Fogbow

Moseley was also suspended for 6 months back in 2010 or so.

Here is the order from the Arlington court
https://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions ... 061237.pdf

And here is the SC of Virginia order
https://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions ... 092126.pdf

Apparently, courts do not take kindly to:

1. Claiming your client nor you have a copy of the employment that has an arbitration clause when, in fact, your client gave you said contract.

2. Making some 80 filings in the case and being generally abusive about discovery demands (and there should have never been any discovery because he lied about having the contract).

3. Saying nasty things about the judge.

Come join us! I bet Moseley would LOVE to stroll down memory lane with this.

Grifter gotta.

Last chance to increase his pension funds

While we at the Fogbow were sleeping, the referee in the FLA Bar reciprocal discipline case recommended a two year suspension for GIL, going above and beyond the 18 months recommended by the bar, plus payment of the bar's costs (about $4k).

jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 7:16 pm While we at the Fogbow were sleeping, the referee in the FLA Bar reciprocal discipline case recommended a two year suspension for GIL, going above and beyond the 18 months recommended by the bar, plus payment of the bar's costs (about $4k).
Klayman FLA BAR Referee's Report 2024-05-17.pdf

I was just getting ready to post this and you beat me. Good job. I guess I am not the only one who checks up on GIL.

On a related note, he asked for a stay because of course he did. His basis is the "rule 60" case he filed against the DC Board (again) and the complainant. The Florida Bar helpfully points out that said case was dismissed earlier this year because the DC Superior Court cannot overrule the DC Court of Appeals and an appeal has no chance of succeeding.

GIL also said that other jurisdictions have stayed discipline (a couple of federal courts in Texas and Florida, though not SD Florida) but the bar mentions, those stays were entered in 2022 based on his case still being alive in the DC Superior court. They are unsure if he has informed them it was dismissed (HAHAHAHA).

jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 7:16 pm While we at the Fogbow were sleeping, the referee in the FLA Bar reciprocal discipline case recommended a two year suspension for GIL, going above and beyond the 18 months recommended by the bar, plus payment of the bar's costs (about $4k).
Klayman FLA BAR Referee's Report 2024-05-17.pdf

I am fla.bber.gasted

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 10:30 pm

jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 7:16 pm While we at the Fogbow were sleeping, the referee in the FLA Bar reciprocal discipline case recommended a two year suspension for GIL, going above and beyond the 18 months recommended by the bar, plus payment of the bar's costs (about $4k).
Klayman FLA BAR Referee's Report 2024-05-17.pdf

I am fla.bber.gasted

FLA.BAR.gasted, even.

"For completeness," Klayman in April filed a complaint against Merchan.

My favorite part is faux "URGENT" stamp.

Klayman, of course, is still going to citizen indite Merchan.

P.S.: Send money.

The DC Circuit partially affirms and partially reverses the district court dismissal of Klayman's suit against the ODC.

jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 4:40 pm The DC Circuit partially affirms and partially reverses the district court dismissal of Klayman's suit against the ODC.
Klayman v Porter (DC Cir) 2024-06-11.pdf

D.C. Cir.:

Klayman challenges both the pre-filing injunction and the dismissal of his complaints. We vacate the pre-filing injunction because Klayman’s litigation does not meet the very high threshold for a nationwide restriction on a litigant’s constitutional right of access to the courts. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Klayman’s claims for damages on immunity grounds, but we reverse in part the district court’s dismissal of his claims for injunctive relief because there was no relevant pending state proceeding to support Younger abstention at the time of the dismissal. We affirm on mootness grounds the district court’s dismissal of Klayman’s claims for injunctive relief against the now-former Board Chair Matthew Kaiser.

So the vex-lit order was vacated, and Klayman now can return to the district court to pursue (read: lose) his injunctive-relief claims.

There was a Clinton nominee and an Obama nominee on the panel, and no dissents.

sounds like a great plan to me

Cross-posting:

Greatgrey wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 8:23 pm
Thread

Joe didn’t like the Spanish language tweet, that he translated into ‘convicted felon’.



