Fogbow

The judges, bailiffs and court reporters are gonna play a drinking game, every time GIL says something stupid, you drink.

Last one who doesn't die of acute alcohol poisoning wins.

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 9:34 pm 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.

CBS [AP]: Roy Moore seeks to revive lawsuit against Sacha Baron Cohen:

A lawyer for Roy Moore tried to persuade some skeptical federal appeals judges Friday to revive a $95 million defamation lawsuit that the former Alabama candidate for U.S. Senate brought against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.

Attorney Larry Klayman complained during arguments before a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan that Moore wasn’t treated fairly when a judge tossed his lawsuit last July. He even compared his client to actor Johnny Depp, saying Moore also deserves to have a jury determine the validity of his claims.

* * *

Before the 2nd Circuit, Klayman urged a reinstatement of the 2019 lawsuit to allow him to gather evidence to prove that the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was defamed and subject to emotional distress and fraud because he was tricked into an interview with Cohen.

“There’s nothing more heinous than being accused of being a pedophile,” Klayman said. “People jump off buildings over that.”

O RLY?

Circuit Judge Gerald E. Lynch noted that Moore had signed a release provision for the show, before he knew Cohen was involved, disclaiming reliance on “any representation made about who these people are and what they’re up to.”

And he added that the ability of Moore to bring claims of fraud, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress were “categorically released” by papers Moore signed before going on the show.

On many arguments Klayman made, he was challenged by Lynch or Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler.

At one point, Klayman expressed disappointment with the lower court judge, and Lynch quickly jumped to the judge’s defense.

“Don’t tell me that Judge Cronan went back on something he promised you,” Lynch said, explaining that Cronan told Klayman he had a valid argument but ultimately decided that the law favored Cohen.

Still, Klayman pleaded for a reinstatement of the lawsuit, saying: “You have to give it to a jury. It’s not for a judge to decide.”

“This was not handled fairly. It was not handled the right way,” Klayman added. “And my client deserves his day in court.”

Inevitable motion to recuse to follow.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:37 pm

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 9:34 pm 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.

CBS [AP]: Roy Moore seeks to revive lawsuit against Sacha Baron Cohen:

A lawyer for Roy Moore tried to persuade some skeptical federal appeals judges Friday to revive a $95 million defamation lawsuit that the former Alabama candidate for U.S. Senate brought against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.

Attorney Larry Klayman

As best as I can tell, he ended up back in the saddle because they had not done the proper paperwork for a pro se party (he was still the attorney of record). He also seemed unable to file things correctly and so there are a bunch of defective document entries.

He also mangled the process for a motion to argument remotely. He finally managed it correctly. The initial reasons were, that he is 71 and still recovering from COVID (and New York is a disease-ridden hellhole with rising COVID rates), Melissa has had COVID twice, and Roy Moore and decrepit. His other reason requires sharing:

Second, Appellants have severely harmed and financially drained as a result of the heinous misconduct of the Appellees, falsely branding Judge Moore as a pedophile on television. Counsel for Appellants also do not have the resources to travel to New York for oral argument in person, and they have been informed by the Appellants that the Appellants are also financially in a poor condition. Thus, based on the foregoing, Appellants, based on the sudden rise of Covid yet again, and the cost of travel to New York with attendant hotel costs, respectfully request that their counsel be granted leave to appear at the June 10, 2022 oral argument via Zoom or other remote appearance software.

GIL is broke and can't travel to NY (well, I can most definitely agree with him currently being seriously in debt though I bet he still travels elsewhere), and Moore is now destitute.

I know the rule is that an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client, but in this case, it would still be an improvement.

A recording of the hearing is available on this page:
https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:27 pm GIL is broke and can't travel to NY (well, I can most definitely agree with him currently being seriously in debt though I bet he still travels elsewhere)

Mayhaps Judicial Watch is knocking on the doors of Klayman's creditors and financial institutions.

That two mil ain't gonna collect itself.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:37 pm

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:27 pm GIL is broke and can't travel to NY (well, I can most definitely agree with him currently being seriously in debt though I bet he still travels elsewhere)

Mayhaps Judicial Watch is knocking on the doors of Klayman's creditors and financial institutions.

