Larry Klayman

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9796
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4201

Post by Northland10 »

Jcolvin2 wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:08 pm Unlike some jurisdictions, Florida does not appear to have a requirement that Florida attorneys notify the bar when they are disciplined by another jurisdiction. (There is a requirement that FL attorneys self-report felony convictions).
Actually I think the do.

https://www-media.floridabar.org/upload ... 3-2020.pdf
Florida RULE 3-7.2 wrote:(l) Professional Misconduct in Foreign Jurisdiction.

(1) Notice of Discipline by a Foreign Jurisdiction. A member of The Florida Bar must file a copy of any order or judgment by a court or other authorized disciplinary agency of another state or by a federal court effecting a disciplinary resignation, disciplinary revocation, disbarment, or suspension or any other surrender of the member’s license to practice law in lieu of discipline with the Supreme Court of Florida and the executive director of The Florida Bar within 30 days of its effective date.

(2) Effect of Adjudication or Discipline by a Foreign Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Florida may issue an order suspending the member who is the subject of the final adjudication on an emergency basis petition of The Florida Bar attaching a copy of the final adjudication by a foreign court or disciplinary authority. All of the conditions not in conflict with this rule applicable to issuance of emergency suspension orders elsewhere within these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar are applicable to orders entered under this rule.
What's the likelihood that he informed the Florida Bar? His nastiness toward the DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel may have motivated them to report Klayman to various courts and maybe the bar assuming he would not. He does not seem to get that if you treat others badly, they will not cut you any slack later.
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
Jcolvin2
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: Larry Klayman

#4202

Post by Jcolvin2 »

Northland10 wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:32 pm Actually I think the do.

https://www-media.floridabar.org/upload ... 3-2020.pdf
Florida RULE 3-7.2 wrote:(l) Professional Misconduct in Foreign Jurisdiction.

(1) Notice of Discipline by a Foreign Jurisdiction. A member of The Florida Bar must file a copy of any order or judgment by a court or other authorized disciplinary agency of another state or by a federal court effecting a disciplinary resignation, disciplinary revocation, disbarment, or suspension or any other surrender of the member’s license to practice law in lieu of discipline with the Supreme Court of Florida and the executive director of The Florida Bar within 30 days of its effective date.

(2) Effect of Adjudication or Discipline by a Foreign Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Florida may issue an order suspending the member who is the subject of the final adjudication on an emergency basis petition of The Florida Bar attaching a copy of the final adjudication by a foreign court or disciplinary authority. All of the conditions not in conflict with this rule applicable to issuance of emergency suspension orders elsewhere within these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar are applicable to orders entered under this rule.
What's the likelihood that he informed the Florida Bar? His nastiness toward the DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel may have motivated them to report Klayman to various courts and maybe the bar assuming he would not. He does not seem to get that if you treat others badly, they will not cut you any slack later.
Cool. Thanks.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9796
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4203

Post by Northland10 »

Reminder... Mark your calendars. His case is before the Hearing Committe next week. is next week. Apparently they do livestream.

https://www.dcbar.org/attorney-discipli ... t-schedule

In re Larry Klayman, DN. 2017-D051
September 14 & 15, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.


If the below is TLDR, this is the complaint for his behavior with the 9th.
► Show Spoiler
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35355
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4204

Post by realist »

Thanks!! :thumbs:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29739
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4205

Post by bob »

So, in the Corsi v. Newsmax defamation failsuit, which was recently removed to S.D. Fla., Newsmax's attorney files a routine PHV application. Klayman's gotta Klayman, so he opposes, but curiously only says that Newsmax's attorney "has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and caused if not furthered false sworn statements under oath made by his clients." And does not elaborate much further.

Klayman then dumped a bunch of exhibits on the court. It would appear Klayman was using the PHV application as an opportunity to air some dirty laundry. But, if anything, the documents only further demonstrate how craptastic Klayman is.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9796
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4206

Post by Northland10 »

bob wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:55 pm So, in the Corsi v. Newsmax defamation failsuit, which was recently removed to S.D. Fla., Newsmax's attorney files a routine PHV application. Klayman's gotta Klayman, so he opposes, but curiously only says that Newsmax's attorney "has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and caused if not furthered false sworn statements under oath made by his clients." And does not elaborate much further.