Joe only wants $7 million

IMG_0579.jpeg

The complaint.

Here's the brass tack:

On June 6, 2024, the Campaign’s “Official Rapid Response Page” on Twitter, @BidenHQ, posted a video with the caption

Trump trae al scenario a Joe Arpaio, un criminal convicto que fue perdonado por Trump después de que perfiló racialmente y abusó de inmigrantes.” This is translated into the following: Trump brings to the stage Joe Arpaio, a convicted felon who was pardoned by Trump after he racially profiled and abused immigrants

Yes; Klayman is again suing because someone said Arpaio was a felon (he wasn't convicted of a felony).

So, yes, Google translates that as saying Arpaio is a convicted felon. Yet it translated "un criminal convicto" as "a convicted criminal." Even "un criminal convicto que fue perdonado" just translates to "a convicted criminal who was pardoned."

Apparently, Klayman explains why Biden isn't immune, but I can't even.

The offending tweet:

To be fair, Google's embedded translator does say "convicted felon" when you click on it.

$7M ask.

Sent a quick DM to Mike -- he seems active on Twitter and posted multiple times today. Hope he'll keep providing his great and funny content. He was a treat in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

One of the docket entries in Florida Bar v Klayman, Florida Supreme Court

07/16/2024 Notice Intent to Seek Review of Referee's Report Respondent Larry Elliot Klayman's Notice of Intent to Seek Review of Report of Referee

Is this even a thing? The doc is not available online so I do not know what he was saying.

ETA. I guess there is a review but I am still confused. Why file an "Intent to Seek Review" and not just a motion/request to review?

Florida Court Rules wrote: Rule 3-7.7 - PROCEDURES BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

All referee reports and all judgments entered in proceedings under these rules are subject to review by the Supreme Court of Florida in the following manner.

(a) Right of Review.
(1) Any party to a proceeding may request review of all or part of a referee's report or judgment entered under these rules.
(2) The Supreme Court of Florida reviews all referee reports and judgments recommending probation, public reprimand, suspension, disbarment, or revocation pending disciplinary proceedings.
(3) A referee's report that does not recommend probation, public reprimand, suspension, disbarment, or revocation pending disciplinary proceedings is final if not appealed.

Previously, he filed a motion to whine, um, reconsideration based on:

Respondent Larry Klayman's Motion to Include the District of Columbia Disciplinary Record in the Record of This Proceeding Before the Florida Supreme Court, Respondent Larry Elliot Klayman's Motion to Stay, and Respondent Larry Elliot Klayman's Notice of Supplemental Authority, Motion to Open the Record and Remand and Supplement to Motion to Stay are hereby denied. Respondent Larry Elliot Klayman's Reply to the Florida Bar's Response to Motion to Stay and Respondent Larry Klayman's Reply to Florida Office of Bar Counsel's Response to Motion to Strike Amended Certification of Record and Index and Motion to Include the District of Columbia Disciplinary Record in the Record of This Proceeding Before the Florida Supreme Court are hereby stricken as unauthorized.

northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:12 pm Why file an "Intent to Seek Review" and not just a motion/request to review?

Short answer: It is basically a notice of appeal.

When an appellate court (like SCOFL) has an original matter and needs some facts to be found, it typically will appoint a referee. The referee basically is the trial judge (and usually is an actual judge): the referee listens to witnesses' testimony, reviews evidence, hears argument, etc.

The referee then writes a report. Sometimes the referee just finds facts, or answers questions posed. But usually the referee goes to the next step and rules on the matter. Except that ruling isn't binding; it is a recommendation. The appointing court (in this case, SCOFL) actually makes a ruling in the matter (in this case, the petition against Klayman). (But, SPOILER: the appointing court tends to accept most if not all of the referee's recommendations.)

