Sheriff Joe Arpaio - General Topic

[bob]

In Arpaio v. THE LIBERAL MEDIA (Part 2: CNN, HuffPo, Rolling Stone), Klayman filed his oppositions to their motions to dismiss [in April]. Replies are due June 3.

D.D.C.:

ORDER: Hearing on defendants' Motions to Dismiss set for July 24, 2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

Tomorrow! Thursday!

FW:

SHERIFF ARPAIO TO BE PRESENT IN COURT AND AT PRESS CONFERENCE TO FOLLOW

Availability of light refreshments still unknown.

And:

This case, which is styled Arpaio v. Zucker, Civil Action No. 18-CV- 2894 (D.D.C.), is of utmost importance as it seeks to hold the so-called 'Fake News Media' accountable for its smears. The complaint was filed by Freedom Watch's 'Leftist Media Strike Force' and is another example of how Klayman, Freedom Watch and his clients, like Sheriff Arpaio, do not just get documents under FOIA, but bring hard-hitting lawsuits seeking justice. We thus do not ask the government to take action but instead are committed to bringing about justice ourselves!

Klayman announced the filing of his UFO FOIA suit literally yesterday.

[tek]

Klayman, Freedom Watch and his clients, like Sheriff Arpaio, do not just get documents under FOIA, but bring hard-hitting lawsuits seeking justice. We thus do not ask the government to take action but instead are committed to bringing about justice ourselves!

PS: Send money.

[bob]

In light of the representation made by one of the parties' unavailability, the Motion Hearing set for 7/24/2019 is vacated and reset for 7/25/2019 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 15 before Judge Royce C. Lamberth. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 6/27/19.

So the big hearing is tomorrow, and wasn't today.

[Notorial Dissent]

GIL trying to find a way out of a hearing?????

[Reality Check]

I found a short article on the hearing yesterday:

WASHINGTON – Attorneys for former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said on Thursday in federal court that he had "become a whipping boy to get to the president" as part of the defamation lawsuit he filed against news outlets.

In December, attorneys representing Arpaio filed a $300 million lawsuit against CNN, the Huffington Post and Rolling Stone, claiming the outlets had published false information about Arpaio.

Arpaio's attorney Larry Klayman alleged "tremendous leftist hatred of Sheriff Arpaio and the president" as seen in the news outlets named in the lawsuit.

The outlets filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. Lawyers representing the news outlets argued their articles had been quickly corrected and did not amount to defamation.

Stephen Fezesi, a lawyer from Williams and Connolly representing CNN, said that the articles were "substantially true" and did "not come close to proving actual malice," and thus did not amount to defamation.

http://www.newslocker.com/en-us/region/ ... suit/view/

Poor, poor widdle Joey.

[RoadScholar]

The way they use "leftist" is ludicrous. I say we refer to them as "fascists."

[bob]

Ob. WND: THE WORLD WE LIVE IN:

Exclusive: Larry Klayman joins his clients in preserving freedom

[ * * * ]

This is why the nation owes a great debt of gratitude to patriots like my clients Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Chief Justice Roy Moore, Cliven Bundy and his sons and family, Dr. Jerome Corsi, Dallas Police Sargent Demetrick Pennie, Kiara Robles, Laura Loomer, Laurie Luhn, the families of the fallen special ops heroes of Extortion 17 and Benghazi and a myriad of others too numerous to mention in this column, but which are honored at Freedom Watch USA and my website..

Just this week I was in court before one of the few great and intellectually honest federal judges in the land, the honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case concerns the attempt to destroy America’s toughest sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Not surprisingly, given “the world we live in today,” CNN (through its halfwit Yale-educated daddy-Mario-likely-greased-his-acceptance) prime time host Chris Cuomo, at the direction his leftist CEO Jeff Zucker – along with the Huffington Post and Rolling Stone magazine – defamed the sheriff as a “felon.” Their objective: By destroying Arpaio for his anti-illegal immigration actions, these leftist media hacks used him as a springboard to tar and feather President Trump for his policies opposing an open border.



Arpaio, a true American patriot and not a summer soldier, then turned to me to sue CNN, Cuomo, Zucker, the Huffington Post and Rolling Stone for defamation. A true patriot does not turn the other cheek and simply hope that the leftist onslaught to destroy our republic will someday cease. He or she, like the sheriff and my other clients, feel compelled to act – peacefully and legally – to right the wrongs and to serve as a check to the current leftist tyranny.

I lurve how Klayman hires a sketch artist to memorialize his fail.

And, of course:

Arpaio and Corsi are the guests.

I listened to Arpaio's segment. Lotsa greatest hits, but nothing new. Arpaio sounded super tired because he flew cross-country (and back) to sit in a courtroom and appear at the "press conference."

I didn't bother with Corsi's segment; Klayman teased Corsi was going to discuss Mueller's testimony, but I don't need lyin' Corsi's "analysis."