Klayman then dumped a bunch of exhibits on the court. It would appear Klayman was using the PHV application as an opportunity to air some dirty laundry. But, if anything, the documents only further demonstrate how craptastic Klayman is.
For Completeness, PHV was granted.

I am not sure how GIL seems to think his Exhibit is helpful in any way. Accusing somebody of UPL or other bad form would help if there was a judge's order that agreed.
Edit: I noticed that the judge at the Corsi v Stone and Newsmax case did grant PHV to Mark Lerner. Not sure how somebody with permission to represent can be participating in UPL.
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9796
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4207

Post by Northland10 »

On a related note, the Palm Beach case that Klayman plastered in his zdibit was dismissed for Stone, and he may seek costs. Newsmax and staff also were dismissed. Fairbanks was not reachable until the last moment and apparently burst into a Zoom hearing. She did submit a pro se motion to dismiss but GIL also asked for an entry of default.

Turns out, the court is not entering the notice of default because Fairbanks did file a MTD. Klayman shoots and misses, again.

Oh, and of course, Klayman is asking for reconsideration.

Here are the two orders of dismissal.
502019CA013711XXXXMB_81.pdf
502019CA013711XXXXMB_82.pdf
Stone's response to the motion to reconsider was too large, so it is on my Scribd.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9796
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4208

Post by Northland10 »

I have fallen down a rabbit hole. Apparently, Larry decided to submit a consent order to combine discovery in multiple cases, including those in DC. Apparently, the idea was to have Stone only have to sit once. Newsmax was not happy as they were parties to one of the cases but were never consulted nor gave their consent since their case was not that far along. They may still want to sit for a Stone deposition but when proper for the case.

Oddly, Klayman v Santilli was one of the ones in the list he wanted to combine the discovery. Why is he combining discovery for his case against Santilli when it is not Corsi against Santilli or Stone, and why is he suing Santilli in Palm Beach County?
502019CA013711XXXXMB_15.pdf
Edit: Oh.. Klayman v Santilli includes Stone as a defendant. Damn, there is something seriously wrong in GIL's head. What's next? Does he sue his ex again and includes Roger Stone as a defendant?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9796
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4209

Post by Northland10 »

From the 9th:
08/03/2020 1 Attorney discipline case docketed. Respondent has been suspended from the practice of law in WA D.C. [11774302] (DJV) [Entered: 08/03/2020 08:29 AM]

08/03/2020 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DJV): The court is informed that respondent Larry Klayman, Esq., has been suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Within 28 days after the date of this order, respondent shall agree to a reciprocal suspension for the same time period, or resign from the bar of this court, or shall show cause, in writing, why respondent should not be reciprocally suspended for the same time period and ordered to withdraw from all pending cases in which he is counsel of record. See In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir. 1988). Court records reveal that counsel Klayman is counsel of record in United States v. Cliven Bundy, No. 18-10287. Upon consideration of the response to this order and after a hearing, if requested, the court will determine whether to impose reciprocal discipline. See Fed. R. App. P. 46(c); 9th Cir. R. 46-2(c). Failure to respond to this order in a timely fashion will result in the removal of respondent from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before this court without further notice. This order shall be provided to respondent electronically. [11774980] (DJV) [Entered: 08/03/2020 12:27 PM]

08/26/2020 3 Filed (ECF) Respondent Larry E. Klayman response to Court order dated 08/03/2020. Date of service: 08/26/2020. [11803510] [20-80112] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 08/26/2020 12:06 PM]

