Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

GIL: Klayman

User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#251

Post by bob »

orlylicious wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:50 pmHe must have bought the followers.
I believe he has.

If you search Twitter for his name (not handle), there are always several identical tweets from different users touting the same link to Klayman's latest video.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: GIL: Klayman

#252

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

GIL is cosplaying. :biggrin:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
woodworker
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:58 am
Location: San Mateo, Calif
Occupation: Slave to my cats

Re: GIL: Klayman

#253

Post by woodworker »

northland10 wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:01 pm I suspect GIL has been getting a salary but also getting paid through legal costs that Freedom Watch pays to him or his "law firm" for representation.
And I suspect that, somehow and purely accidentally, the corresponding Forms 1099 never get filed with the IRS (must be that doing so would violate GIL's religious beliefs as a Jew, Christian, any religion that he can sponge off that day).
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#254

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:52 pm We lost in the Great Crash the financial disclosures for Freedom Watch. :crying: IIRC, it was taking in around a mil annually, and Klayman was drawing a $200k+ salary (from that million).
I had some of the 990s I pulled but I need to get them from an older laptop that I have not used in a while (or go back to Guidestar or somewhere and pull them again).
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#255

Post by northland10 »

northland10 wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:42 pm
northland10 wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 10:25 pm I keep wondering who he suing now when I see a new case on Pacer, but then find, oh, it is somebody else who has removed from state court. This has been a popular thing with GIL defendants. I assume he goes to state thinking he is more likely to be able to get to discovery and harass the defendants through depositions.

This time, it is the National Law Review. They were mean and repeated stuff about his discipline issues.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59 ... media-llc/
The judge ordered a joint scheduling report but GIL has not been responsive to attempts at communication so the judge files an OSC. Silly, judge. Does he not realize that Klayman had people to indict, a constitutional convention to run, a press release grifting for his loss handed down by the conservative hating Trump appointee, and a new class-action suit to grift.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.11.0.pdf
it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Within TEN (10) DAYS from the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely participate in the scheduling conference and in the filing of a jointly-proposed scheduling report as previously directed by this Court.

2. Failure to respond timely to this Order may result in a final order of dismissal without prejudice without further warning from the Court.

3. Defendants’ informative motion [DE 3] is DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice to renew following submission of Plaintiff’s show cause statement.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 12th day of July, 2021.
As of today 20 July, nothing filed yet.
And now,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 12.0_2.pdf
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND CLOSING CASE. Any pending motions are terminated as moot. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/27/2021. See attached document for full details. (ir) (Entered: 07/27/2021)
This is actually from a few days ago so not really continuation of the Friday Smackdown.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#256

Post by KickahaOta »

bob wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:52 pm We lost in the Great Crash the financial disclosures for Freedom Watch. :crying: IIRC, it was taking in around a mil annually, and Klayman was drawing a $200k+ salary (from that million).
When you're looking for charity financial disclosures, ProPublica will often have you covered (and they're worth supporting for other reasons too). Here's Freedom Watch's history.
  • It looks like 2011-2013 is when the money train was really rolling, and Klayman was pulling in $300K+ in yearly compensation.
  • In 2014 contributions were just over $2M, but Klayman's compensation took a hit, dropping to around $230K.
  • In 2015, contributions drop to around $1.3M. Klayman's compensation stays roughly level at $226K.
  • In 2016, contributions rebound to near $1.6M. Klayman's compensation rebounds to $296K.
  • In 2017, the wheels start coming off. Contributions drop to $1.18M. Klayman's compensation drops to $216K.
  • And in 2018, the last year listed on ProPublica, contributions drop to $1.03M, and Klayman gets only $56K.
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#257

Post by KickahaOta »

northland10 wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:01 pm I suspect GIL has been getting a salary but also getting paid through legal costs that Freedom Watch pays to him or his "law firm" for representation.
Legal fees reported in Freedom Watch's 2013-2018 IRS disclosures: $77K for 2013; $20K for 2014; $64K for 2015; $77K for 2016; $89K for 2017; $137K for 2018.

The disclosures do not mention the purpose or the recipient of the legal fees, just the total amount (and that appears to be the only disclosure that's required).
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#258

Post by bob »

KickahaOta wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:02 pmLegal fees reported in Freedom Watch's 2013-2018 IRS disclosures: $77K for 2013; $20K for 2014; $64K for 2015; $77K for 2016; $89K for 2017; $137K for 2018.

