GIL: Klayman

[bob]

This does result in him being suspended for potentially longer than the board's recommendation.

Yes and no: the fitness requirement can be disbarment in all but name. "Eighteen month plus a fitness requirement" really is "at least 18 months." And "forever" is longer than 18 months.

It is quite possible that, once the D.C. Ct. App. imposes discipline, it'll note Klayman has served his 18 months, and that he may seek reinstatement once he proves his fitness to regain his license.

Reading between the lines, the interim (but indefinite) suspension basically is a preliminary assessment that Klayman's not worthy of having a license for a long time (if ever). The D.C. Ct. App. could have imposed a less onerous restriction (or none).


Klayman, of course, remains in good standing with the Florida Bar.

[Foggy]

They're just trying to cancel him because he is Jewish Christian Judeo-Christian white conservative Republican the voice of the people a piece of dog crap.

Sad.

[Gregg]

dog crap libelz

[Luke]

Take it back, Foggy. Don't let the adorable bunny ears fool you. They are actually radar for the 699th classified guided missile systems. No comment on how the image was obtained. In that position, the Lt Colonel appears to be locked on North Carolina. They love you so it's only set to Stun but why take a chance?

The 699th almost never comment (the recent PSA was a stunner), but word is around next target is GIL's Grand Slam Jury.

Root Beer Bunny.jpg (132.84 KiB) Viewed 1899 times

[Gregg]

Our offical position is that picture of one of our operatives wearing one of our secret weapons guidance system controllers is fake, the dog don't exist, the ears don't exist, you don't exist.

Root Beer does appreciate that you got her good side.

[bob]

I prosecuted myself once.

In the privacy of my own abode, of course.

[bob]

[bob]

This is Jason Goodman, Klayman's fellow traveler who hosts the citizen grand jury episodes.

Goodman and Klayman both hate Biden, but Klayman thinks Biden is being too soft on Russia.

Methinks the citizen grand jurying is going be on hiatus for a while.

[northland10]

So, back in 2017 or so, GIL sued Judicial Watch, again, in the DC Superior Court. He claimed that the separation agreement with JW entitled him to various videos in the public domain which would consist of press and other media material that included Klayman. He wanted the videos from depositions conducted on various noteworthy people (I assume Hillary was in that list). JW said no.

In 2018, JW moved for summary judgement and the court granted it. After more stuff, and meditation, the court granted JW's motion in 2019. GIL actually failed to respond to the motion and claimed later on a motion to vacate (on the same day that JW made a motion for fees) that he was not notified of the motion. This despite it was mentioned on the joint status report and he actually informed JW that he would not consent to the motion.

The court, for reasons I am not sure, did not actually act on the motion to vacate until August 2021, though the court was clear the case ended when summary judgement was granted. '

I loved this motion text:

10/03/2019 Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Cross Motion for Sanctions Under (Cite Rule) and Inherent Authority of the Court Filed 10/03/2019 18:59 TB

The court granted JW summary judgement but GIL asks for Sanctions.

Of course, all of this called for a motion for reconsideration, which was denied (same for the motion for reconsideration on the fees).

He finally filed an appeal this month since the denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to vacate was completed this month. Not sure if the DC Court of Appeals will state he ran out the clock since he should not have waited for extra motions after the final judgment. I think he is still suing all of the DC Court of Appeals judges so who knows.

Here is the denial to the motion to vacate.

Klayman v JW Dc court order denying reconsideration.pdf

The appeal was initially referred to mediation, then screened out, then some initial order to which I cannot see, and then:

02/16/2022 Filed Order Sua Sponte Dismissing Appeal
02/16/2022 Filed Dismissed

Another JW case was lost. He's getting pretty good at this Has he managed to succeed beyond the one where his ex gobbled up his award*?

*The case where JW learned to not let staff babble to Orly Taitz, IIRC.

[northland10]

In GIL's fight with JW over the attorney's fees for the main JW case (that he never filed in SCOTUS), he filed a "motion to reassign case" in December which the judge later denied (lost track how many times he has tried). He then asked for an extension on a response to which the evil leftist judge said, sure, you can have an extension.

So what does he include with his eventually filed motion in opposition to JWs fee ask?

Renewed MOTION to Reassign Case, MOTION for Recusal by LARRY ELLIOT KLAYMAN.

What part of no, no, and f*** no does he not understand?

[woodworker]

In GIL's fight with JW over the attorney's fees for the main JW case (that he never filed in SCOTUS), he filed a "motion to reassign case" in December which the judge later denied (lost track how many times he has tried). He then asked for an extension on a response to which the evil leftist judge said, sure, you can have an extension.