09/02/2020 4 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): The court has received respondent Larry E. Klayman’s response to the court’s August 3, 2020 order to show cause why he should not be reciprocally disciplined on the basis of his suspension by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The response notes that his suspension continues to be legally challenged and incorporates by reference Klayman’s petition for rehearing en banc at the Court of Appeals. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals docket reflects that Klayman’s petition has now been denied, and a motion for clarification and reconsideration is pending. To the extent that Klayman directs the court’s attention to the arguments contained in his petition for rehearing en banc or other filings in the District of Columbia disciplinary proceedings, that direction does not adequately address the order to show cause. Under this court’s precedents, the respondent in a reciprocal discipline proceeding has the burden of showing that reciprocal discipline is improper because “an independent review of the record reveals: (1) a deprivation of due process; (2) insufficient proof of misconduct; or (3) grave injustice which would result from the imposition of such discipline.” In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing In re Selling, 243 U.S. 46, 50-51 (1917)). Within 21 days after the date of this order, Klayman shall file a supplemental response to this court’s order to show cause that applies the Kramer factors to show why this court should not defer to the District of Columbia suspension order. In the August 3, 2020 order to show cause, Klayman was advised that he could consent to a concurrent reciprocal discipline. Klayman is advised that if he elects to contest the reciprocal discipline, any discipline imposed may not run concurrently with his District of Columbia suspension. Failure timely to comply with this order may result, without further notice, in Klayman’s removal from the roll of attorneys eligible to practice in this court. [11811616] (DJV) [Entered: 09/02/2020 05:14 PM]
So, Klayman's attempt to run the clock will not work with the 9th. If he fights it and loses, he will have 90 days suspension there, instead of just taking remainder of his DC suspension time.
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46931
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Larry Klayman

#4210

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Is GIL Klayman's suspension for 90 days or 90 days or until he demonstrates fitness?

I may be conflating this punishment with the proposed punishment in the case in which he allegedly sexually harassed his client.

I ask because I think proving "fitness" will be a Sisyphean task for Klayman. In my humble opinion.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29739
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4211

Post by bob »

Sterngard Friegen wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:16 pm Is GIL Klayman's suspension for 90 days or 90 days or until he demonstrates fitness?

I may be conflating this punishment with the proposed punishment in the case in which he allegedly sexually harassed his client.

I ask because I think proving "fitness" will be a Sisyphean task for Klayman. In my humble opinion.
The 90-day suspension does not have a fitness requirement; so 90 days (and an ethics class, IIRC).

The (proposed) 33-month suspension does have a fitness requirement.

Yes: Klayman's "career" of representing others will be over ... in a few years, after he exhausts his appeals.

Klayman will then move to representing himself, which he legally can do. (Except for cases against his ex-wife and her attorneys.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9796
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4212

Post by Northland10 »

Northland10 wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:56 am Reminder... Mark your calendars. His case is before the Hearing Committe next week. is next week. Apparently they do livestream.

https://www.dcbar.org/attorney-discipli ... t-schedule

In re Larry Klayman, DN. 2017-D051
September 14 & 15, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.


If the below is TLDR, this is the complaint for his behavior with the 9th.
► Show Spoiler
Did anybody tune in?
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4213

Post by woodworker »

The last posting on their YouTube channel is five days old, so should be up in a few days, assuming it wasn't postponed.
bring out the tumbrils. I am so fucking filled with pain and anger at what is going on in this country. I do deeply believe that if trump somehow retains power it will be the end of democracy in this country and the end of this country as we know it.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29739
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4214

Post by bob »

woodworker wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:59 pm The last posting on their YouTube channel is five days old, so should be up in a few days, assuming it wasn't postponed.
I couldn't find the link, but it wasn't postponed. Oh, no.

Cross-posting (and h/t Jerry Mander): Politico: A conservative legal gadfly faces the music:
Larry Klayman pioneered the slash-and-burn legal tactics that have become an endemic feature of American politics. Now, he faces the prospect of his own professional demise.

To hear conservative gadfly and attorney Larry Klayman tell it, the end of his legal career haranguing the Washington political establishment could be nigh.

For two contentious days this week, the Judicial Watch founder battled bar ethics charges of “dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation” over his aggressive drive to join the defense team for Cliven Bundy in a criminal case stemming from the Nevada rancher’s armed standoff with federal authorities in 2014.

* * *

The prosecutor in the Bundy-related ethics case, Julia Porter of the D.C. Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel, initially pressed for Klayman to be disbarred outright, but later pulled back to a recommendation to suspend him for a year and require him to prove his fitness to return to legal practice.

* * *

“She says just a year, a reinstatement provision. I’m 69 years old. You know how long a reinstatement provision takes?” Klayman said. “If the sanction that Ms. Porter is recommending goes into effect, I’ll probably never practice law again.”