The disclosures do not mention the purpose or the recipient of the legal fees, just the total amount (and that appears to be the only disclosure that's required).
Thanks for all this information! :thumbsup:

I don't recall whether Freedom Watch has been involved in non-Klayman-grift litigation (e.g., it got sued), so I'm agreeing Klayman was double dipping by paying himself to litigate for Freedom Watch (despite his being Freedom Watch's general counsel).

Nonprofits do typically hire lawyers for mundane reasons, like corporate compliance with various government regulations. But Freedom Watch is basically a one-man band being run out of Klayman's living room, so I doubt these legal fees are anything other a method to line Klayman's pocket. (Especially when his reported salary has been dropping.)
Image ImageImage
woodworker
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:58 am
Location: San Mateo, Calif
Occupation: Slave to my cats

Re: GIL: Klayman

#259

Post by woodworker »

Am I correct in believing that the gross dollars contributed is before cost of raising the money, not net? Otherwise, what the hell is Freedom Watch spending money on other than GIL?
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#260

Post by KickahaOta »

woodworker wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:02 pm Am I correct in believing that the gross dollars contributed is before cost of raising the money, not net? Otherwise, what the hell is Freedom Watch spending money on other than GIL?
You are correct. The contribution amounts listed are the gross amounts.

Here is a quick example, from 2016, of how income and expenses are disclosed. Even from this brief list I'm sure you can see several places where additional benefits to Klayman could be stashed. (I'm obviously rounding things off and omitting a lot of details that are in the full report.)

Revenue:
  • From 'contributions, gifts, grants, etc.': $1.57M.
Expenses:
  • Officer/director/trustee compensation: $296K. (This is Klayman's compensation. The other two directors are listed as getting zero compensation.)
  • Other employee salaries and wages: $205K. (No one individual earned more than $50K, so no names are disclosed here.)
  • Employee benefits and pension plan: $10K.
  • Legal fees: $78K.
  • Accounting fees: $7K.
  • Other fees: $9.6K.
  • Occupancy (meaning 'rent and similar things'): $65K.
  • Travel, conferences, and meetings: $70K.
  • Taxes: $1245.
  • Printing and publications: $6K.
  • Other expenses: $677K. Highlights from 'other expenses':
    • $488K for marketing.
    • $46K for meals and entertainment.
    • $20K for employee benefits. (And note that when the form specifically asked for 'pension plans, employee benefits' earlier, the answer was around $10K. I don't see an explanation for why a separate $20K shows up in 'other expenses'.)
    • $16K for vehicles and transportation costs.
  • Total operating and administrative expenses: $1.425M.
  • Total contributions, gifts, grants paid: $0.
So reported revenue was $148K higher than reported expenses.
And I want to note in closing that those operating and administrative expenses are the only 'direct charitable activities' that Freedom Watch claimed to have going on. In fact, I think it's worth comparing the form's exact instruction for 'direct charitable activities' with the answer given.
  • Instruction: "List the foundation’s four largest direct charitable activities during the tax year. Include relevant statistical information such as the number of organizations and other beneficiaries served, conferences convened, research papers produced, etc."
  • Answer: "1. CONDUCT PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION. $1,425,226.
    2.
    3.
    4.
woodworker
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:58 am
Location: San Mateo, Calif
Occupation: Slave to my cats

Re: GIL: Klayman

#261

Post by woodworker »

$488k in marketing -- abc -- always be closing.
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#262

Post by KickahaOta »

woodworker wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:16 pm $488k in marketing -- abc -- always be closing.
It's worth noting that this is presumably where most of the costs of actual 'public policy education' came in, especially printing costs. There were $11860 in postage and freight charges for that year, so presumably they were mailing a substantial amount of stuff out the door.