So what does he include with his eventually filed motion in opposition to JWs fee ask?

Renewed MOTION to Reassign Case, MOTION for Recusal by LARRY ELLIOT KLAYMAN.

What part of no, no, and f*** no does he not understand?

He deeply objects to the denial of his motions.

[northland10]

In GIL's fight with JW over the attorney's fees for the main JW case (that he never filed in SCOTUS), he filed a "motion to reassign case" in December which the judge later denied (lost track how many times he has tried). He then asked for an extension on a response to which the evil leftist judge said, sure, you can have an extension.

So what does he include with his eventually filed motion in opposition to JWs fee ask?

Renewed MOTION to Reassign Case, MOTION for Recusal by LARRY ELLIOT KLAYMAN.

What part of no, no, and f*** no does he not understand?

He deeply objects to the denial of his motions.

Or maybe he strenuously objects to the denial. That's how it works, isn't it?

[northland10]

In GIL's fight with JW over the attorney's fees for the main JW case (that he never filed in SCOTUS), he filed a "motion to reassign case" in December which the judge later denied (lost track how many times he has tried). He then asked for an extension on a response to which the evil leftist judge said, sure, you can have an extension.

So what does he include with his eventually filed motion in opposition to JWs fee ask?

Renewed MOTION to Reassign Case, MOTION for Recusal by LARRY ELLIOT KLAYMAN.

What part of no, no, and f*** no does he not understand?

Of course, JW objected to the "Renewed Motion." They said he requested the same thing 4 times. I thought it was more.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .645.0.pdf

But now, he has the judge beat. He filed a notice that a formal complaint pursuant to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act has been filed against the judge so take that judge. I bet he will now file another motion to recuse or reassign the case based on the fact that he filed a complaint and she knows about it.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .646.0.pdf

Apparently, 2M+ reward and 1M+ for attorney fees is not enough for Larry. Now he wants sanctions or something.

[northland10]

Looks like Klayman v JW is actually docketed at SCOTUS as they did receive the filing on time. The petition was received by the 7 January deadline from the CJ but he did not serve JW until 15 March so the case was not docked until 18 March.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

From the JW Opposition:

Here, not only is there no evidence,
but an impartial observer is left wondering why Klayman this motion for a fifth time.

I know it's a typo, but "why Klayman this motion" is such a lovely (and apt) verbing of a noun.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[northland10]

Okays now.. where were we on Klayman's current disciplinary case? Ah yes, he was busy suing every change on the DC Court of Appeals. Today, his petition for a hearing en banc from the DC Circuit was denied. I noticed that the DC Court of Appeals Docket also had some motion on Friday.

I added a few earlier docket entries to help with context.

05/21/2021 Filed Briefing Completed
05/21/2021 Filed ACTION - Ready for Calendaring - Regular
05/24/2021 Filed Motion For Leave to File reply brief on July 21, 2021 and motion for extension of time. (Respondent) Granted
05/24/2021 Filed Motion To Strike Disciplinary Counsel Brief. (Respondent) Held in Abeyance
05/25/2021 Filed Disciplinary Counsel's response to respondent's Motion to strike (Petitioner Bar Counsel) Held in Abeyance
06/28/2021 Lodged RESPONDENT LARRY KLAYMAN'S NOTICE TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN KLAYMAN V. BLACKBURNE RIGSBY (Respondent)
06/29/2021 Lodged RESPONDENT LARRY KLAYMAN'S NOTICE TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN KLAYMAN V. BLACKBURNE RIGSBY (Respondent)

04/01/2022 Filed Order granting respondent's motion for extension of time to file reply to Disciplinary Counsel's brief and holding respondent's motion to strike in abeyance.
04/01/2022 Filed Letter To Counsel/Party Re Future Calendaring
04/01/2022 Filed Respondent's Reply to Disciplinary Counsel's response to respondent' Motion to strike (Respondent)

I guess they may have actually been sitting on this while the case went through the federal court.

Of course, he filed a notice on the DC Circuit docket that he will be filing a petition for a writ, or mandamus with SCOTUS because he has to find any way to avoid his discipline. I assume he filed notice because he wants a record somewhere that "this is not done so you can't discipline me." Granted, he is still indefinitely suspended in DC.

[northland10]

Since I never make a single GIL post at at time, here is number two and deals with Klayman v Infowars (and at one point Stone).

It was removed from a Florida court to the Federal court, at least for the Infowars folks. Last year, the court told him he could file an amended complaint to correct the issues with the prior one (essentially shotgun pleading). It did not go well.

