GIL: Klayman

[filly]

Nutshell: Amy Berman Jackson notes GIL has failed to serve any of the Defendants against whom he seeks an injunction. She signs an order today giving him until February 26 to respond. GIL immediately files a Motion asking for a 2 day extension (from today?), hilarity ensues.

[northland10]

Thanks for catching this.

I had also created a topic for Klayman elsewhere but since there has been no replies on it yet, I am just going to recopy the first post from that and delete the first post. If I need to, I will ask Fogs to lock it or delete it or something.

On my original post:

Things went wonky on me when I tried to post this last night so, I will try again but with little to no commentary (I have a morning meeting soon).

In one of many cases against Thomas Fitton, this one in Virginia, the 4th Circuit affirmed the dismissal, though changed it to "without prejudice."

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201738.U.pdf

In his case against the DC Bar folks, in California, like Texas before them, they transferred the case to DC The docket is getting busy. He also sued them in the DC superior court.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.31.0.pdf

ETA: It worked and the original thread went away. I hope this saves fogs a little time.

[northland10]

Freedom Watch v Big Tech/Social Media (i.e Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple) is up for SCOTUS conference tomorrow. It was scheduled for the 19th but was rescheduled that day. I am not sure why. The respondents all waived the right to respond and no response has been requested yet.

[filly]

Thanks northland. The filing system here is wonkier than it used to be. I didn't mean to step on your toes. But we always need a GIL thread!

[northland10]

Nutshell: Amy Berman Jackson notes GIL has failed to serve any of the Defendants against whom he seeks an injunction. She signs an order today giving him until February 26 to respond. GIL immediately files a Motion asking for a 2 day extension (from today?), hilarity ensues.

She did give him an extension until March 2. He had also filed a "MOTION for disclosure" at the same time.

Plaintiff Larry Klayman (“Mr. Klayman”) hereby respectfully requests that the Clerk of the Court disclose how this case was assigned to the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson (“Judge Jackson”), that is whether was randomly assigned or specifically assigned to Judge Jackson by
the chief judge or otherwise.

Respectfully? No, I don't think so.

Judge Berman's answer in a minute order.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request 7 is DENIED as the rules to do not provide for motions posing questions to the Clerk of Court. See also Local Civil Rule 40.2 and 40.3. SO ORDERED.

Klayman is suing all of the DC Court of Appeals judges, who we know have immunity to things like this, and then essentially hints that the court had hanky panky over the judge assigned to his case. This is all because of his being disciplined for breaking rules.

Every day he runs around with a big sign saying "Just Not Gettin' It."

[northland10]

Some may remember that George Zimmerman sued Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren in a Florida state court for defamation and stuff over tweets they made. I am posting this to the Klayman topic since, while Zimmerman is the official plaintiff and Klayman, after many failed attempts, left the case, it was always a Klayman case. IMHO, Zimmerman was just a useful tool for GIL to harass Buttigieg and Warren.

With the preliminary explanation being complete, the quick history is:

1. Case was removed to Federal court
2. Some unpleasantness happened between Zimmerman and Klayman (maybe we should send George a Florida bar complaint form).
3. Klayman attempted to withdraw. It did not go well. Attempts to get Zimmerman to respond failed and despite GIL's claims of hanky panky by others who were talking into Zimmerman's ear, the court required Zimmerman actually communicate to the court.
4. This finally happened, and Zimmerman had a new attorney make an appearance at the end of December.

Now that we are back to the present....

The new attorney filed nothing new with the court (which still had outstanding MTDs from the defendants). So,

MTDs granted.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.38.0.pdf

While the judge allowed Zimmerman to file an amended complaint to cure the defects (which are likely extremely difficult to cure), I expect they will not. The attorney probably already knew it was a loser and was just keeping the chair warm so the case could die.

P.s. Klayman v City Pages makes an appearance.

[northland10]

Freedom Watch v Big Tech/Social Media (i.e Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple) is up for SCOTUS conference tomorrow. It was scheduled for the 19th but was rescheduled that day. I am not sure why. The respondents all waived the right to respond and no response has been requested yet.

Last Thursday, they rescheduled it again. It is now scheduled for this week's conference on March 5. I am not sure what this is about since no justice has requested a response and they waived the right to respond.