The hearing — conducted via Zoom and streamed on the internet over about five-and-a-half hours Monday and Tuesday — was replete with vintage Klayman moments that highlight the no-holds-barred approach that has landed him in the trouble he currently faces.

“This a character assassination. Just say it, Ms. Porter,” Klayman exclaimed. “This is about the way I practice law. She doesn’t like my ideology. She doesn’t like what I do.”

“She’s out for blood. She does not like me,” he declared.

“If you have an objection, you can state that,” Porter lashed back. “It’s not a time for you to give speeches.”

* * *

Officially, this week’s hearing was not about the substance of the accusation that Klayman bent the truth in his quest to join the Bundy case. Rather, the session was an opportunity for each side to present aggravating and mitigating evidence as the panel mulls what discipline to recommend.

For Klayman, that meant showcasing witnesses who would testify to his character. The result was a cavalcade of right-wing personalities, including two former presidential candidates: ex-Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) and former Ambassador Alan Keyes.

Also singing Klayman’s praises were conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams, author and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi and no fewer than four members of the Bundy family, two of whom appeared to be testifying while sitting in farm equipment.

* * *

“I’ve told people that if I had won, you would have been my choice for attorney general,” Keyes told Klayman during the hearing, beaming in on Zoom from the anchor desk at a television studio.

“You and I have never had an issue when it comes to character, integrity and your honoring your word,” said Williams, who spoke sitting in front of a T-shirt from Dr. Ben Carson’s 2016 presidential campaign. “That I can absolutely say is true, yes. You always honor your word—even as a lawyer, yes.”

“Steadman Graham, you actually were partners with him, that was Oprah’s boyfriend for a while, right?” Klayman asked Williams.

“Yeah….I don’t know why it’s relevant, but it’s true,” Williams said, prompting a visible eye roll and chuckle from the lawyer overseeing the hearing, Buffy Mims.

Klayman also called Dallas police sergeant and GOP congressional candidate Tre Pennie as a character witness. He represented Pennie in an unsuccessful suit that sought to tie shootings of police officers to rhetoric from Black Lives Matter, President Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton and others.

“How do we refer to each other?” Klayman asked.

“As brothers,” replied Pennie.

At another point, Klayman called the panel’s attention to a recent success: a ruling he won in Manhattan federal court earlier this year allowing former U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore (R-Ala.) to proceed to discovery in a defamation suit against comedian and filmmaker Sacha Baron Cohen.

“An Obama-appointed, African-American judge allowed the case to go forward, a very fair man, Andrew Carter. A very fine judge,” Klayman told the committee.

Klayman never directly explained the relevance of the judge’s race or of Pennie’s, but two of the three members of the bar committee hearing the ethics case are African American and the online biography of the panel’s chairwoman, Mims, prominently describes her as the co-chair of the Diversity & Inclusion Committee at her law firm.

Klayman’s effort to demonstrate his exemplary character took other unusual turns, as he read from jacket blurbs from his own books and from articles written by his supporters. As always, there was no understatement.

“There were other men like Larry early in American history. Their names were Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Henry,” conservative editor Joseph Farah wrote in a 2004 article Klayman read to the ethics panel Tuesday. “They don’t make ‘em like that any more.”

* * *

Ronald Rotunda, the late, widely respected legal ethics authority, wrote a detailed letter defending Klayman and testified on his behalf in one case alleging conflicts-of-interest. Rotunda, who served as Democratic counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee during Watergate and later as an ethics adviser to Whitewater Special Counsel Kenneth Starr, died in 2018.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth also took the highly unusual step of testifying on Klayman’s behalf at a 2016 bar hearing. During this week’s hearing, Klayman entered into evidence a 2018 letter the Reagan-appointed judge wrote on Klayman’s behalf supporting his efforts to gain temporary bar admission in a Texas federal court.

“He has had a number of cases before me over my 30 years as a judge, almost from the beginning. Many were quite controversial as well as newsworthy, and some extended for length periods of discovery and motions,” Lamberth wrote. “There is no question that Mr. Klayman is a zealous advocate for his client and his cause, but I also have no question regarding his fitness to practice law.”

