GIL: Klayman

[Dr. Caligari]

Of course, he already filed for an appeal. I can't imagine that will go anywhere.

If I'm remembering correctly from my pre-retirement days, neither an order transferring venue nor an order denying a motion to remand is an appealable order.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Of course, he already filed for an appeal. I can't imagine that will go anywhere.

If I'm remembering correctly from my pre-retirement days, neither an order transferring venue nor an order denying a motion to remand is an appealable order.

When has that ever stopped KKKlayman?

[northland10]

In other matters.. with his appeal of Klaymna v Rao (and about all the other judges of the DC circuit and Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, again) the DC circuit has designated appellant judges from other circuits to perform justices in this case.

I'm surprised the D.C. Circuit did this.

There's an adage: When all are recused, none are recused. (I.e., if the accusation of bias is so generalized, no one is more likely to be any more biased than anyone else.) While there certainly are exceptions, it is a good general rule to frustrate the obvious bad-faith gaming of the system, like Klayman habitually does.

I recall some of the goofy pro se cases that sued the justices of SCOTUS (or just SCOUTS), when they finally made got to SCOTUS, one of the justices had changed and therefore they decided that the new justice was not a party to the original suit. Thus, that single newbie became the entire conference and promptly denied the writ or whoever was filed. It was probably entirely unnecessary but did not cause them any extra annoyance since they would neve had discussed the case in conference anyway.

I did a quick look and I think this is one of the cases.

Yes, it's Sibley

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. 1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. 2109, which provides that under these circumstances the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court. The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, and Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

[johnpcapitalist]

Klayman and his lame pretend grand juries are penny ante action compared to this crew, who has had the brilliant idea of charging up to $2,500 for people who want to be on a pretend grand jury that pretend-indicts Anthony Fauci.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-vaxx ... grand-jury

[Gregg]

These cosplayers aren't for the most part breaking any laws. We coud set up our own "Federation To Save Real American" or such and make it our grift.

[bob]

Klayman and his lame pretend grand juries are penny ante action compared to this crew, who has had the brilliant idea of charging up to $2,500 for people who want to be on a pretend grand jury that pretend-indicts Anthony Fauci.

Maybe Klayman's feeling the pressure to perform:

Freedom Watch Will Be Trying Joe, Hunter & James Biden for Crimes in Mid-May 2022!

[bob]

As if Klayman isn't constantly begging.

[pipistrelle]

For a lawyer he sure can’t spell. Or does he get hung up on “obscene”?

[northland10]

In the Original Klayman v Judicial Watch:

Apr 13 2022 Waiver of right of respondent Judicail Watch, Inc., et al. to respond filed.

No surprise there. IIRC, the opinion for the DC Circuit says everything the court would need to know to reject cert.

[northland10]

Plaintiff argues that reconsideration is warranted to correct clear error and to prevent manifest injustice [ECF No. 80]. Plaintiff insists that his proposed Amended Complaint is not a shotgun pleading and that, instead, it merely provides “necessary” background facts to “add context” to its legal analysis [ECF No. 80]. Plaintiff then endeavors to explain and supplement this “context” in the Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 80 pp. 1–3]. The Court has reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration and the proposed Amended Complaint, including the “context” provided in both, and sees no basis to reconsider its earlier Order denying leave to amend and dismissing this action. The “context” offered by Plaintiff concerns wide-ranging allegations about a former Defendant in this action, Roger Stone, and his political influence, his personal relationships, and his legal battles. None of this “context”—described generously—cures the obvious legal deficiencies with Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Compliant, which fails to adequately state claims and, like the original Complaint dismissed by Judge Gayles, constitutes a shotgun pleading [ECF Nos. 47, 53; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.83.0.pdf

Having read his complaints in the past, and many denials from the courts, I might start thinking that GIL has no clue what a shotgun pleading is. However, I suspect he may and just does not care. He uses shotgun pleadings to make it difficult for the defense to respond. In my IANAL opinion, he is intentionally using it to harass the defense and does not care if it burdens the judge. He hates most of them anyway.