So: an "intent to seek review" is basically notice to the appointing court (and opposing party) that there will be further litigation in the appointing court. The actual "motion" for review would be filed in the appointing court, and would be akin to an appellate brief.

If Klayman hadn't filed an intent to seek review, the appointing court still would have to review the recommendation. But, without a party seeking review, it likely would just adopt the recommendation in a streamlined manner (as no one was bothering to contest it).

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:37 pm

northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:12 pm Why file an "Intent to Seek Review" and not just a motion/request to review?

Short answer: It is basically a notice of appeal.

If Klayman hadn't filed an intent to seek review, the appointing court still would have to review the recommendation. But, without a party seeking review, it likely would just adopt the recommendation in a streamlined manner (as no one was bothering to contest it).

Thanks Bob. The Bar did file earlier that they would not be seeking review so that makes more sense now. I guess the GIL part was all the other motion (now denied) that he dumped on the court before finally stating he was seeking review.

He has tried to pull the DC Bar into this but Florida has been stating, this is a reciprocal discipline thing, not a redo of the DC Court of Appeals ruling or another bite at the DC Board apple.

I'm shivering in my boots.

Where's the Kamala indictment?

p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 12:40 pm I'm shivering in my boots.

You need a blanket?

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 1:20 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 12:40 pm I'm shivering in my boots.

You need a blanket?

I need a drink, after that one.

northland10 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 1:12 pm Where's the Kamala indictment?

SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO:

FW: KAMALA HARRIS SUED FOR PARTICIPATION IN ALLEGED FRAUD BIDEN HEALTH COVER-UP:

Joe & Jill Biden and Personal White House Physician Defendants Also Named as Defendants in Alleged Conspiracy

[On July 24], Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, a former federal prosecutor and U.S. Senate candidate in Florida, amended his prior complaint as a Florida voter to include likely Democrat presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris as defendant. Harris is charged with participating in a massive fraud under Florida election law, along with now Presdident Joe Biden, his wife Jill Biden and his personal White House physician Kevin O’Connor, to conceal Joe Biden’s debilitative poor health and at best dementia from Florida voters such as Plaintiff Larry Klayman. As a natural consequence, Mr. Klayman’s vote in the 2020 presidential election was diluted and disenfranchised.

The case, styled Klayman v. Harris et. al, Civil Action No. 2024-CA-001114, 2nd Judicial Circuit, Leon County) prays for Harris to be barred from appearing on the Florida ballot in the race for the presidency.

Klayman had this say upon amending the complaint to include Harris:

Kamala Harris is a dishonest far leftist political hack who now aspires to be President of the United States. But having participated in a fraud that put our national security at extreme risk by promoting an essentially braindead person, it would be an even greater risk if she were allowed to run for the presidency. Justice must be done as she and her co-conpirators must legally pay for their callous disrespect for the Office of President of the United States by endangering Floridians and the American people as a whole.

The complaint. (The Harris-less original complaint is easier to read.)

I lurve how Klayman prays for relief against SoSoFL, who ... isn't a defendant.

Yes, I know Klayman's Florida bar card is not long for the world. But Klayman filed this pro per, meaning he can do stunts like this until he's declared a vex lit.

For : Klayman alleges to be a citizen and registered voter of Florida. But Klayman doesn't allege that he lives in Florida. I doubt he's living in the UPS store listed on the complaint.

bob wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:34 pm SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO:

I was just asking questions.

bob wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:34 pm

Joe & Jill Biden and Personal White House Physician Defendants Also Named as Defendants in Alleged Conspiracy

[On July 24], Larry Klayman, the founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, a former federal prosecutor and U.S. Senate candidate in Florida,

Who knew that running for the nomination and coming in 7th out of 8th with 1.1% of the vote was a plus for a CV.

Larry Klayman
@LarryEKlayman·
6h
Karine Jean Pierre = Kamala Harris!

Jack Ryan
@jkryn
Shouldn’t you be fake indicting and fake trying convicting and sentencing Kamala for something by now?