GIL: Klayman
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:33 pm
You're gonna need a bigger internet.a good summary of what's been going down with GIL since 2001
You're gonna need a bigger internet.a good summary of what's been going down with GIL since 2001
The court's dismissal.* Reed had sued 18 media figures, companies seeking at least $1B combined in damages.
* The cases can’t be re-filed, and defendants could seek attorney attorney fees.
A federal judge dismissed both of Patrick Reed’s defamation cases against 18 total defendants on Wednesday.
Timothy J. Corrigan, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, listed several reasons for dismissing the litigation against Golf Channel, analyst Brandel Chamblee, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, and others that sought at least $1 billion in damages combined.
* * *
Corrigan set an Oct. 20 deadline for the defendants to file motions ahead of a decision on whether the former Masters champ would have to pay attorney fees. Klayman said that since the venue for the cases was in a federal courtroom, Florida’s anti-SLAPP law — which makes it easier for defendants to recover attorney fees for frivolous lawsuits — can’t be relied upon.
“Numerous federal courts have held that [a state) anti-SLAPP law does not apply in cases [like] this,” said Klayman.
* * *
Corrigan did grant a motion for a default judgment against Fox Sports, but that wasn’t much of a win for Reed since Corrigan dismissed the case against the network anyway.
The decision was seriously flawed — factually and legally — and showed [Corrigan had] a mindset against Patrick,” Larry Klayman, Reed’s attorney, told Front Office Sports.”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 94.1.0.pdfPlaintiffs pray for relief and judgment against each of the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: general damages, special damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law well in excess of $1 Billion US Dollars and the costs of suit incurred
herein, in an aggregate amount to be determined by the jury, any other further relief the Court deems just and proper, for the illegal, unconstitutional and intentional and malicious acts of the Defendants, each and every one of them, acting in concert, against Plaintiff and the other Members of the Class.
This one sounds like a rerun of the (since dismissed) California case in which Klayman's puppet plaintiff whined about being searched by the feebs.northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 8:43 pm The new one has Rivera plus some other defendants (and John Does 1 through 100,000) and is against the FBI, again as a class action or something.Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment against each of the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: general damages, special damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law well in excess of $1 Billion US Dollars and the costs of suit incurred
herein, in an aggregate amount to be determined by the jury, any other further relief the Court deems just and proper, for the illegal, unconstitutional and intentional and malicious acts of the Defendants, each and every one of them, acting in concert, against Plaintiff and the other Members of the Class.
One of the added defendants is Siaka Massaquoi who filed the case back in 2021, initially Pro Se, and was quickly Twombly and Iqballed out of the court.bob wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 2:07 pmThis one sounds like a rerun of the (since dismissed) California case in which Klayman's puppet plaintiff whined about being searched by the feebs.northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 8:43 pm The new one has Rivera plus some other defendants (and John Does 1 through 100,000) and is against the FBI, again as a class action or something.Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment against each of the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: general damages, special damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law well in excess of $1 Billion US Dollars and the costs of suit incurred
herein, in an aggregate amount to be determined by the jury, any other further relief the Court deems just and proper, for the illegal, unconstitutional and intentional and malicious acts of the Defendants, each and every one of them, acting in concert, against Plaintiff and the other Members of the Class.
Affirmed with a short statement.ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 30 filed by Siaka Massaquoi. CCA # 22-55448. Appellant's motion for leave to file an untimely response to appellees' motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 13) is granted. A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that certain questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.
As (almost) always, "it depends."northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 8:39 pmQuestions for the lawyers.... can the defendant from the California case be booted from the Florida case because of res judicata?
He has a 2pm Board Oral Arguments on 21 December in this case. You can find the YouTube link on their schedule:northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:31 pm Once upon a time, in a previous life, I remember that the 9th Circuit had notified the DC Board of Professional Responsibility (the GIL-Hater clan) of his bad behavior with trying to represent Cliven Bundy in Nevada (and Bundy should thank the court for not allowing it as he probably would have not gotten off with Larry). In a more recent previously life, I remember there was a hearing
In honesty, I was assuming they decided to drop it. However, since to assume makes an ass out of u and me, I'm an ass.
The hearing committee recently released it's report. I have not had time to read
90 page recommendation so I will have jump to the spoiler part.
The reccommend a one-year suspension with a fitness requirement (this is less than his current suspension).
