On Jan. 25, Nicholas Wallace, a third-year student at Stanford Law School, sent a satirical flyer to a student listserv reserved for debate and political commentary. The flyer promoted a fake event, “The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection,” ostensibly sponsored by the Stanford Federalist Society. It advertised the participation of two politicians who tried to overturn the 2020 election, Missouri Sen. Joshua Hawley and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. “Violent insurrection, also known as doing a coup, is a classical system of installing a government,” the flyer read, adding that insurrection “can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government.”
The SFS whined to the administration, which initiated an investigation, which could have jeopardized Wallace's ability to take the bar. After some very public ridicule (and threats of lawsuits), the administration backed off.
In conclusion: Klayman is helping the children learn.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:32 pm
by chancery
Wallace's graduation was in limbo for months. Stanford didn't back down until the recent wave of online dunking.
As the savy folks at LGM are fond of saying, college PC/Cancel Culture is OUT OF CONTROL!
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:32 pm
by northland10
Apparently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a little put out that he did not properly notify them of the 90-day suspension by the DC Circuit (or the original DC suspension).
I don't think he has practice here much which is probably why he did not respond. I assume point 4 will not be followed as he has not done it at all, anywhere.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
IN RE LARRY KLAYMAN,
Respondent
2021-MA003
8 June 2021
ORDER
Larry Klayman was suspended 90 days, effective March 26, 2021, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia based on the District of Columbia Court of Appeal's earlier suspension of him for 90 days. The court issued a show-cause order directing Mr. Klayman to respond as to why he should not face a reciprocal 90-day suspension in this court and also why he should not face disciplinary action for failing to notify this court of his disbarment under Federal Circuit Attorney Disciplinary Rule 6(a). He has not responded.*
Upon consideration thereof.
It Is Ordered That:
(1) Mr. Klayman is suspended from practicing law in this court from 90 days from the date of filing of this order. Any additional disciplinary action concerning Mr. Klayman's failure to timely notify the court of his suspension by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia shall be dealt with upon any request for reinstatement by Mr. Klayman.
(2) When the terms of his suspension are over, Mr. Klayman may apply for reinstatement pursuant to Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rule 9(a).
(3) While this order is in effect, Mr. Klayman is prohibited from holding himself out to be an attorney at law licensed to practice before this court.
(4) Mr. Klayman is directed to send a copy of this order to all other courts before which he is admitted. Fed. Cir. Att'y Discipline Rule 5(f).
(5) A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the National Lawyer Regulatory Data Bank. Fed. Cir. Att'y Discipline Rule 5(f).
For the Court
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
*Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rule 7(c) provides that "{i}f an attorney does not object to the imposition of reciprocal discipline or does not respond to the show cause order, the Clerk may then issue a final order imposing such reciprocal discipline."
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:50 pm
by bob
northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:32 pm
Apparently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a little put out that he did not properly notify them of the 90-day suspension by the DC Circuit (or the original DC suspension).
Klayman had a small practice in the federal circuit court of appeals in the 80s and 90s (essentially pre-Judicial Watch). Most of the cases are routine; what one would expect to see in the federal circuit.
Except for one, which was the genesis of Klayman Gotta Klayman. The appeal is all about Klayman's behavior and how he was baned from a judge's courtroom.
But it is unsurprising that Klayman didn't bother to respond to fight this.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:12 am
by RTH10260
northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:32 pm
Apparently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a little put out that he did not properly notify them of the 90-day suspension by the DC Circuit (or the original DC suspension).
I don't think he has practice here much which is probably why he did not respond. I assume point 4 will not be followed as he has not done it at all, anywhere.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
IN RE LARRY KLAYMAN,
Respondent
2021-MA003
8 June 2021
ORDER
(2) When the terms of his suspension are over, Mr. Klayman may apply for reinstatement pursuant to Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rule 9(a).
I guess point (2) will be a stumbling block for further work at the court.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:01 pm
by bob
I doubt Klayman is going to ever work on a case under the Federal Circuit's specialized jurisdiction again.
He has hasn't graced that court with his brilliance since the 90s.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:18 pm
by bob
Live tweet from the Borat v. Roy Moore hearing:
Some serious baby splitting; it would appear that:
1. Judge nixes Klayman's whine that Cohen was fed answers during his deposition, but
2. There's no need for a protective order for the deposition (so Klayman can and will publish it), and
3. Judge won't recuse, but
4. Judge won't refer Klayman for discipline for not disclosing his suspension.
In other words, the judge continues to treat Klayman like he's sane and normal.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:55 pm
by bob
This is the case about the Bidens' "forcing" Google to temporarily suspend his YouTubes.
So then-President-elect Biden moved to dismiss in January.
The court in May set the hearing date (for today, at 2:30 pm ET).
Klayman filed his opposition ... on Friday.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:04 pm
by northland10
Is this one of his state court games? I don't recall seeing this on Pacer.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:14 pm
by bob
northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:04 pm
Is this one of his state court games?
Yeah; one of his 10 in Palm Beach County.
Docket hasn't yet been updated after today's hearing.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:25 am
by bob
Even I have stopped caring; I can't be bothered to learn the details.
Started listening, he has quite a list of indictments going.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:05 am
by Luke
Funny how Lamberth is courageous only when he agrees with GIL. Guess he didn't want to go tilting at windmills with Grossly Inappropriate Larry Klayman.