Plaintiff’s instant attempt to invoke Rule 15(a)(2) is unpersuasive; justice does not require that the Court afford Plaintiff an infinite number of opportunities to replead these claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2018) (recognizing that litigants are not entitled to another chance to replead when they have already been given an opportunity to correct the identified shotgun pleading issues and instructions on how to do so); Klayman v. DeLuca, 712 F. App’x 930, 933 (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming the district court’s recognition of Plaintiff as a
“vexatious litigant”).

Oh, looky, his case against the ex makes an appearance.

Rather than explain each Defendant’s particularized connection to each allegedly defamatory statement, the proposed Amended Complaint paints in broad, conclusory strokes.

I'm getting quite a whiff of Twombly in here.

An interesting wrinkle has come up in this Klayman v Infowars, Florida version, case. The attorney for Infowars, Marc Randazza, has filed a motion to withdraw. He admits the defense needs counsel for post-trial motions such as attorney fees but there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. This is the same day he filed a "suggestion of bankruptcy" regarding the Infowars bankruptcy. I suspect the breakdown may be related to that.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.87.0.pdf

[bob]

The attorney for Infowars, Marc Randazza, has filed a motion to withdraw. He admits the defense needs counsel for post-trial motions such as attorney fees but there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. This is the same day he filed a "suggestion of bankruptcy" regarding the Infowars bankruptcy.

The classic: a breakdown of the attorney-getting-paid-by-the-client relationship.

[northland10]

A case like this is tough. I don't want GIL to succeed is in nasty craptice. At the same time, both Infowars and their now former attorney, Marc Randazza are vile pieces of work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza

Georgetown wants their JD back now.

I would love to see Klayman get hit by more attorney fees, but I sure don't want the to go to Randazza or Infowars.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

A case like this is tough. I don't want GIL to succeed is in nasty craptice. At the same time, both Infowars and their now former attorney, Marc Randazza are vile pieces of work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza

Georgetown wants their JD back now.

I would love to see Klayman get hit by more attorney fees, but I sure don't want the to go to Randazza or Infowars.

Wonder if the Sandy Hook plaintiffs could pull a Mrs. ex-Klayman and claim the attorney fees that InfoWars gets awarded?

[northland10]

And in GIL's ongoing misrepresenation, George Zimmerman's defamation case against Treyvon Martin's family is dismissed.

https://www.joemygod.com/2022/02/court- ... s-parents/

Actually, it is not dismissed yet. In December,

ORDERED: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law 40 is GRANTED-IN-PART. The Amended Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, as a shotgun pleading. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint on or before January 5, 2022, which cures the deficiencies discussed in this Order. Failure to file the amended complaint within the time provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 12/22/2021.

They filed the SAC and now are going through the steps before that one is dismissed.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17 ... buttigieg/

Klayman is not involved.

Okay, now dismissed. They were scheduled for mediation on 28 April (and had gotten permission for remote and even using representatives for the defendants). On the 28th, both sides stipulated to voluntary dismissal with prejudice.

It's dead, Jim.

[northland10]

Klayman v Judicial Watch, the case that will never end is scheduled for the SCOTUS conference on 12 May 2022. This will make it 16 years and 1 month exactly since he originally filed it on 12 April 2006.

He shows how observant a Christian (or Jewish as he likes to do) he is by filing it on the first day of Passover, or alternatively, in the middle of Holy Week.

Where was I on that day? Losing my mind from Holy Week, Easter, and an upcoming Lecture/Recital (and written thesis) for my Master's degree. I remember sitting in Panara's on Good Friday between services working on that project.

[northland10]

Klayman sues DC Board of Prof Responsibility in Florida state court. DC Board removes to Federal Court (remember, he already has something like 4 other cases pending in DC). GIL dismisses case.

Immediately after, he files a new case in state court against the DC Board but makes the amount $74,999.99 to try and avoid the over 75K amount for Federal Court. DC Board removes. Something happened where there was not a response in time to his motion or something and the court initially remanded. DC Board says wait a minute and the judge reverses.

