doug Lafferty. (See id. ¶¶ 6–8). But because Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege their own citizenships or the citizenship of Defendant, Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited, the Court is unable to determine whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction under section 1332.

GIL neglected to provide the citizenship of the parties? I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya.

Spoiler, as far as I can tell, Rokit is out of California and the UK. The court dismissed the complaint and has given him to 6 Apil to file an amended complaint that corrects the big gaping flaw in the complaint.

In the real world, it would have been filed wherever Rokit is at, but Klayman is basically stuck with only using Florida right now.

GIL will pick one or all of the following:

1. Voluntarily dismiss and refile in state court.
2. File an amended complaint that uses a bunch of BS to explain away the jurisdiction thing.
3. Tell the chief judge she is biased against white male conservatives.
4. Change the Plaintiff to a company incorporated in Florida this week.
5. Add an individual plaintiff and claim they live in Florida by using somebody else's address for them (he's done it before)
6. Find some individual in Williams who has mentioned the state of Florida before and add them as a defendant.
7. File essentially the same complaint again, with no changes.

He filed the amended updating his plaintiffs with:

3. RWI is a corporation and is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. At all material times, RWI was the parent company of ROKiT Marketing, Inc (“RMI”) and ROK Marketing, LLC (“ROK”). RWI’s principal place of business is California, and it does substantial business all throughout the United States, including but not limited to in Florida. Am. Comp. ¶ 21.

4. RWL is an incorporated entity registered under the laws of Ireland, and it is the parent company of RWI. Its principal place of business is in Ireland and does substantial business worldwide, the United States and in this judicial district.

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

The court was not convinced. I'm shocked.

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 5]. Because the Amended Complaint shows the parties lack complete diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. section 1332, it is due to be dismissed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .6.0_1.pdf

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

[northland10]

Larry gets to pay again:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT, 110 SOUTH TAMARIND AVENUE, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

March 23, 2023

CASE NO.: 4D22-1803
L.T. No.: 502021CA004857
LARRY KLAYMAN v. PORTFOLIO MEDIA, INC., et al.
Appellant / Petitioner(s) Appellee / Respondent(s)

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
ORDERED that appellees’ October 14, 2022 motion for appellate attorney's fees is granted. On remand, the trial court shall set the amount of the attorney's fees to be awarded for this appellate case. If a motion for rehearing is filed in this court, then services rendered in connection with the filing of the motion, including, but not limited to, preparation of a responsive pleading, shall be taken into account in computing the amount of the fee. Further,

ORDERED that the motion for costs filed by Deanna K. Shullman is denied without prejudice to seek costs in the trial court

Portfolio Media is Law 360. They said bad things about him so he sued them in Palm Beach Court. He lost.

[gshevlin2]

The case was filed in the SD of Florida on 29 March. On 31 March, they hit a snag.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 68.4.0.pdf

On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs, Rokit World, Inc. and Rokit World Limited filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] asserting four claims for relief. (See id. ¶¶ 39–62). Because the Complaint does not sufficiently allege the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, it is due to be dismissed.

Plaintiffs allege subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. section 1332.

The Complaint also sufficiently alleges the United Kingdom citizenship of the three individual Defendants, Claire Williams, Michael
O’Driscoll, and Doug Lafferty. (See id. ¶¶ 6–8). But because Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege their own citizenships or the citizenship of Defendant, Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited, the Court is unable to determine whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction under section 1332.

GIL neglected to provide the citizenship of the parties? I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya.

Spoiler, as far as I can tell, Rokit is out of California and the UK. The court dismissed the complaint and has given him to 6 Apil to file an amended complaint that corrects the big gaping flaw in the complaint.

In the real world, it would have been filed wherever Rokit is at, but Klayman is basically stuck with only using Florida right now.

GIL will pick one or all of the following:

1. Voluntarily dismiss and refile in state court.
2. File an amended complaint that uses a bunch of BS to explain away the jurisdiction thing.
3. Tell the chief judge she is biased against white male conservatives.
4. Change the Plaintiff to a company incorporated in Florida this week.
5. Add an individual plaintiff and claim they live in Florida by using somebody else's address for them (he's done it before)
6. Find some individual in Williams who has mentioned the state of Florida before and add them as a defendant.
7. File essentially the same complaint again, with no changes.

He filed the amended updating his plaintiffs with:

3. RWI is a corporation and is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. At all material times, RWI was the parent company of ROKiT Marketing, Inc (“RMI”) and ROK Marketing, LLC (“ROK”). RWI’s principal place of business is California, and it does substantial business all throughout the United States, including but not limited to in Florida. Am. Comp. ¶ 21.

4. RWL is an incorporated entity registered under the laws of Ireland, and it is the parent company of RWI. Its principal place of business is in Ireland and does substantial business worldwide, the United States and in this judicial district.

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

The court was not convinced. I'm shocked.

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 5]. Because the Amended Complaint shows the parties lack complete diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. section 1332, it is due to be dismissed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .6.0_1.pdf

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

The docket says the case was dismissed on April 6th.
Even by LOLsuit standards, that was short-lived.

[Sam the Centipede]

You omitted one GIL option for responding to this problem: sue the judge then demand that she recuse herself.

As for the case being short-lived, the fact of the case being dismissed by the court is not a huge impediment for an experienced craptorney and lollawyer such as GIL. RWNJs love themselves a good zombie lolsuit, one where they can fling paper and grift for pennies, knowing that nobody who matters cares, and nobody who cares matters.