I saw a few words where they disagreed with the disciplinary counsel which GIL will state the DC was wrong on everything and trying to take away his civil rights.
https://www.dcbar.org/ServeFile/GetDisc ... 8BD070.pdf
Re-hashing of the case briefings in a separate motion (or even separate case) is standard Klayman.DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF PATRICK NATHANIEL REED’S MOTIONS TO RECUSE THE HONORABLE
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455 AND 28 U.S.C. § 144
INTRODUCTION
Reed’s Motion seeking to recuse the Honorable Chief Judge Timothy J. Corrigan, though lengthy in pages, is bereft of substance. At its core, Reed argues that it was an “impossibility” for Judge Corrigan to have determined that none of the fifty-five statements as pleaded by Reed were actionable defamatory as a matter of law, and that only Judge Corrigan’s purported bias could explain such a result. Affidavit in Support [of] Motions to Recuse the Hon. Timothy J. Corrigan Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455 (“Klayman Aff.”) ¶¶ 13, 14, 23 (ECF 93 at page 33); see also Mot. at 6, 14, 15, 26. As will be set forth in Defendants’ forthcoming briefs opposing Reed’s motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order, however, Reed’s argument misstates both the law and the facts of this case and is a tiresome rehashing of extensive briefing. Further, for the reasons stated herein, even if the Court erred in its analysis of Reed’s claims (which it did not), that is insufficient under either 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455 to support his recusal motion. That Motion should be denied on either or both of two bases: it is untimely and meritless.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 5.90.0.pdfARGUMENT
It bears noting at the outset that Reed’s Motion is in line with the routine tactics of his lead counsel, Larry Klayman, who has filed at least twenty motions seeking to recuse federal judges in other cases, as well as numerous lawsuits against federal judges. See Decl. of Emmy Parsons (“Parsons Decl.”) (collecting cases). As the Honorable Anne Conway, former Chief Judge of this Court, once admonished: When Klayman “receives unfavorable rulings, he often plunges into a tirade against whomever he feels has wronged him.” Klayman v. City Pages, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49134, at *15 (M.D. Fla., Apr. 3, 2015), aff’d, 650 F. App’x 744 (11th Cir. 2016). The same is true here.
As for his motion to stay, same s*** different day (only the first 2 paragraphs):09/05/2023 Order Referee Appointed Dated 09/05/2023, Hon. J. Lee Marsh, Second Judicial Circuit
11/06/2023 Motion Stay Respondent Larry Klayman's Motion to Stay (Referee not listed in Certificate of Service. Sent to Referee 11/08/2023.)
Klayman, Larry Elliot
11/06/2023 Response Answer Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Referee not listed in Certificate of Service. Sent to Referee 11/08/2023.)
Klayman, Larry Elliot
11/07/2023 Motion Dismiss Motion to Dismiss (Referee not listed in Certificate of Service. Sent to Referee 11/08/2023.)
Klayman, Larry Elliot
11/08/2023 Order File with Referee Respondent is advised that, pursuant to rule 3-7.6(h)(5)(B), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, all future pleadings, motions, and notices must be filed with the appointed referee and not with the Florida Supreme Court.
He likes to pass around the whole "suing the complainant and the Office of Prof Resp in DC Superior Court" as reasons that the suspension is being reconsidered despite SCOTUS already denying it.RESPONDENT LARRY KLAYMAN’S MOTION TO STAY
Respondent Larry Klayman (“Mr. Klayman”) hereby moves this honorable Court for a stay of proceedings pending Mr. Klayman’s challenges to and the adjudication of the suspension order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in In re Klayman, 20-BG-583 (D.C.C.A.) (the“Sataki Suspension Order”) pursuant to his Complaint filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court pursuant to D.C. Superior Court Civil Rule 60, Klayman v. Sataki et al, 22-CAB-5235 (D.C. Sup. Ct.) (the “Rule 60 Complaint”). Exhibit 1. This instant reciprocal discipline Complaint also involves a suspension from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in In re Klayman, 18-BG-100 (D.C.C.A.) (the “Judicial Watch Suspension Order”), which should also be stayed in the interest of justice and judicial economy because it is part of the same reciprocal discipline Complaint. Mr. Klayman has sought consent from Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the relief sought herein. Exhibit 2.
This would bring the Court into agreement and alignment with other courts and/or jurisdictions considering the issue of reciprocal discipline, as they have found it prudent, appropriate and just to stay consideration of reciprocal discipline pending Mr. Klayman’s compelling challenge to the Suspension Order. Importantly, this includes (1) the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, (2) the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (“Middle District”), the, (3) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) and (4) the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“Northern District”), which have all ruled to stay any consideration of reciprocal discipline pending the outcome of Mr. Klayman’s challenges to the Suspension Order. These orders staying proceedings are attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Iqbal and Twombly take another bow.Before: MILLETT and RAO, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, Senior Circuit Judge.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs of the parties. The panel has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). It is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order granting dismissal be AFFIRMED.
Klayman says that after every loss.The 33-year-old golfer must pay the legal fees associated with a defamation lawsuit he filed against several news outlets.
Patrick Reed has been ordered by a Jacksonville federal judge to pay news outlets, including Golf Channel commentator Brandel Chamblee, their legal fees and costs associated with a defamation lawsuit the golfer filed that was twice dismissed.
The court determined that Reed brought the lawsuit in order to stifle free speech.
* * *
U.S. Middle District Court Judge Timothy Corrigan dismissed the suit for a second time on Sept. 27, 2023, according to the Florida Times-Union. The ruling was first reported Friday by Andrew Pantazi, the editor of The Tributary.
Reed and his attorney, Larry Klayman, alleged that the defendants had committed “conspiracy, defamation, injurious falsehood land tortious interference,’’ in coverage of various rules violations and his joining the LIV Golf League in 2022.