That two mil ain't gonna collect itself.

I think we are over three now with the attorney fees.

I mentioned it above but so it does not get lost.. put it on your calendar if you like watching a potential trainwreck (or maybe lots of shade-throwing)

Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:30 A.M. USCA Courtroom 31 -
21-5269 Larry Klayman v. Neomi Rao

I almost never listen to these, but if I remember, I may try to have it going while I am doing my normal day job work. The fact that the panel has actually scheduled oral arguments for this has me curious. Suing district and circuit judges for ruling against you is an obvious fail, for which GIL has already found out in the past (including in the last year when he sued every judge in the DC Court of Appeals). This panel is made up of judges from other circuits (since many of the defendants are DC circuit judges) so who knows.

After the whole 2nd circuit back and forth on being able to argue by Zoom, I do wonder if he will do that with the DC circuit.

Well, it looks like the DC Circuit's version of Rule 34 works pretty much the same as everyone else's; oral argument happens unless the panel unanimously agrees that it shouldn't. So it only takes one panel member who wants to see the show.

But you're right, of course; it's odd. In fact, to give folks an idea of how odd this is, Klayman's case is the only one currently scheduled for oral argument in the DC Circuit.

I am really hoping that this is the judicial equivalent of a pillory, and the judges come prepared with an ample store of verbal vegetation and sanctioning stones.

Just before arguments, a popcorn cart is rolled in and a batch of corn in started. Large bowls and a selection of seasonings are placed at at Judges .

"Okay, we're ready to start the Klayman thing".

That must have been some pretty stout rock candy that would tear a movie screen. Those things were made out of canvas that you could have skinned an airplane with. Are you sure you weren't throwing real rocks?

If it's like some rock candy, you could through it like a throwing star and maybe rip even a heavy screen.

in the end, did you get to know who won WWII

A no from SCOTUS requires a petition in GIL v Judicial Watch 1 (And so it begins). It is necessary for the protection of.... international trade and commerce?

Emphasis mine

GIL wrote:Importantly, this Petition involves issues of monumental importance not only to Mr. Klayman, but to U.S. and international trade and commerce as a whole, which underscores why it is so imperative that the Court step in and take action, since this case impacts not only Mr. Klayman personally, but advertising, trade, commerce and industry as we know it in the 21st century, where everything is digital, and advertisements are often broadcasted nationally, if not worldwide. This is why it is so important that there be a uniform test among all of the circuits for claims brought under the Lanham Act.

Nice to see he's come back to his roots as a lawyer specializing in international trade.

I did not read the original petition (at least not enough so I could remember) or most of the stuff between the paragraph above and the conclusion (in short everything) but I suspect the international trade is just his attempt to squeeze into the rules for a rehearing petition.

GIL concluding whine wrote:The Court must respectfully step in and correct these errors to prevent not only manifest injustice to Mr. Klayman with regard to a $2.8 million judgment which will bankrupt him and his family, but also to avoid setting and allowing to stand conflicting harmful and disastrous legal precedent which will govern, if left unaddressed and corrected, U.S. and international trade and commerce as a whole.

Here is the petition for Bob (and maybe others)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... ainDoc.pdf

Just a quick note on GIL's latest bar fun.

1. He has a hearing tomorrow (29 June) regarding filings and such in the primary Klayman v the DC Board of Professional Responsibility. I don't think this covers the MTD, yet, but it is hard to tell. He is also trying to sanction the board and it's members/staff because of course he is. The judge allowed that on tomorrow's hearing though I can't imagine that will go well for GIL.

2. In, as the judge referred to it, Klayman III, the Revenge of the Removal, where he filed a third time in state court only to have it removed (recap, Klayman 1 voluntary dismissed, Klayman 2 filed the next day, removed and transferred to join 4 of its friends in DC), the judge has denied the motion to remand. Now on to an MTD, which will result in an annoyed judge dismissing or sending one more to DC.

And why is the judge possibly annoyed? He did not sound like it on paper, but filing a notice in the case that the judge has been referred to the judiciary council usually does not help his mood. He said no to recusing because if judges did that, then parties would just file charges with the judiciary council to get a new judge. Which, of course, is what GIL wanted.