[bob]

D.D.C.:

NOTICE of Bench Brief Concerning Actual Malice as it Relates to this Court's Decision in Lohrenz v. Donnelly by JOSEPH MICHAEL ARPAIO (Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 07/26/2019)

I'm having problems downloading the brief, but Lohrenz was a defamation case that Lamberth tossed. Out-of-district news gathers were dismissed out of the suit due to lack of jurisdiction. And the remainder of the suit was tossed on summary judgment because Lamberth found the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure (and the had failed to show actual malice). The D.C. Cir. affirmed (and SCOTUS denied cert.).

This does not bode well for Arpaio and Klayman.

[Reality Check]

Here is the order tossing Copley Press:

958 F.Supp. 17 (1997) Carey Dunai LOHRENZ, Plaintiff, v. Elaine DONNELLY, et al., Defendants.

[bob]

Ariz. Rep.: Joe Arpaio tells George Lopez to 'go back to his homeland.' That would be Los Angeles, by the way:

In an obvious ploy to appeal to backers of President Donald Trump, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio went after comedian George Lopez on Instagram Friday — yes, Arpaio has an Instagram account — saying in part that Lopez should “go back to his homeland.”

That would be the United States; Lopez was born in Los Angeles.

[ * * * ]

George Lopez to perform in PHX Saturday. Previously on national TV he made vicious attacks against me for several minutes. I invited him to meet face to face several times, he refused, NO GUTS.

Lopez said if President Trump wins the 2016 election ‘we will all go back.’ Once again Lopez is full of garbage, and should keep his promise and go back to his homeland.

Gallups and Zullo have assured me, on multiple occasions, that Arpaio isn't a racist.

[Northland10]

FOX: Joe Arpaio's $147.5M lawsuit against New York Times, opinion writer lacks merit, newspaper tells court:

NYT's motion to dismiss extensively sites how often Arpaio was sued (including Melendres); some of Klayman's fails also get shoutouts. It even references the gofundme page (which is still in triple digits).

The motion also says that the NYT intends to fill an anti-SLAPP motion (under D.C. law), but acknowledges that such claims have been unsuccessful in D.D.C.; in other words, it expects it to be denied (and to be litigated on appeal).

Oh: The assigned judge is an Obama-nominee Melanin American.

This is not Larry's best week. The case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... 8cv2387-16

As for the anti-SLAPP motion, it was denied, though I have not read the full dismissal yet.

For the reasons outlined below, the court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act.

[bob]

As for the anti-SLAPP motion, it was denied, though I have not read the full dismissal yet.

Various D.D.C. courts have said that the D.C. Cir. has said that the federal courts lack jurisdiction to apply the D.C. anti-SLAPP law.

So the defendants brought the anti-SLAPP motion to preserve appellate review; whether they actually will is a different matter.


As to motion to dismiss, the judge agreed Klayman Arpaio failed to allege the "actual malice" required for public figures.

Here, the judge gave 14 days to file an amended complaint. Given the options (accept dismissal, possibly appeal; move to amend; the usual Klayman special (i.e., move for reconsideration and recusal)), I suspect amending is the least likely path.


Arpaio has another defamation suit pending; that one is before Lamberth. But I predict the same results as here.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

I read it. The court is not kind to Larry’s lawyering.

[bob]

I read it. The court is not kind to Larry’s lawyering.

Although the criticism is couched in the usual judgespeak; it is not dripping. E.g.:

Because Plaintiff’s defamation claim fails, this claim must fail as well. See Farah v. Esquire Magazine, 736 F.3d 528, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (holding that because the plaintiffs’ defamation claim failed, tortious interference).

This is, of course, another Klayman fail. Citing a Klayman fail to Klayman is no doubt intentional.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

Thanks bob for the info on Larry’s failure precedents. It’s like citing birther fails in birther cases.

I wonder if Larry gets the message.

Is there appropriate judge speak to say F**k Off Larry? I imagine there are many sitting judges who would dearly love to say that directly, no judge speak required.

[Northland10]

Thanks bob for the info on Larry’s failure precedents. It’s like citing birther fails in birther cases.

I wonder if Larry gets the message.

If he were using the court to actually remedy and injury, he might get the message, but it appears his main purpose is to harass the plaintiff.

[bob]

Thanks bob for the info on Larry’s failure precedents. It’s like citing birther fails in birther cases.

I wonder if Larry gets the message.

If he were using the court to actually remedy and injury, he might get the message, but it appears his main purpose is to harass the plaintiff.

And grift nearly $1700 (of requested $200k) off Arpaio's hurt fee fees.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

Thanks bob for the info on Larry’s failure precedents. It’s like citing birther fails in birther cases.

I wonder if Larry gets the message.

If he were using the court to actually remedy and injury, he might get the message, but it appears his main purpose is to harass the plaintiff.

And grift nearly $1700 (of requested $200k) off Arpaio's hurt fee fees.

Only $1696.00.

I guess that covers the real value of Larry’s efforts.

[Northland10]

Arpaio has another defamation suit pending; that one is before Lamberth. But I predict the same results as here.