[northland10]

One of the posts lost in the last one was Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissing another Klayman v Judicial Watch cases that he filed in 2019. When the scheduling committee was going reassign it to Judge Kollar-Kotelly as she was the original JW judge, he added her as a defendant. In short, this case was attempting to relitigate the 2006 Judicial watch case.

The dismissal for those who like to watch GIL failures.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 49.9.0.pdf

He recently filed this:
LARRY KLAYMAN’S RENEWED REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE HONORABLE COLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 9.12.0.pdf

This is after the judge had dismissed another motion:

MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff's "Motion for Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications" is hereby DENIED as moot. "An ex parte communication is defined as a 'communication between counsel and the court when opposing counsel is not present.'" North v. United States Dep't of Justice, 17 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary 316 (9th ed. 2009)). As the court's Memorandum Opinion 11 was based on documents "filed on the public docket and thus accessible to all they cannot, by definition, be considered ex parte communications." North, 17 F. Supp. 3d at 4. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/17/21. (DJS) (Entered: 02/17/2021)

Around the same time in 2019, he filed a case against Fitton. This one did include some back and forth last year about Fitton and others making a motion to declare Klayman a vexatious litigant. All that might be moot because Judge Chutkan recently made an order:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Having dismissed Klayman v. Judicial Watch, 19-cv-2604-TSC, 2021 WL 602900 (D.C. Feb. 16, 2021), it is hereby ordered that by March 3, 2021, the parties shall SHOW CAUSE why the current action should not be reassigned to Judge Kollar-Kotelly as an earlier assigned case. See LCvR 40.5; see Klayman v. Judicial Watch, 6-cv-670-CKK (D.D.C.). The parties’ responses shall be limited to 5 pages.

Date: February 24, 2021

TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 4.19.0.pdf
GIL will not be happy, but his nastiness will have to wait until the new deadline after his request for an extension (which will be filed tomorrow).

[Luke]

TY Northland! GIL seems cranky riding into the sunset of irrelevance

Luhn’s attorney, Larry Klayman, told The Daily Beast his client plans to request that all 11 judges on the appellate court revisit the ruling and, if they decline, proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get a jury trial.

“This case should have been decided by a jury of Ms. Luhn’s peers, not judges who cut off my client’s constitutional rights to be heard,” Klayman said in a statement. "Hopefully, Fox News and Scott will have a heart and now consider doing the ethical and right thing and settle with Ms. Luhn, as she has been severely damaged by this entire sad saga, having tried to commit suicide on four occasions. Her emotional, physical and financial state is more than precarious and very fragile.”

Fox News Media declined to comment.

[jcolvin2]

Nutshell: Amy Berman Jackson notes GIL has failed to serve any of the Defendants against whom he seeks an injunction. She signs an order today giving him until February 26 to respond. GIL immediately files a Motion asking for a 2 day extension (from today?), hilarity ensues.

She did give him an extension until March 2. He had also filed a "MOTION for disclosure" at the same time.

Klayman requested and received an extension until March 3, 2021 in light of his need to counsel and console Ms. Luhn:

03/02/2021 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by LARRY KLAYMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 03/02/2021)
03/02/2021 9 MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiff's 8 motion for extension of time. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's response to the order to show cause is due by March 3, 2021. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 3/2/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 03/02/2021)

[jcolvin2]

Folks at the DC bar want Klayman to be declared a vexatious litigant:

Klayman Vexatious Litigant Motion Memo.pdf

(124.06 KiB) Downloaded 594 times

[northland10]

Folks at the DC bar want Klayman to be declared a vexatious litigant:Klayman Vexatious Litigant Motion Memo.pdf

He may have sued them more in the last 2 years than Judicial Watch and Fitton (though, it is a close race with the extra cases from the DC Superior court, including suing his former client Dennis Montgomery for filing a complaint). I will note that he has not sued any part of the disciplinary office for something Roger Stone said, yet. They may be one of the few defendants who can say that.

She did give him an extension until March 2. He had also filed a "MOTION for disclosure" at the same time.

Klayman requested and received an extension until March 3, 2021 in light of his need to counsel and console Ms. Luhn:

03/02/2021 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by LARRY KLAYMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 03/02/2021)
03/02/2021 9 MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiff's 8 motion for extension of time. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's response to the order to show cause is due by March 3, 2021. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 3/2/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 03/02/2021)

If he didn't request an extension or 20, it wouldn't be a GIL case. I love how he talks about his cases needing to be handled quickly then he requests endless extensions. I am pretty sure what he wants quickly is discovery and depositions so he can harass the defendants. It does appear he has generally stopped objecting to requests for extensions from defendants. He used to object even after getting multiple ones himself, without objection.