Oh yeah, and no cross-motion for sanctions for GIL. That seems like his latest go to.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.18.0.pdf

3. Out of curiosity, I went back to the state version of Klayman III. Officially, we know of 3 DC discipline cases he had or are pending, the reciprocal discipline for the Florida reprimand in 2011, the 90-day suspension for that business a couple of years ago, and the one still pending at the DC Court of Appeals, 17-BD-063, where he is interim suspended (they recently had the court hearing for it and he had Isaak as counsel).

Well in that state complaint, he mentioned:

To this end, Defendants have brought four (5) meritless investigations and complaints against Mr. Klayman...

Yes, he wrote out four and added (5).

So what cases is he referring to?

1. He starts with the currently pending one, 20-BG-583 (the Sataki Complaint). That is the DC Court of Appeals number for 17-BD-06 which is the Board's number for the case. This is the one where he had some sort of inappropriate behavior with a client. He mentions his case against all of the judges in the DC Court of Appeals and that it is still pending in the DC Circuit. I think he forgot to update his 201 page complaint he first filed in Dec and Jan since this one was filed in March but the DC Circuit affirmed the District court order back in January.

2. Next we have 18-BD-070 which is the "Bundy Complaint" which was filed by the Nevada judge (or the 9th Circuit, I forget which). This is not showing on the docket for the DC Board of Professional Responsibility but the initial Specification of Charges has been around and may be somewhere on the DC Board website. It looks like they recently started to include the links to the specifications and the answer on their website as the later cases show them. This case did have a hearing with the hearing committee at one point because I remember the Poot discussion. I don't know if it is still pending or if they chose not to pursue it. He claims they made a preliminary finding that the Disciplinary Console had not proven he violated a rule but GIL has been know to lie about things like that on court filings so who knows.

3. A complaint from Dennis Montgomery - 2019-D197. He sued Montgomery in the DC Superior Court over it and, of course, lost. Don't know the status or if there even is any status. Dennis Montgomery would not be a reliable source of info.

4. He claims Santilli filed a complaint though he does not provide a number. He says Santilli filed as he was paid to do it by, Roger Stone, who Corsi had to sue for, um.. I forget why.

Now, somehow the last 2 are not the evil-doing of the DC Board even though it was Montgomery and Santilli who filed them and, given the lack of movement, they may not actually pursue them.

Oh, but wait, there may be more. This may also explain the (5).

Klayman is claiming that the board has now sent him a letter informing him there is another investigation and demanding he explain how the lawsuits Klayman v the DC Court of Appeals judges (all of them) and Klayman v Rao do not violate Rule 3.1

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

I would have included 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 based on a bunch of his cases.
https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal ... al-conduct

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:45 pm I did not read the original petition (at least not enough so I could remember) or most of the stuff between the paragraph above and the conclusion (in short everything) but I suspect the international trade is just his attempt to squeeze into the rules for a rehearing petition.

This sort of argument was in his original petition as well. And it needed to be. Of course, it won't be any more convincing on rehearing than it was the first time.

Supreme Court Rule 10, describing Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari:

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.

Rule 44 covers petitions for rehearing. It's too long to quote, but it doesn't impose any additional restrictions on the arguments to be made in a petition for rehearing. It just boils down to 'There are very strict time requirements, and it's expletive-deletin' unlikely to be granted.'

Edit: Peeked at the original petition and updated accordingly

FW: KLAYMAN FILES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PGA TOUR & DP WORLD TOUR FOR ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS TO KILL LIV GOLF TOUR IN ITS INFANCY:

Commissioners of PGA Tour and DP World Tour, Jay Monahan and Keith Pelley, Also Sued Over Their Alleged Conspiracy

Today, Larry Klayman, Esq., the founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, a former U.S. Senate candidate in Florida, and a member of the trial team in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice which broke up the AT&T monopoly during the Reagan administration, along with co-counsel Stephen L. Sulzer who will appear pro hac vice, filed a class action antitrust lawsuit under Florida law for monopolization, market division, refusal to deal (aka group boycott) and civil conspiracy against the PGA Tour and its partner DP World Tour, and their respective heads Jay Monahan and Keith Pelley. Klayman filed the action to halt the defendants' efforts to restrain trade and commerce, by trying to kill the new LIV Golf Tour.