Speaking of that case, after a hearing, Larry/Arpaio filed a "notice of bench brief" as he tries to avoid having the case dismissed because of a lack of actual malice. Malice is difficult to prove when the story was corrected.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 9.49.0.pdf

The defendants filed a reply, remembering to mention that the "notice" is not authorized by the rules. They also seem to think that the plaintiffs misrepresented the holding in NYT v Sullivan.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 51.0_2.pdf

In any event, Plaintiff fundamentally mischaracterizes the seminal holding of New York Times v. Sullivan by quoting this passage from the Court’s opinion out of context: “[g]ood motives and belief in truth do not [even] negate an inference of malice, but are relevant only in mitigation of punitive damages if the jury chooses to accord them weight.” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 267 (1964). That was not the Court’s holding, but rather its summary of Alabama law, which the Court went on to hold was unconstitutional because it did not provide adequate protection for free speech. Id

Now one thing I was wondering about was Arpaio/Klayman's claim in the brief:

First, and most obviously, this Court, after discovery was undertaken, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment – a much higher threshold for a plaintiff to overcome in order for a case to continue – not on a Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which is what Defendants in this case prematurely asks of this Court. In Lohrenz, the parties completed discovery, and the Court was able to rely on witness testimony and expert witness testimony. Id. at 36.

However, in Lohrenz v. Donnelly, 223 F. Supp. 2d 25, 45 (D.D.C. 2002) at 36, Lamberth wrote (in the part regarding the qualification of an expert):

It is clear that the plaintiff may not establish malice, a subjective state of mind, solely through expert testimony, and that an expert in piloting F-14s and training F-14 pilots may not render legal opinions concerning defendants' alleged malicious or deceptive motives.

And in the footnotes:

Pl. Cross-Mot. for Summary Judgment, Exh. 1 (Nesby Decl.) at 13. As previously discussed, the Court does not accept any part of Captain Nesby's Declaration which might be construed as a legal conclusion. Captain Nesby may be qualified as an expert to interpret, explain, and compare the training records of an F-14 pilot, but he is not qualified to make any conclusions about the subjective intent of defendants in any legal sense. See supra § II.A.

If I am reading these correctly, it sounds like Larry is claiming that the court heard expert testimony in which to base his decision, but the granting of summary judgment was based on whether the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure and whether actual malice could be proven. These are legal determinations, to which the court stated Captain Nesby is not qualified.

IANAL, but it sounds like he misrepresented Lamberth's ruling. That does not seem very smart.

[tek]

IANAL, but it sounds like he misrepresented Lamberth's ruling. That does not seem very smart.

That's the GIL method!

[Sterngard Friegen]

IANAL, but it sounds like he misrepresented Lamberth's ruling. That does not seem very smart.

That's the GIL method!

It is also called the Blovario Method.

[Orlylicious]

Not sure where to put this, Joe tweeted that he and GIL are in court...





Didn't watch the video.

@RealSheriffJoe

Sheriff Arpaio and Attorney Larry Klayman in DC Federal Court suing the FAKE news media. via @YouTube

11:29 AM - 13 Aug 2019

[bob]

Not sure where to put this, Joe tweeted that he and GIL are in court...

Old non-news; one of Arpaio's suit already was dismissed, the other is not long for this world.

[bob]

FW: Cuomo and CNN Subject to Ongoing Defamation Lawsuit in DC Federal Court:

Today Larry Klayman and his client Sheriff Joe Arpaio issued the following statement about the recent controversy concerning CNN host Chris Cuomo, where he assaulted a Trump supporter by threatening to violently throw the Trump supporter down the stairs because he called Cuomo "Fredo." The violent and legally actionable reaction by Cuomo was captured on video and has caused a media frenzy.

Ironically, years ago Larry Klayman's client Gennifer Flowers taped a telephone conversation with her paramour at the time, Governor Bill Clinton, where Clinton referred to his political opponent for the presidential nomination in 1992, fellow Governor Mario Cuomo, Chris Cuomo's father, as Mafia. Flowers herself was later falsely defamed as "trailer trash" and later accused of "doctoring" her actual recording by James Carville, George Stephanopoulos and Hillary Clinton, as part of their so-called "War Room." Klayman then filed a complaint for defamation for Ms. Flowers against these defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Here is the statement of Sheriff Arpaio about this violent threat to harm a Trump supporter by Chris Cuomo:

In front of his family, Cuomo makes a violent threat and assaults a Trump supporter because the Trump supporter simply, 'tongue in cheek,' referred to him as 'Fredo.' Fredo is the fictional son of Vito Corleone in 'The Godfather' movie about the Italian Mafia.

Chris Cuomo is so sensitive about being an Italian-American that he had no problem on national TV calling me, a fellow and proud Italian-American, a 'convicted felon,' which was totally false. My attorney Larry Klayman and I recently appeared before a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to pursue our defamation lawsuit against Cuomo over this malicious defamation.

Cuomo, who is a lawyer and officer of the court, should be careful how he conducts himself in public and on his TV CNN show.

"For completeness": TechDirt: Judge Dismisses Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times.

Arpaio's suit against Cuomo, etc., remains pending (with Lamberth).

[tek]

Klayman's letting his hair grow..

d-1.jpg