Fogbow

IIRC the notice at the district court level is for court reporter to make the transcript and forwaard it to the appeals court, apart from plaintiff and defendant getting a copy. Without the notice the transcript must be ordered if early delivery is of interest.

oldtimers will of course remember our very own SECR = Suck Egg Court Reporter of birther times

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 5:26 pm My recollection is that the notice of intent to appeal is required. I think this is so the court can prepare the record to be sent to the higher court. Something like that, anyway.

A Notice of Appeal is required, I think, but a notice to the appeals court telling them you are going to file a petition for rehearing en banc is entirely unnecessary. Filing a notice for the same activity in a district court case that is not the case being appealed is even more stuppidier.

As an aside, the history of the US federal court system (and the circuit courts) explains why federal law used to be even harsher about not allowing interlocutory appeals -- appeals in the middle of the case. And why GIL would not be a happy camper in those older times.

It is one thing for a modern GIL to say, "I demand that you immediately stop these proceedings, so that I can electronically present my frivolous objection to a higher court, which could, at least in theory, review the matter almost immediately."

It would be another thing for an Old West GIL to say, "I demand that you immediately stop this proceeding, so that I can present my frivolous objection to an appellate judge who will, eventually, on his own schedule, be carried here by a horse."

KickahaOta wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:54 am Isn't that the sort of thing that gets less and less effective in our late-stage-capitalistic Internet-dystopian society?

Judges (and their shipping clerks) have neither the time nor inclination to research every attorney and every litigant that appear before the court. It is a rare feat for attorneys to have reputations that so precede them that it would motivate some early-stage research.

So it would take some serious red flags to inspire such extrajudicial research at the PHV stage.

* * *

The petition for rehearing en banc will be filed in the appellate court, i.e., the D.C. Cir. And because Klayman somehow convinced the D.C. Cir. to appoint out-of-circuit judges to hear his appeal, he'll likely ask for an en banc panel of out-of-circuit judges to consider whether to grant rehearing (and then later rehear).

It is a delaying tactic in the sense that he'll delay the inevitable finality. But it has no real-world effect: Klayman still owes Judicial Watch millions, and this won't stop its collection efforts. Nor will this impede the D.C. Cir. or the D.D.C. from ruling on Klayman's remaining cases.


* * *

"For completeness":

bob wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:43 am Judges (and their shipping clerks) have neither the time nor inclination to research every attorney and every litigant that appear before the court. It is a rare feat for attorneys to have reputations that so precede them that it would motivate some early-stage research.

The SD Texas judge in GIL's Patrick Reed v Brandel Chamble and the Golf Channel case granted him PHV. This was done before any appearance was made for the defendant, and I assume, before they were even served. They may raise an objection when they make an appearance. GIL is using the same local he has used in other cases, so I assume he is prepared to ghostwrite for the local if he loses PHV.

I expect he will be asking for a default entry next week even though he has not filed a proof of service.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64 ... -chamblee/

This kind of came out of nowhere. Not going to look good on a PHV app.

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
A Washington, D.C. appellate court has suspended the law license of Larry Klayman, the founder of the conservative Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch groups, for 18 months.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 296344579

(Reuters) - A Washington, D.C., appellate court has suspended the law license of Larry Klayman, an attorney known for conservative causes and clients, for 18 months over his handling of a sexual harassment lawsuit initially filed more than a decade ago.

Klayman, the founder of the conservative Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch groups, can return to practice following his suspension if he shows "fitness," the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

Reached for comment, Klayman called the court's ruling a "political hit" and accused the D.C. bar of targeting attorneys who support former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Klayman, who has denied any misconduct, notified the appellate court Thursday that he will petition for a hearing before the entire D.C. Court of Appeals and potentially file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman suspended from legal practice in DC.

(Reuters) - A Washington, D.C., appellate court has suspended the law license of Larry Klayman, an attorney known for conservative causes and clients, for 18 months over his handling of a sexual harassment lawsuit initially filed more than a decade ago.

http://reut.rs/3DAZhQf

I love your avatar, Dr. Conspiracy!!!

dan1100 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 11:25 am This kind of came out of nowhere. Not going to look good on a PHV app.

Um... he was interim suspended by the DC Court of Appeals in January 2021. The case itself started in 2017, and the initial Hearing Committee report was in 2019. The DC attorney discipline process is not a model of efficiency. As it happens, he should have been informing various court of the interim suspension (or even the previous 90-day one for another discipline case), but I doubt he has since he would sue the Board of Professional Responsibility for tattling on him.

The DC Court of Appeals decision was slow, but while not indicted on the docket, I wonder if it was slowed down due to him suing every judge on the DC Court of Appeals. Lucky for him, that little game has resulted in yet another pending discipline case for him (nothing filed yet but was affirmed by a filing by the DC BOard in one of his cases against them).

In his DC Court of Appeals discipline case (to which he was suspended), he shows his consistency:

09/15/2022 Filed Order denying respondent's motions to strike and denying respondent's motions for sanctions.
09/15/2022 Filed Suspended by OPINION
09/15/2022 Filed Notice of intent to file petition for rehearing for rehearing en banc, petition for writ of mandamus before the Supreme Court, and other Legal Actions if necessary as a result of constitutional violation by the panel. (Respondent)

Other Legal Actions if necessary... i.e. I am going to sue every judge on the DC Court of Appeals again, probably in Florida, because it worked so well the first time. For the record, there is no petition to SCOTUS on that one a and the DC Circuit's en banc denial was some time ago (could be waiting on him to show proof of service).