[bob]

Folks at the DC bar want Klayman to be declared a vexatious litigant:Klayman Vexatious Litigant Motion Memo.pdf

Mr. Klayman is the Embodiment of a Vexatious Litigant

Nice, crisp writing.

In addition to parading Klayman's horribles, the motion also notes:
* The D.C. Super. Ct. has imposed (the state analog of) Rule 11 sanctions on Klayman (I did not know this);
* Akin Gump has spent nearly $30k defending the D.C. Bar pro bono;
* Klayman ignores the D.C. Bar's lawyer's consenting to accept service -- just so Klayman can terrorize the defendants with process servers at their homes. (Cf. Klayman whining about his putative client being served at her home.)

[northland10]

Folks at the DC bar want Klayman to be declared a vexatious litigant:Klayman Vexatious Litigant Motion Memo.pdf

Mr. Klayman is the Embodiment of a Vexatious Litigant

Nice, crisp writing.

In addition to parading Klayman's horribles, the motion also notes:
* The D.C. Super. Ct. has imposed (the state analog of) Rule 11 sanctions on Klayman (I did not know this);
* Akin Gump has spent nearly $30k defending the D.C. Bar pro bono;
* Klayman ignores the D.C. Bar's lawyer's consenting to accept service -- just so Klayman can terrorize the defendants with process servers at their homes. (Cf. Klayman whining about his putative client being served at her home.)

Bob!!!!!! Insert dancing banana here.

Feel free to cut down or take a vacay from Sharon and Orly if this means you can still give GIL case reactions. I say this for purely selfish reasons.

Some of the unknown horribles were, of course, not surprising. That he would publically whine about his tool being served at home while doing it to the defendants who proactively told him he could do it by email is classic Larry being GIL.

I think I missed that he also sued the in the WD of Texas. Either that or I had mentally assumed it was ND of Texas. His cases can be sort of hard to keep track of, which I assume, is part of the point.

[Luke]

Crossposted from Laura Elizabeth Loomer's topic:

Hope it's to drag GIL. From goofball Bob Unrah at WND

For 3rd time, Supremes delay decision on Big Tech discrimination
Case accuses Twitter, Facebook, Google of violating Constitution
By Bob Unruh Published March 4, 2021 at 8:16pm

The U.S. Supreme Court has rescheduled for a third time consideration of a case brought by conservative activist and political candidate Laura Loomer alleging Big Tech companies are discriminating against conservatives in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The case has been distributed three times for conference, meetings at which the justices vote on which cases to accept, and rescheduled each time. Four votes are required for a case to be heard. Lawyers point out there could be several reasons. One possibility is it's simply a clerical move. Another is that some justices want to hear the case, others don't want to touch it, but neither has the required votes. Loomer, represented by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, challenged Twitter, Apple, Facebook and Google in antitrust litigation several years before former Attorney General William Barr raised the issue.Her complaint argues the Big Tech companies' platforms are a "place of public accommodation," meaning they are not allowed to censor conservative content.

Klayman, a former federal prosecutor who was on the trial team that broke up the AT&T monopoly, previously said the case asks the court "to overturn the dismissal of their class action complaint against social media companies for restraint of trade, attempted monopolization and illegal political discrimination in a public forum against conservatives, libertarians and people of faith, as the law in the District of Columbia forbids such discrimination."Loomer, who has been banned by social-media platforms, said just prior to the 2020 election: "My legal battle against the Silicon Valley Big Tech Tyrants is America’s battle. For far too long, these companies have been silencing peaceful political speech in an effort to support the political agenda of Left. The massive censorship and cancel culture campaign these companies are currently participating in through an anti-competitive and discriminatory collaboration is primarily being used as tool to target and silence conservatives and supporters of President Trump in an effort to help the Democrats win the 2020 election."