Mar 25, 2022

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT re DE 53 Motion for Leave. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 3/25/2022. See attached document for full details. (ebz) (Entered: 03/25/2022)

Mar 28, 2022

Disclosure

Mar 29, 2022

Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer - Attorney

Mar 29, 2022

Main Doc­ument

Reconsideration

Attach­ment 1

Exhibit Exhibit 1

The link to the docket is at the bottom and recent entries were already purchased by somebody else so are available.

The dismissal. Twombly/Icqbal makes an appearance in the Legal Standard section but the judge used conclusory enough to make me think, he done be vexed again.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.77.0.pdf

Thi was a fun footnote:

The Court also notes that the Amended Complaint, as a general matter, contains other questionable passages: it appears to erroneously reference a second plaintiff at one point [ECF No. 53 p. 4]; it repeats many allegations over and over again, verbatim, rather than simply reincorporate them into the relevant counts [see ECF No. 53 pp. 19–21, 23–25, 28–30, 33–34, 38–40]; and it is littered with personal insults directed at Plaintiff’s enemies, ...

He also blames the defendants for non-parties Santilli and Montgomery filing a bar complaint (which has not actually shown up on the docket yet).

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18 ... owars-llc/

[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/

Edit: Adding here so as to not create another post.. in the Florida case, FW v Opec

PAPERLESS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 30, 2021. (DE 1 ). A summons was issued on the same date (DE 3 ), however the docket reflects that no proof of service has been filed. The docket also reflects that during the January 24, 2022 scheduling conference with Judge Matthewman, Plaintiff indicated that a motion to serve the defendant by alternative means was forthcoming. (DE 6 ). No such motion has been filed. Accordingly, on or by March 25, 2022, Plaintiff SHALL RESPOND to this Order by filing proof of service indicating that Defendant was served within 90 days after the complaint was filed, or by showing good cause for the failure to comply with Rule 4(m). If no good cause is shown, or if it is evident from Plaintiff's response that it has lacked diligence, this case may be subject to dismissal without prejudice. Alternatively, if no timely response to this Order to Show Cause is filed, dismissal may result. Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 3/22/2022. (kal) (Entered: 03/22/2022)

[northland10]

Okay, one more because this is bigger. In Roy Moore v Cecil (one of the Alabama cases where Ragsdale is the attorney for the defendants):

The undersigned counsel, Melissa Isaak, Esq. and Larry Klayman, Esq., hereby withdraw from the above-styled case as counsel based, inter alia, on irreconcilable differences with Plaintiff Roy S. Moore, to be substituted by the Plaintiff Moore pro se and provide notice of their intent to file attorneys’ liens.

Plaintiff Moore advises that he will be forthwith filing an entry of appearance pro se to be substituted as his own counsel as well as motions for continuances regarding currently scheduled
court dates.

This case had some nastiness with discovery and the judge told both sides to cut it out. I don't know if this had anything to do with it.

The docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16 ... ority-pac/

Edit: He, and Isaaak, are out of Moore v Lowe in Alabama as well. No change on the appeal in Moore v Cohen. It is tentatively calendared for 6 June 2022. Klayman/Isaaks filed the reply brief on 15 March so the blow-up must have come later.

[tek]

Plaintiff Moore advises that he will be forthwith filing an entry of appearance pro se to be substituted as his own counsel as well as motions for continuances regarding currently scheduled court dates.

“The man who represents himself has a fool for a client”

[northland10]

“The man who represents himself has a fool for a client”

Still, he certainly improved his legal team with this change.

[jcolvin2]

Still, he certainly improved his legal team with this change.

Not sure there is a net improvement. Klayman and Moore are each inappropriate in their own way.

[northland10]

At least in Moore's case, he will actually have an interest in serving the needs of the plaintiff. I do wonder if a voluntary dismissal is coming. I suppose he could find an attorney who might actually do some lawyering. Zimmerman's case is still going, on a thread, well after Klayman got to boot.

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. They are (I provided who appointed them because some think it could help understand the outcome):

Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson from the 5th Circuit (Obama)
Senior Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack of the 2nd Circuit (Clinton)
Circuit Judge Ralph R. Erickson of the 8th Circuit (Trump - Circuit, Bush II - District)

Oh noes, a Trump judge. No prob, he will be in good company. Three of the defendants are Trump appointees. The defendants are a mix of appointees going all the way back to Carter since GIL sued circuit judges for not voting for an en banc hearing.

[bob]

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.