Now the judge says, no remand and, since Klayman did not respond to the motion to transfer, case is transferred to DC.

In the motion for reconsideration, the judge said (and basically said it it in the order denying remand).

With regard to Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand argument, the Court is unpersuaded that Plaintiff is acting in good faith. Plaintiff has asserted in conclusory fashion that the facts in the present action are distinguishable from his previously-filed six actions against nearly-identical parties alleging nearly identical-claims

Order Denying remand
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4.16.0.pdf

Nope, not going to reconsider.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4.18.0.pdf

Of course, he already filed for an appeal. I can't imagine that will go anywhere.

Here is the docket.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63 ... -v-porter/

So, after attempt 2 was transferred to DC (to which GIL is appealing), GIL did the obvious. He again filed another case in the Palm Beach County court against the same defendants. Yep, they removed to the federal court, again.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 79.1.0.pdf

In his actual discipline case in the DC Court of Appeals, there was this following the entry for his filed reply brief:

05/02/2022 Filed Motion To File Excess-Page Reply Brief (Respondent)

Larry, extra words will not help.

ETA: Back to the recently removed case, Larry projects:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 79.6.0.pdf

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION TO STAY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Plaintiff Larry Klayman (“Mr. Klayman”) hereby informs the Court that he will be filing a Motion to Remand on or before May 25, 2022, thirty (30) days from when the Defendants improperly, and without any legal basis removed this action from the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (“State Court”) in a transparent attempt at forum shopping and seeking a more favorable venue.

[northland10]

BREAKING NEWS!!! (not really)

After 16 years and 1 month, it's dead*, Jim.

In Klayman v Judicial Watch, Part 1, In The Beginning, 2006:

Jan 07 2022 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 18, 2022)

Apr 13 2022 Waiver of right of respondent Judicail Watch, Inc., et al. to respond filed.

Apr 20 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.

May 16 2022 Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

I assumed Kavanaugh probably had served on some panel for some interlocutory appeal to this one (or an appeal for another Klayman v JW case) so went ahead and stepped aside as they tend to do.

* Dead is a relative term. The original case is now on attorney fees (another 1M+ on top of the 2M+ award) and GIL, being GIL, is making sure to Klayman the whole thing. It's about time for the judge to rule against his latest attempt to get rid of her so that he can go and refile it, again.

[bob]

A Fort Bend Herald opinion column:

The founder of a watchdog group called Freedom Watch has called for the Politico reporter to be indicted on charges related to a story he broke last week about the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial draft opinion on abortion.

* * *

Blaming reporter Josh Gernstein for criminal conduct is going after the wrong person. He was doing his job, and Larry Klayman has presented no evidence that Gernstein committed a crime.

Don’t blame the messenger. Instead, root out the person who leaked the opinion to Gernstein. That individual might well have violated federal law, but the Justice Department doesn’t seem too concerned.

People are talking about his beliefs, so: Klayman Wins Again.

Edit: Type-O.

[Gregg]

A Fort Bend Herald opinion column:

The founder of a watchdog group called Freedom Watch has called for the Politico reporter to be indicted on charges related to a story he broke last week about the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial draft opinion on abortion.

* * *

Blaming reporter Josh Gernstein for criminal conduct is going after the wrong person. He was doing his job, and Larry Klayman has presented no evidence that Gernstein committed a crime.

Don’t blame the messenger. Instead, root out the person who leaked the opinion to Gernstein. That individual might well have violated federal law, but the Justice Department doesn’t seem too concerned.

People are talking his beliefs, so: Klayman Wins Again.

Oh, we have no interest in finding who the leaker was, it might be inconvenient, you see...

[northland10]

In his appeals for his case against most of the judges of the DC Federal Court and the DC District:

BEFORE: Higginson¹, Erickson², and Sack³, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that this case be scheduled for oral argument on August 10, 2022, at 10:30 A.M. before Circuit Judges Higginson, Erickson, and Sack. The oral argument will take place remotely using Zoom for Government. The time and date of oral argument will not change absent further order of the Court.