Of course, it's presumably also where a lot of the fundraising costs would go. And it's a just-plain-big number -- well over one-third of total expenses -- with no real visibility as to what's inside. And that appears to be by choice. The instructions for "other expenses" just say "Attach a schedule showing the type and amount of each expense." There's not a preset list of expense categories that need to be filled in. If Freedom Watch had wanted to be more transparent about what costs went into what forms of marketing, they could have done that.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#263

Post by bob »

KickahaOta wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:31 pm
woodworker wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:16 pm $488k in marketing -- abc -- always be closing.
It's worth noting that this is presumably where most of the costs of actual 'public policy education' came in, especially printing costs. There were $11860 in postage and freight charges for that year, so presumably they were mailing a substantial amount of stuff out the door.

Of course, it's presumably also where a lot of the fundraising costs would go. And it's a just-plain-big number -- well over one-third of total expenses -- with no real visibility as to what's inside. And that appears to be by choice. The instructions for "other expenses" just say "Attach a schedule showing the type and amount of each expense." There's not a preset list of expense categories that need to be filled in. If Freedom Watch had wanted to be more transparent about what costs went into what forms of marketing, they could have done that.
Yeah; to me, this all sounds like the it-takes-money-to-make-money part of the grift. Newsletters, web sites, fundraising firms, etc., all cost money. And a not-insubstantial portion of the recently decided Klayman/Judicial Watch battle was about Klayman's post-firing attempts to access or otherwise replicate Judicial Watch's member/donor lists.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: GIL: Klayman

#264

Post by Luke »

Things are bad for GIL -- even Jacob Wohl disses him.
JACOB WOHL, [09.08.21 10:11]
It’s really too bad that this unscrupulous lawyer managed to cause damages to Laura Loomer far in excess of what she could have ever crowdfunded based on his ill-fated civil complaint.

I’m sure that CAIR will go on a proverbial jihad to collect the $125K that a federal judge ordered Loomer to pay them.

ABA Journal (https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... ts-founder)
A federal appeals court has upheld a $2.3 million judgment obtained by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch against

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... ts-founder
Jacob GIL.JPG
Jacob GIL.JPG (84.92 KiB) Viewed 1607 times



:P

Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#265

Post by bob »

Again: Loomer's attorney for her $125k folly wasn't Klayman; it was Ron Coleman.

Shocking that Wohl can't get basic details correct. :roll:
Image ImageImage
dan1100
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:26 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#266

Post by dan1100 »

Johnathan FordLeftwards arrow
@FordJohnathan5
#BreakingNews Larry Klayman, a conservative activist and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch is suing Roger Stone for 5 million dollar for defamation. @JudicialWatch


:popcorn:

edit:

Article

https://www.thedailybeast.com/florida-l ... oger-stone
A Florida lawyer has filed a $5 million defamation suit against conservative crony Roger Stone, alleging that Stone made defamatory remarks involving sexual contact with his kids, according to the Associated Press. Larry Klayman, a conservative activist and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, filed the suit Thursday over remarks Stone reportedly wrote on the right-wing social network Gab, claiming that Klayman was a “warped former lawyer that the 11th circuit found guilty of molesting his own children.” When Klayman asked Stone to take the false claim down, Stone doubled down and further insulted Klayman, the lawsuit says. Klayman said the allegations stemmed from a messy divorce in which his ex-wife made wild claims, including the molestation one, which he said had been investigated and he had never been charged. Klayman’s law license was suspended in Washington, D.C., but he is still licensed in Florida.

Stone did not respond to the AP’s request for comment. Klayman garnered headlines last year after he sued the Chinese government for $20 trillion over the COVID-19 pandemic.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#267

Post by bob »

:yawn: SSDD.

But, "for completeness":
A Florida lawyer has filed a $5 million defamation suit against conservative crony Roger Stone, alleging that Stone made defamatory remarks involving sexual contact with his kids, according to the Associated Press.
So the PNT/City Pages lawsuit, AGAIN. :yawn:

"For completeness": The appeal in the City Pages lawsuit was affirmed by ... the 11th Cir. :doh:

And:
Klayman is seeking compensation in the lawsuit filed Monday in Palm Beach County, Florida over comments Stone made about him on the social media platform Gab, claiming they were false.

The suit alleged Stone called Klayman a "warped former lawyer that the 11th circuit found guilty of molesting his own children," on Gab. Then, after Klayman demanded the comment be removed, Stone proceeded to post a "clarification" insulting Klayman more.
So Stone was wrong about which court. :yawn: Klayman, from all his defamation losses, knows that's immaterial.