* * *
Klayman, Reed’s attorney, said: “The PGA Tour’s and its ‘partner’ the NBC’s Golf Channel’s mission is to destroy a top LIV Golf Tour player, his family, as well as all of the LIV Golf players, to further their agenda and alleged collaborative efforts to destroy the new LIV Golf Tour.”
“As alleged in the Complaint, these calculated malicious attacks have created hate, aided and abetted a hostile workplace environment, and have caused substantial financial and emotional damage and harm to Mr. Reed and his family.”
“Mr. Reed is confident that all of the prejudiced and unlawful rulings of Judge Corrigan will be reversed on appeal and that justice will be done,” Klayman added in another statement later Saturday. “The dishonest and unethical fake news golf media, in the hip pocket of and dependent on the PGA Tour, must be held to account for their callous and malicious attempts to destroy Mr. Reed, as a means to try to destroy LIV Golf, for clicks and profits. Stay tuned. This fight is far from over!”
I am beginning to understand why they refused the motion to combine some of the appeals in cases against the DC Board. There were other issues beyond the same old, same old arguments that meant the disposition would be different.Before: MILLETT and RAO, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Larry Klayman sued District of Columbia Bar officials in Florida state court. After the officials removed the case to federal court, Klayman asked the district court to either dismiss the suit or remand to state court. The district court dismissed, but not for the reasons Klayman sought. He now appeals those reasons. But we review judgments, not reasons. Klayman lacks standing to appeal from the judgment he requested, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
For completeness, the 5 January 2024 order was 1) denial of motion to recuse because of course Klayman had to file that, 20 denial of a motion for reconsideration and 3) granting Defendants seeking attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida’s anti-SLAPP Statute.bob wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 10:31 pm SI: Patrick Reed Ordered to Pay Costs to Defendants in Dismissed Lawsuit:Klayman says that after every loss.The 33-year-old golfer must pay the legal fees associated with a defamation lawsuit he filed against several news outlets.
The jury is still out on that.
From the letter on the docket.01/10/2024 According to our records, Larry E. Klayman for Patrick Nathaniel Reed is not a member of the Eleventh Circuit bar. See FRAP 46, and the accompanying circuit rules. [Entered: 01/10/2024 02:53 PM]
I thought the 11th said no thanks to an earlier appearance but I don't remember.* He is listed as attorney for Corsi v Infowars in the 11th which has been on hold since 2022 due to the bankruptcy filing of Inforwars.According to our records, you are not a member of the Eleventh Circuit bar. Unless an attorney is appearing on behalf of the United States, a federal public defender, appointed by a federal court under the Criminal Justice Act, or otherwise appointed by this Court, 11th Cir. R. 46-1 requires admission to the Eleventh Circuit bar as a condition to practice before the Court. In the alternative, a non-appointed attorney representing a client on a pro bono basis may be eligible to apply to appear pro hac vice in a particular proceeding. See 11th Cir. R. 46-4.
In order to participate in this appeal, you must complete and submit an application for admission to the bar or application to appear pro hac vice within 21 days from the date of this letter. Application forms are available at www.ca11.uscourts.gov/attorney-forms-andinformation. If your application is not received within 21 days, any motions or other papers that have been conditionally filed in the appeal may be clerically stricken and treated as though they were never filed.
I found the issue he had with the 11th, and it happened to be the very same Corsi v Newsmax case the district judge mentioned in his order above (Klayman cited oral arguments, not the 11th opinion). Everything has come around full circle.northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 9:52 pmThe jury is still out on that.
I thought the 11th said no thanks to an earlier appearance but I don't remember.*01/10/2024 According to our records, Larry E. Klayman for Patrick Nathaniel Reed is not a member of the Eleventh Circuit bar. See FRAP 46, and the accompanying circuit rules. [Entered: 01/10/2024 02:53 PM]
They did not deny him due to discipline. He never applied. Melissa Isaak took over the case.According to our records, you are not admitted to practice before the Court. Therefore, you cannot represent the Appellant in this appeal. Further proceedings in this appeal have been stayed for 60 days from the date of this letter to allow the Appellant to seek new counsel or advise the Court that he wishes to proceed pro se. You may wish to inform your client that he has 60 days to take such action.
This appeal will be reinstated to the active docket upon the entry of an appearance by another attorney or receipt of the Appellant’s written response stating that he wishes to proceed pro se. If we do not receive an appearance from the Appellant’s new attorney within 60 days from the date of this letter, the appeal will be reinstated to the active docket as a pro se appeal
northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:39 pm Sorry for some of the quality of the doc. I had to play games to shrink it down. On a plus side, a bad visual quality will probably match the content better.
2024-CAB-000048-3.pdf
When will the courts start cracking down and declare him a vexatious litigant? He did request the DC federal court that told him to stop relitigating the previous discipline to allow him to file this newest case as it was unrelated. The judge agreed since it is a new discipline case. Still, it is maddening.
Is this sovcit talk?Plaintiff Larry Klayman is an individual, a natural person.