A separate order will be issued regarding the allocation of time for argument.

Why are they doing an oral argument for a case that is clearly a loser? He is suing judges that ruled against him for ruling against him. IANAL but I am pretty sure this is an instant failure. Are they looking to rip him apart with questions?

[northland10]

It's update on Klayman day so here comes the back-to-back posts. Sorry for the multiple posts.

In our last episodes, he sued the DC Board of Professional Responsibility and its people multiple times in a Florida State Court. They removed to federal, he voluntarily dismissed and filed again the next day in state court (using 74,999 as the amount) to which they removed it again to the Federal court. He demanded it be remanded and the judge just said, nope, to DC it goes (to join all of its buddies there that were transferred from a bunch of different jurisdictions). He appealed the transfer. And so we have:

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
Before: JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:
This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. On March 25, 2022, the district court issued orders granting the defendants’ motion to transfer this case to the District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and denying Larry Klayman’s motion to remand the case to state court and for sanctions. The court denied Klayman’s motion for reconsideration on March 29, 2022, and he now appeals from the March 25 and 29 orders. The district court’s orders were not final because they did not end the litigation on the merits and Klayman’s complaint remains pending, albeit in a different district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009); Middlebrooks v. Smith, 735 F.2d 431, 432 (11th Cir. 1984); Woodard v. STP Corp., 170 F.3d 1043, 1044 (11th Cir. 1999).

The orders also are not subject to immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine, as they are effectively reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014); Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1985); Middlebrooks, 735 F.2d at 432-33; Woodard, 170 F.3d at 1044.

Any pending motions are DENIED as moot. No motion for reconsideration may be filed
unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules.

While the case referenced above was sent to DC, he filed again in the state court and it was removed, again. A couple weeks ago, he filed a "Notice of Conflict of Interest" with the district court that says a complaint against this court has been filed with the Judicial Council of the 11th circuit. He then says if the court decides do proceed inappropriately at this time, he includes the brief in the appeals (not whatever judicial council thing he claimed to do which is something he did in DC). That brief would not be moot.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 79.9.0.pdf

He did file a motion to remand, apparently after the time was out.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.11.0.pdf

Of course, he replied in his normal way:

...And, since Mr. Klayman has clearly shown that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, it must then expeditiously remand this case to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit so that this matter may proceed without any further delay and sanction the Defendants for their patently frivolous,
meritless, and bad faith removal.

Dated: May 31, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.12.0.pdf

What part of diversity jurisdiction does he not get (or frivolous, or meritless, or bad faith...)? Sorry dude, you sue the DC Board of Professional responsibility in DC, not Florida. Oh right, he has already lost on that twice. It is as though he is going venue shopping.

[northland10]

And the last one (Larry is getting slim on open federal cases lately since he is either out of the still open ones or has not filed new ones).

In the 2nd circuit appeal of Roy Moore and Showtime/Sacha Cohen, GIL filed:

NOTICE WITH REGARD TO ORAL ARGUMENT

Please take notice that Appellants Roy Moore and Kayla Moore have advised that they will be arguing on their own behalf pro se at the upcoming oral argument of June 10, 2022.

I was wondering when he would be out of that case as well. While representing yourself is unwise, in this case, Moore may be taking the better route. He managed to survive a post-discovery Motion for Summary Judgement in one of his Alabama cases. I don't know if that would have happened with GIL.

[Dave from down under]

Wouldn't you like the opportunity to ask him some hard questions - before bringing the gavel down?

[bob]

Why are they doing an oral argument for a case that is clearly a loser? He is suing judges that ruled against him for ruling against him. IANAL but I am pretty sure this is an instant failure. Are they looking to rip him apart with questions?

My WAG: The court wants a case about bad-faith litigants, especially those who try to game the system by suing judges. So it can publish a case to preclude future tactics. Klayman is "just" the vehicle.

My backup WAG: The court wants to (FINALLY!) bane Klayman, and oral argument will be a deposition in disguise.

[northland10]

I'm looking forward to your trumpeting on how you called it on one or both of your wags.