Klayman had this say to upon the filing of the suit, which is before the 15th Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, in a case styled Klayman v. PGA Tour et. al (Civil Action Filing No. 152278):

Klayman wrote:Using the phony pretext of Saudi financing of the LIV Golf Tour (as the PGA Tour and DP World Tour also significantly benefit from a huge amount of Saudi and Arab/Muslim money) these defendants have flagrantly sought, through their anti-competitive actions, to harm Florida consumers who would attend PGA Tour and its admitted partner DP World Tour golfing tournaments and events, by suspending and fining professional golfers who were formerly on these golf tours, simply because they signed up to play in LIV Golf Tour tournaments and events.

The LIV Golf Tour, which was organized and is led by champion golf legend Greg Norman, is paying large competitive contract fees to big name professional golfers such Phil Mickelson, Brooks Koepka, Dustin Johnson, Bryson DeChambeau, Patrick Reed, Lee Westwood, Louis Oosthuizen, Kevin Na, and Talor Gooch, and a host of other prominent players. It is seeking to establish itself as a potentially significant competitor to the PGA Tour and DP World Tour, which these entities apparently will not tolerate. Using their superior market power, as set forth in the class action complaint, the PGA Tour and DP World Tour, under the 'leadership' of Jay Monahan and Keith Pelley respectively, have set out to kill the LIV Golf Tour.

This anti-competitive and bullying behavior cannot be tolerated in a free-market capitalist economy, or in general, particularly since consumers of the great game of professional tournament golf will be among the big losers if the LIV Golf Tour is destroyed in its infancy. The preservation of the LIV Tour is therefore in the public's interest!

Klayman played college golf (he may have attended college on a golf scholarship?), and, per the complaint (filed in state court), also purchased spectator tickets to some PGA tourneys.

Klayman says be can represent the class because he has "experienced" co-counsel.

Sulzer has represented and been co-counsel with Klayman before. Sulzer appears to be Klayman's next Moseley.

I have no idea why Klayman believes this lawsuit is good for his "business," unless he's trying to attract the attention of exactly one (orange) person.

His business is . $2M dollar awards and 1.5M in attorney fees don't pay themselves.

IANAL, but I would think a class action has no standing for suing on anti-trust grounds. Only LIV would have standing. Good thing actual law and good faith is not a concern of GIL's.

Maybe Trump should be pushing LIV to file an anti-trust suit, just like he did with the original USFL. It worked great. They won and were awarded... $1. The USFL died shortly after that.

Don't forget that the USFL's $1 got tripled to $3. Victory!

I was told the story that an NFL attorney had presented a $5 bill to a USFL attorney. According to Wikipedia, this is false; there was actually a check for $3.76 (the seventy-six cents was interest).

Aside from his legal arguments being batshit crazy, the fact is his writing is terrible.

I expect someone submitting things to Federal Appeals Courts and such, as a True Science Fact Attorney at Law, to be able to write something that would not have been shredded by Mrs. Whipple my alcoholic 9th grade Grammar teacher.

( she was nice in her own way but I fear the 35 years of teaching 9th grade Grammar to real 9th graders just wore her down. By the time I got there she wasn't hiding it very well. It was not unheard of for her to be caught putting Vodka in the coffee cup on her desk. If we had had smart phones and cameras in 1978 I'm sure we'd have hard evidence of what was at the time just rumors.)

KickahaOta wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:22 pm Don't forget that the USFL's $1 got tripled to $3. Victory!

I was told the story that an NFL attorney had presented a $5 bill to a USFL attorney. According to Wikipedia, this is false; there was actually a check for $3.76 (the seventy-six cents was interest).

I'm not sure who but I have read a story of the guy who has that framed check on his office wall.

Klayman wrote:Joe Hunter* and James Biden are being criminally tried** for bribery on Juky 7.

* Because I speak Klayman: Joe, Hunter, and James Biden.

** Trials for Fauci and "federal judges" are on the undercard.