The lower court "erred" by affirming a judge's decision to deny the plaintiffs discovery and their right to a jury trial, the complaint says. "We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will take the petition seriously and grant review for the sake of preserving Freedom of Speech in the United States of America," Loomer said at the time. "It's time for the Supreme Court step up to the plate in order that all persons and groups will be treated equally by these Big Tech social media giants," Klayman said.The complaint states the case was brought against the companies "in response to their well-documented and publicized anti-competitive pattern and practice of suppressing and censoring conservative content."The complaint now includes "admissions from employees [of the defendants] that such targeted suppression and censorship was, indeed, occurring." Loomer and Klayman both "rely on social media platforms to 'inform the public about [their] conservative advocacy and to raise the funds through donations to further its public advocacy and mission.'" The companies, according to the filing, "acted anticompetitively to suppress and censor conservative content. For instance, YouTube, which is owned and operated by its parent company, respondent Google, demonetized the channels of conservative Prager University and Western Journal and also targeted conservative pundit Alex Jones of InfoWars due to their conservative political viewpoints," the filing explains.

It alleges Facebook "has in concert with other social media giants anticompetitively censored and suppressed conservative content, including through the admissions of it(s) former employees who admitted that they 'routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers." Quoted in the filing is Campbell Brown of Facebook, who had explained the company was changing so that it now has "a point of view" on news."We are … taking a step to try to define what 'quality news' looks like," she said.Loomer has been permanently banned from several platforms because of her political opinions, the complaint explains.The case's arguments are bolstered, the filing states, by the fact that last October the Department of Justice sued Google in federal court over related issues. Following the 2020 presidential election, multiple censorship actions have been taken by tech companies against conservatives.The motive behind the censorship was to "take down President Donald Trump," who remains eligible to run for president again in 2024, the court filing charges. The ultimate goal, the justices have been told, is to "have installed leftist government in the nation's capital and the 50 states."

https://www.wnd.com/2021/03/3rd-time-su ... imination/

More like, the ultimate goal, as Bob would say, is to SEND MONEY.

[Foggy]

One possibility is it's simply a clerical move. Another is that some justices want to hear the case, others don't want to touch it, but neither has the required votes.

That's metaphysically absurd, Mrs. Presky! If those who want to hear it don't have 4 votes, then according to the New Math, the ones who don't want to touch it DO HAVE THE REQUIRED VOTES.

Honestly, I don't know what these reporters are smoking.

[northland10]

Likely lost in the crash...

Back in January, Klayman, through Freedom Watch, had sued Amazon Web Services, Google, and Apple for send money depriving Freedom Watch of Parler, which hurt their business send money. Of course, because of his great knowledge of diversity jurisdiction, and that Freedom Watch is in Florida except when it is in DC, filed the case in Palm Beach County, FL.

Here is the complaint that I only briefly scanned and did not read (Bob does that for me so I hope he stays around).
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/ ... historical

I don't recall if it was this case but I did previously respond previously about a Klayman case with, "removal in 3, 2, 1..."

And, as expected, on 8 March 2021, Amazon Web Services, with the consent of Google and Apple, removed the case to Federal Court.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 26.1.0.pdf
They also had the rudeness to point out that Freedom Watch is registered in DC and showed the registration. They did not mention that the Florida registration that Klayman mentions in his filings expired in September 2017 for lack of filing an Annual Report. It was a Foreign non-profit corporation registration.

I GIL not being candid with the court?

It is interesting to note that he said this in the complaint:

When PARLER went offline on January 10, 2021, Plaintiff FREEDOM WATCH had followers on PARLER. The number of followers that FREEDOM WATCH had on PARLER cannot be determined while PARLER’s platform is offline.

He had no idea how many followers they had, even an estimate? In addition, now that it is back up, I have easily found a Parler account for Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch, and Gun Owners of America (they even have a link on their website). I wonder if Freedom Watch even had an account on Parler and if they did, was it just a placeholder. Could it be that is he not being candid with the court?

I have noticed that the Freedom Watch case all have a second attorney listed for Freedom Watch, even in Florida. It looks like somebody has set up an out when he gets booted from representing, directly, Freedom Watch.

[bob]

And, as expected, on 8 March 2021, Amazon Web Services, with the consent of Google and Apple, removed the case to Federal Court.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 26.1.0.pdf

In the notice of removal, the defendants acknowledge that Klayman Freedom Watch was seeking less than 75k in damages, which is an obvious dodge to avoid federal court. But they also cite cases saying that requesting punitive damages (which Klayman Freedom Watch is doing) can count against a plaintiff seeking to avoid federal court.