Larry Klayman Retweeted Freedom Watch Flag of United States @FreedomWatchUSA 2m
Once-Courageous Judge Lamberth Caves to the Left! Order "It Takes a Revolution!" @ http://FREEDOMWATCHUSA.ORG
Freedom Watch TV June 24, 2021
freedomwatchusa.org
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:31 pm
by northland10
GIL and his Grand Jury should indict Lamberth.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:45 pm
by northland10
Remember how, in his attempt to stop his interim suspension by the DCCA (DC Court of Appeals), he sued all of the judges of the DCCA. One my think that you can't do that because of judicial immunity. One person who thinks that is Judge Amy Berman Jackson who, in showing her true leftist, man-hating, Christian-hating, Jew-Hating, globalist credentials, dismissed the case.
In short, he brought this section 1983 action and then tried to thread the needle to avoid the obvious judges don't apply part by citing a case from the 80s that was later rendered moot by legislation.
Bob will be along shortly to actually explain it better than what I just did and add in the other details.
For a IANAL, you did well. Beware the practicing law without a license, though.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:51 pm
by northland10
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:48 pm
For a IANAL, you did well. Beware the practicing law without a license, though.
I could add a sig... "I am not a lawyer and have no clue what I am talking about, including the law."
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:51 pm
by Luke
Rut roh, ABJ may have just handed Rev Dr Laity Esq his win
The matter reached the Supreme Court, which analyzed the common law to determine whether the judge was immune. Id. at 541–42; see id. at 529–538 (analyzing common law history from the King’s use of prerogative writs through modern day jurisprudence)
Gotta say, after looking at Alan Ritchson for about a half hour (see Our Big Gay Topic), Grossly Inappropriate Larry and his time-wasting bs was a comedown. But, a smackdown is a smackdown so happy!
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:07 pm
by bob
Of course, Klayman's nemeses, Twombly and Iqbal, make guest appearances.
The bigger picture is that Klayman hangs his hat on the argument that he wants future injunctive relief (against ... the D.C. Ct. App.'s not ruling against Klayman in the future? ). The D.D.C. correctly says, "Nope; you want me to undo the past, and that's not happening. P.S. go cry your river on appeal, to SCOTUS. FOAD; HAND."
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:29 pm
by northland10
Since GIL-Fails tend to come in groups, I thought I should check PACER. Yep, there is something there. His Corsi-Klayman case against Infowars, Alex Jones, David Jones, and Roger Stone in the Western District of Texas was dismissed, with prejudice.
Sadly, the defendant's motion for sanctions was dismissed without prejudice for refile. In addition, in the final order:
IT IS ORDERED that Infowars, LLC, Free Speech Systems, LLC, Alex E. Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, and Roger Stone are awarded costs of court.
I was hoping they would lose something as well.. OH well.
Twombly and Iqbal, as is tradition, make an appearance in the legal standard. As the magistrate judge included "conclusory" three times in the report, well, it looks like Twombly vexed Klayman again.
Corsi and Klayman next argue that the magistrate judge erroneously recommended dismissing the defamation claims against Shroyer and David Jones based on a lack of personal involvement because allegations in the complaint that defendants were working "in concert" to
defame Corsi and Klayman were ignored. The court disagrees. In reviewing the pleadings, the magistrate judge determined that Corsi and Klayman' s claims of alleged concerted action or conspiracy were insufficient to survive dismissal because the assertions were wholly conclusory
and unsupported by any facts. In their objections, Corsi and Klayman provide no basis to sustain this objection and merely reassert the same insufficient, conclusory claims while referencing affidavits outside of the scope of a Rule 12(b)(6) inquiry.
IANAL but it sounds like.. Vexed again.
Here is the docket. Klayman was quick to request reconsideration through the filing has deficiencies. He also probably a timing thing, replied to the defendant's response to Klayman's objection to the report. The defendants were also quick to respond to his motion for reconisderation.
bob wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:07 pm
Of course, Klayman's nemeses, Twombly and Iqbal, make guest appearances.
The bigger picture is that Klayman hangs his hat on the argument that he wants future injunctive relief (against ... the D.C. Ct. App.'s not ruling against Klayman in the future? ). The D.D.C. correctly says, "Nope; you want me to undo the past, and that's not happening. P.S. go cry your river on appeal, to SCOTUS. FOAD; HAND."
He skipped over the request for consideration and motion to disqualify and went straight for the Notice of Appeal on the same day as the judgment. When he is looking to actually get off of suspension, he avoids the harassment tactics. He can save those for when Klayman v. Porter, Kaiser, Porter, Kaiser, et al are tossed.
Re: GIL: Klayman
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:12 pm
by northland10
Not Klayman's best week....
When I saw Klayman v Judicial Watch on the recent judgement from the DC Circuit, I got all excited. Sadly, it was his appeal for his case where he tried to end around the DC Circuit and have another judge overrule Kollar-Kotelly on his original 2006 Klayman v Judicial Watch. When his case was in danger of being transferred to Kollar-Kotelly as related, he quickly added the judge as a defendant.
That leftist panel of an Obama appointee (and he's black) and two Trump appointees (including Rao) said, um. no (per curiam). They cited one of his previous cases against and Kollar-Kottelly. Too, also.. guess who appears. GIL was Twomblied again.
Grand Jury should indict Lamberth.
). The D.D.C. correctly says, "Nope; you want me to undo the past, and that's not happening. P.S. go cry your river on appeal, to SCOTUS. FOAD; HAND."