A leading liberal constitutional law expert, University of California at Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky also testified on Klayman’s behalf earlier in the ethics case stemming from the Bundy prosecution. The esteemed law professor concluded there was no ethical violation by Klayman in the Bundy case, Klayman told the panel. (Chemerinsky confirmed to POLITICO Tuesday that he testified for Klayman, but the professor said he could not recall the details.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 9796
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Larry Klayman

#4215

Post by Northland10 »

Zealous advocating for a client should never include lying to the district court and to the 9th. He has also misrepresented rulings to various courts. That's not zealous advocating, that is lying.
North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4216

Post by woodworker »

Nothing posted yet. Here is the link to their youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh4Q1T ... -SeQcyvrtg
bring out the tumbrils. I am so fucking filled with pain and anger at what is going on in this country. I do deeply believe that if trump somehow retains power it will be the end of democracy in this country and the end of this country as we know it.
User avatar
NotaPerson
Posts: 3585
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4217

Post by NotaPerson »

Northland10 wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:10 pm Zealous advocating for a client should never include lying to the district court and to the 9th. He has also misrepresented rulings to various courts. That's not zealous advocating, that is lying.
IANAL, but I would think zealous advocating would include putting forth convincing legal arguments. A skill that Larry lacks, as far as I can tell. :smoking:
Am I being detained?
User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 12593
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Larry Klayman

#4218

Post by Orlylicious »

Nota, the bunny is a better advocate than GIL. :P Seems like this has finally caught up with him and couldn't happen to a bigger piece of trash. #LockHimUp :clap:
Avatar: Trump Secret Weapon: Tony Baba Looey! And hey, don't miss The Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring the titular Mama June Shannon! Returns 2021. TVShowsAce featured Fogbow's love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS[/b]
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29739
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4219

Post by bob »


Klayman has been "promising" to citizens-grand-jury indite the Bidens for nearly a year now. :waiting:


Omar too (also)? I think Denny's should indite Klayman for being such a tease. :blink:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:45 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4220

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

There's a reason why GIL has failed to do anything with his citizen's grand jury:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... ments%20or
The 2019 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 843
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE
View Entire Chapter
843.0855 Criminal actions under color of law or through use of simulated legal process.—
(1) As used in this section:
(a) The term “legal process” means a document or order issued by a court or filed or recorded with an official court of this state or the United States or with any official governmental entity of this state or the United States for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction or representing a claim against a person or property, or for the purpose of directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. “Legal process” includes, but is not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order.
(b) The term “person” means an individual, public or private group incorporated or otherwise, legitimate or illegitimate legal tribunal or entity, informal organization, official or unofficial agency or body, or any assemblage of individuals.
(c) The term “public officer or employee” has the same meaning as provided in s. 817.535.
(2) A person who deliberately impersonates or falsely acts as a public officer or employee in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons and property, or otherwise takes any action under color of law against persons or property, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. It is the intent of the Legislature that this section applies if a person acts as an officer or employee purporting to supersede or override any legislation or statute of this state, or to supersede or override any action of any court of this state.
(3) A person who simulates legal process, including, but not limited to, actions affecting title to real estate or personal property, indictments, subpoenas, warrants, injunctions, liens, orders, judgments, or any legal documents or proceedings, knowing or having reason to know the contents of any such documents or proceedings or the basis for any action to be fraudulent, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who falsely under color of law attempts in any way to influence, intimidate, harass, retaliate against, or hinder a public officer or employee involving the discharge of his or her official duties by means of, but not limited to, threats of or actual physical abuse or harassment, or through the use of simulated legal process, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5)(a) This section does not make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer or legal tribunal which is performed under lawful authority.
(b) This section does not prohibit individuals from assembling freely to express opinions or designate group affiliation or association.
(c) This section does not prohibit or in any way limit a person’s lawful and legitimate access to the courts or prevent a person from instituting or responding to legitimate and lawful legal process.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 29739
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4221

Post by bob »

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:15 pm There's a reason why GIL has failed to do anything with his citizen's grand jury
Klayman's citizens grand jury indited Obama in Florida. Then a citizens court, again in Florida, "convicted" and "sentenced" Obama.