And Stone's clarification, in fact, clarified and correct this mistake.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#268

Post by northland10 »

Again, still, or is Mr. Ford picking up old info? Maybe the loss in GIL v JW part 1 has made him fearful of a potential filing restriction so he needs somebody else to sue repeatedly.

If he is suing Stone again, over things Stone has said about why GIL left JW, um.. after reading the appellate opinion, I don't think Larry has much room to maneuver. He has sued people over repeating what he posted on a public docket so I guess it should never come as a shock. He might want to be careful though. Roger is no JW or other defendants. If Larry continues to try and harras him through the court, Roger could probably hit back hard.
Edit: Oh, so we are back to suing Roger for repeating what a judge said and nobody would have known about if Larry had not posted it on a public docket.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#269

Post by bob »

Klayman is suing Stone over recent postings on Gab.

After Klayman threatened a lawsuit, Stone then posted a clarifying remark, starting: "Asshole Alert." :lol:

Stone, in fact, clarified that Klayman's license has been suspended only in some jurisdictions, and that the 11th Circuit recognized the Ohio court's findings.

And Klayman felt the need to accuse Stone's lawyers as the true authors of the clarification. (They are also defendants in this lawsuit.)

I'm having issues making the complaint OCR readable, but it is on Palm Beach County's website. (Case No. 50-2021-CA-009604-XXXX-MB.)
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#270

Post by northland10 »

What's the legal perspective on suing the lawyers of a defendant? It would seem to me that this is an attempt to deny the defense counsel of their choice and to prevent an attorney from giving his client legal advice.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5384
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#271

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Thu Aug 12, 2021 7:14 pm What's the legal perspective on suing the lawyers of a defendant? It would seem to me that this is an attempt to deny the defense counsel of their choice and to prevent an attorney from giving his client legal advice.
I have no doubt that Klayman's desire.

It depends if the cart gets put before the horse: Stone and his lawyers can agree to joint representation/waive any possible conflict. In other words, the lawyers can represent themselves and Stone, with the proper waivers.

But Klayman will likely counter that the lawyers will also be witnesses, even if only to deny Klayman's allegations. Which could prevent them from representing Stone.

Stone's lawyers will counter, "There won't be any witnesses, because this is going to get dismissed before discovery. (And here's our dismissal motion.)"

If the court bites on Klayman's argument, Stone and lawyers could say they'll each represent themselves. And Stone's lawyers will out Klayman Klayman, and ghostwrite for Stone. (Or, perhaps more accurately, the lawyers will write for themselves, and Stone will just file "me too!"s.)

But, yes, this is just lawfare within lawfare.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#272

Post by northland10 »

In his original JW case, GIL would like some more words please because 15 pages is not enough to whine and complain about Judicial Watch, Fitton, and that conservative hating judge Rao (who should have supported GIL because Kollar-Kotelly is an evil leftist lib judge).

He wants 10 more pages because this case was drawn out since 2006 so it is very complex. Ignore the fact that it was his own actions that drew it out that long.
GIL wants more words.pdf
(98.65 KiB) Downloaded 37 times
Pacer was being annoying and kept giving me Network Error when I tried to download. Had to print to PDF.. Appeals court docs don't get picked up on Recap..
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: GIL: Klayman

#273

Post by Luke »

Roger Stone on Telegram about GIL:
Roger Stone, [21.08.21 12:46]
Bar suspended lawyer and gutless asswipe Larry Klayman has filed 11 individual lawsuits against me. Two of them have already been dismissed and in both cases the judge ordered Klayman to pay my legal expenses. After leaking my six hour deposition to the media Klayman was a no-show for his own deposition last Wednesday. That's because my deposition will ultimately expose his illegal and unethical behavior and hasten his total disbarment. Klayman said that the COVID-19 pandemic made it too dangerous for him to fly from LA where he really lives to Fort Lauderdale for the Deposition. Funny ,he had no trouble flying to Philadelphia for a rally two weeks ago. This is the legal definition of a true cocksucker. Ultimately all of these harassment and baseless lawsuits will be dismissed and Klayman will be disbarred forever - #JudicialWatch
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#274

Post by northland10 »

:popcorn:
101010 :towel:
User avatar
tek
Posts: 2250
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:15 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#275

Post by tek »

Stone should say how he really feels ;)
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”