ETA: In the DC Federal Court where they ordered he stop suing the DC Discipline folks, besides an NOA, he filed a notice that he will be moving to stay the order with the DC Circuit. He reminds me of students who would tell you that their parents will go to the principal or school board and get you fired because you gave them detention. They had to take their detention and I went unfired.

Filed in M.D.Fl.

I'm wondering if his other suit was essentially doomed due to his D.C. license's suspension.

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:20 am I love your avatar, Dr. Conspiracy!!!

I remember Dr. C explaining his avatar on his blog back in the birther days.

I smell a Twombly.

Poor Patrick Reed probably thinks GIL is going to help him. He doesn't know that GIL only files lawsuits - he never wins them.

bob wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:47 am Filed in M.D.Fl.

I'm wondering if his other suit was essentially doomed due to his D.C. license's suspension.

That would make sense. He filed a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" in the SD of Texas version yesterday. The defendants had not made an appearance yet and there was no proof of service filed so IIRC, he can dismiss it without issue.

Either he figured he would have a problem or his local attorney was expressing concerns.

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/doc1/179141432433

Foggy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 9:05 am Poor Patrick Reed probably thinks GIL is going to help him. He doesn't know that GIL only files lawsuits - he never wins them.

Yeah, but how can you file what is such a high profile suit and expect to be taken seriously when the first reaction of anyone in the courthouse or the legal community at large is to fall on the floor laughing for 30 minutes when they see your attorney's name?

Can you not Google a lawyer's name first? FFS I'd do that if I was suing a jiffy Lube for scratching the paint on my car.

I'm still confused about how he clearly hasn't reported his D.C. suspension to FL yet, and is therefore allowed to continue crapticing.

The complaint in the newest case still has a TX address for the plaintiff but now added a Florida address:

835 Golden Bear Drive
Kissimmee, FL, 34747

As best as I can tell, it is a rental in a resort. It sounds like he is playing the same, rent a place to get jurisdiction game that he did with Montgomery, albeit with a much more expensive place (5-6M).

Oral Arguments for Klayman v Fitton are on Tuesday 4 October (next Tuesday) at 9:30am EDT. They are allotted 10 minutes for each side:

Tuesday, October 4, 2022 9:30 A.M. USCA Courtroom 31 - Judges Katsas, Randolph, Rogers
21-3002 USA v. Aurelio Cano-Flores 10 minutes per side
21-7125 Larry Klayman v. Thomas Fitton 10 minutes per side
21-1159 State of Arizona v. EPA 15 minutes per side

I don't know what he sued Fitton for this time, and it does not matter as it is all done to harass Fitton and JW.

Judicial Trivia... They are Trump, GHW Bush, and Clinton appointees and were also defendants in Klayman v Rao.

northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:59 pm I don't know what he sued Fitton for this time ...

Roger Stone said GIL is a piece of dog crap and added "ask Tom Fitton" so Fitton obvsly conspired with Stone to defame a great attorney. But Stone dared GIL to sue him, so he didn't.

northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:59 pm I don't know what he sued Fitton for this time, and it does not matter as it is all done to harass Fitton and JW.

It's from a 2019 defamation case: Stone said mean things about Klayman, and Klayman assumed Fitton, etc., had told the mean things to Stone.

From the D.D.C.'s dismissal:

Plaintiff Larry Klayman, proceeding pro se, has sued-for the umpteenth time-Thomas J. Fitton, James F. Peterson, Paul Orfanedes, and Christopher Farrell.

* * *

On January 18, 2019, Roger Stone, who is not a party to this case, gave an interview during which he stated:

Stone wrote:Well, your judgment on Larry Klayman is entirely incorrect. He's never actually won a courtroom victory in his life. He was ousted at Judicial Watch. Ask Tom Fitton why he left. He left because of a sexual harassment complaint. He's an incompetent. He's a numbskull. He's an idiot. He's an egomaniac. And he could be the single worst lawyer in America. With him as Jerry Corsi's lawyer, Corsi may get the electric chair. So, your idea that he's a good guy is entirely wrong. By the way Larry sue me. Love to go toe to toe with you. Love to. Love to bring those witnesses to talk about your personal conduct, you piece of garbage.

Klayman, in fact, sued Stone (repeatedly) over these comments. Which eventually led to that hilarious deposition in which Stone goaded and badgered Klayman. And Stone won those lawsuits, BTW.

I may have found the "logic" behind GIL's suing all the judges beyond his need to harass those who told him no in his never GIL v JW case.

In August, JW and Fitton filed Applications for Writ of Attachment/Garnishment. Combined, the total comes to over 3.5M due to interest. This is just for the award, I think, not the attorney fees, which are still pending.

Fitton (600K+)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .650.0.pdf

JW (2.9M)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .651.0.pdf

Larry filed an objection in which, in part, he uses DC code that states you cannot collect while litigation is still pending. Despite the DC Circuit ruling against him in his JW case and SCOTUS denying writ (and the petition for rehearing), he still claims there are open cases. Which open cases? Klayman v Rao, pending rehearing en banc, and his newest case against local judge (who has already sued multiple times).

In short, he feels he can sue judges to keep this case alive and avoid collection. IANAL, but that does not seem like a strategy the court allows.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .655.0.pdf

He also tells folks that if they persist in collecting, he will sue some more. That could be a problem if he ever gets around to showing fitness to the DC attorney folks.

I have to give him credit: he seems to have found a genuine weakness in the DC code. So long as he can keep filing new cases faster than courts can dismiss the old ones, the employer-garnishment mechanism breaks down.

Of course, that will lead to yet more negative consequences later. But when the guards are already on your tail, and you know that your life is already ruined when they catch you, then the law can no longer provide much of a disincentive to just keep running.

There's a Grateful Dead song about that ...