Klayman then did Fuck All with his Very Serious Looking pieces of paper -- for the reasons you explained. (See also Trussell, Terry.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35355
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4222

Post by realist »

bob wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:18 pm
W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:15 pm There's a reason why GIL has failed to do anything with his citizen's grand jury
Klayman's citizens grand jury indited Obama in Florida. Then a citizens court, again in Florida, "convicted" and "sentenced" Obama.

Klayman then did Fuck All with his Very Serious Looking pieces of paper -- for the reasons you explained. (See also Trussell, Terry.)
:yeah:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35355
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4223

Post by realist »

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:15 pm There's a reason why GIL has failed to do anything with his citizen's grand jury:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... ments%20or
The 2019 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 843
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE
View Entire Chapter
843.0855 Criminal actions under color of law or through use of simulated legal process.—
(1) As used in this section:
(a) The term “legal process” means a document or order issued by a court or filed or recorded with an official court of this state or the United States or with any official governmental entity of this state or the United States for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction or representing a claim against a person or property, or for the purpose of directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. “Legal process” includes, but is not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order.
(b) The term “person” means an individual, public or private group incorporated or otherwise, legitimate or illegitimate legal tribunal or entity, informal organization, official or unofficial agency or body, or any assemblage of individuals.
(c) The term “public officer or employee” has the same meaning as provided in s. 817.535.
(2) A person who deliberately impersonates or falsely acts as a public officer or employee in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons and property, or otherwise takes any action under color of law against persons or property, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. It is the intent of the Legislature that this section applies if a person acts as an officer or employee purporting to supersede or override any legislation or statute of this state, or to supersede or override any action of any court of this state.
(3) A person who simulates legal process, including, but not limited to, actions affecting title to real estate or personal property, indictments, subpoenas, warrants, injunctions, liens, orders, judgments, or any legal documents or proceedings, knowing or having reason to know the contents of any such documents or proceedings or the basis for any action to be fraudulent, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who falsely under color of law attempts in any way to influence, intimidate, harass, retaliate against, or hinder a public officer or employee involving the discharge of his or her official duties by means of, but not limited to, threats of or actual physical abuse or harassment, or through the use of simulated legal process, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5)(a) This section does not make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer or legal tribunal which is performed under lawful authority.
(b) This section does not prohibit individuals from assembling freely to express opinions or designate group affiliation or association.
(c) This section does not prohibit or in any way limit a person’s lawful and legitimate access to the courts or prevent a person from instituting or responding to legitimate and lawful legal process.
Translation for Klayman: Terry Trussell
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16465
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Klayman

#4224

Post by Reality Check »

bob wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:18 pm
W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:15 pm There's a reason why GIL has failed to do anything with his citizen's grand jury
Klayman's citizens grand jury indited Obama in Florida. Then a citizens court, again in Florida, "convicted" and "sentenced" Obama.

Klayman then did Fuck All with his Very Serious Looking pieces of paper -- for the reasons you explained. (See also Trussell, Terry.)
I think the Florida law may not have been in existence when Klayman ran his stupid fake grand jury. It was relatively new when Terry Trussell was convicted. I believe he was the first person prosecuted under the new law. What also worked against Trussell was that he was the foreman of a real grand jury when he tried to convene the fake grand jury in the same room. He also tried to file his true bill with the clerk of the court.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:45 pm

Re: Larry Klayman

#4225

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

Reality Check wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:06 pm
bob wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:18 pm
W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:15 pm There's a reason why GIL has failed to do anything with his citizen's grand jury
Klayman's citizens grand jury indited Obama in Florida. Then a citizens court, again in Florida, "convicted" and "sentenced" Obama.

Klayman then did Fuck All with his Very Serious Looking pieces of paper -- for the reasons you explained. (See also Trussell, Terry.)
I think the Florida law may not have been in existence when Klayman ran his stupid fake grand jury. It was relatively new when Terry Trussell was convicted. I believe he was the first person prosecuted under the new law. What also worked against Trussell was that he was the foreman of a real grand jury when he tried to convene the fake grand jury in the same room. He also tried to file his true bill with the clerk of the court.
It's been on the books since 1997, near as I can tell. In 2013, it was modified slightly to include penalties for habitual offenders (and to combine the definitions of public officer and public employee). But the meat of it has been there for a while.
Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”