It is interesting to note that he said this in the complaint:

When PARLER went offline on January 10, 2021, Plaintiff FREEDOM WATCH had followers on PARLER. The number of followers that FREEDOM WATCH had on PARLER cannot be determined while PARLER’s platform is offline.

He had no idea how many followers they had, even an estimate? In addition, now that it is back up, I have easily found a Parler account for Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch, and Gun Owners of America (they even have a link on their website). I wonder if Freedom Watch even had an account on Parler and if they did, was it just a placeholder. Could it be that is he not being candid with the court?

I noticed that Klayman Freedom Watch failed to allege the existence of a Parler account. Rather, all the allegations concern the ability of Klayman Freedom Watch to access Parler users. I suspect Mssrs. Twombly and Iqbal will yet again darken Klayman's doorway.

I have noticed that the Freedom Watch case all have a second attorney listed for Freedom Watch, even in Florida. It looks like somebody has set up an out when he gets booted from representing, directly, Freedom Watch.

Yeah: Stephen L. Sulzer. IIRC, he had represented Klayman for a bit in one of his disciplinary proceedings. Sulzer seems like a regular-enough gun lawyer, so I infer Sulzer only here for the easy paycheck. (And good luck getting Klayman to actually pay.)

[realist]

[Luke]

In the Loomer case, found it funny to see the firepower vs. GIL

Supreme Court of the United States
No. 20-969
Title: Freedom Watch, Inc., et al., Petitioners
v.
Google Inc., et al.
Docketed: January 15, 2021
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Numbers: (19-7030)
Decision Date: May 27, 2020
Rehearing Denied: August 5, 2020

Date Proceedings and Orders
Jan 02 2021 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 16, 2021)
PetitionAppendixProof of Service
Jan 19 2021 Waiver of right of respondent Twitter, Inc. to respond filed.
Main Document
Jan 19 2021 Waiver of right of respondent Apple Inc. to respond filed.
Main Document
Jan 19 2021 Waiver of right of respondent Facebook, Inc. to respond filed.
Main Document
Jan 19 2021 Waiver of right of respondent Google LLC (formerly Google Inc.) to respond filed.
Main Document
Feb 03 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
Feb 19 2021 Rescheduled.
Feb 22 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.
Feb 25 2021 Rescheduled.
Mar 01 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.
Mar 04 2021 Rescheduled.

NAME ADDRESS PHONE
Attorneys for Petitioners
Larry Elliot Klayman
Counsel of Record Klayman Law Group, P.A.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
leklayman@gmail.com 3105950800
Party name: Freedom Watch, Inc., et al.


Attorneys for Respondents
Kenneth Winn Allen
Counsel of Record Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
winn.allen@kirkland.com 202-389-5078
Party name: Facebook, Inc.

Ian Heath Gershengorn
Counsel of Record Jenner & Block
1099 New York Ave., NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
IGershengorn@jenner.com 202-639-6869
Party name: Apple Inc.

Jonathan M. Jacobson
Counsel of Record Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019
jjacobson@wsgr.com 212-497-7758
Party name: Twitter, Inc.

John E. Schmidtlein William & Connolly, LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
jschmidtlein@wc.com (202) 434-5901
Party name: Google LLC (formerly Google Inc.)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 0-969.html#

They must be PANICKED like Realist and I had been until January 20th. Should we write to them and laugh?

[scirreeve]

I didn't know before that Ammo testified for GIL in September. Disses the Judge of course cuz female. From a motion in his trespassing case where he says he refuses to wear face diapers (he is an idiot). Linky in his stupid post doesn't work for me.

Capture.JPG (154.74 KiB) Viewed 32075 times

[Dave from down under]

Ammo shows his inability to get with the times..

and unsurprisingly that he is a misogynist loser..

[pipistrelle]

Ammo shows his inability to get with the times..

and unsurprisingly that he is a misogynist loser..

His description of Zoom is hilarious. Imagine, the judge lives in a residence!

[northland10]

Ammo shows his inability to get with the times..

and unsurprisingly that he is a misogynist loser..

His description of Zoom is hilarious. Imagine, the judge lives in a residence!

He is also wrong about the role of "you honor." I assume this was the hearing committee meeting on the complaint referred to them by the 9th. It was not a case in front of a judge.

I also assume he's lying about a great deal, except for him being a misogynist loser.

[Uninformed]