GIL: Klayman

[pipistrelle]

In jurisprudence, a natural person is a person that is an individual human being, distinguished from the broader category of a legal person, which may be a private or public organization. Wikipedia

[bob]

I think it may actually be normal legal talk

It is legal talk, but not normal. It is a Klayman tic to always be explaining that he's actually a human person and not a corporation.

[Ben-Prime]

I think it may actually be normal legal talk

It is legal talk, but not normal. It is a Klayman tic to always be explaining that he's actually a human person and not a corporation.

Because of that one time on a Zoom call he forgot to turn off his corporation filter?

[neonzx]

Because of that one time on a Zoom call he forgot to turn off his corporation filter?

What? When first reading that I thought he had a Zoom wardrobe malfunction. yeah, I'm going to go with it cause I'm like that.

[Ben-Prime]

I was riffing on Zoom-Cat-Lawyer, really. But you do you on this one. I don't judge.

[noblepa]

I think it may actually be normal legal talk

It is legal talk, but not normal. It is a Klayman tic to always be explaining that he's actually a human person and not a corporation.

Isn't it a standard sovcit practive to claim, when brought into court, that they are the natural person, John Doe, rather than the corporation John Doe, who is really the one who should be sued or charged? Since they are not the entity responsible, they, the natural person must be let go immediately.

[bob]

Isn't it a standard sovcit practive to claim, when brought into court, that they are the natural person, John Doe, rather than the corporation John Doe, who is really the one who should be sued or charged? Since they are not the entity responsible, they, the natural person must be let go immediately.

Many do that, yes, but Klayman doesn't (he isn't a sovcit). Klayman just likes to gratuitously remind everyone that he's a meat bag. (As if someone taught him in law school that was a good practice, and he never unlearned it.)

[northland10]

Isn't it a standard sovcit practive to claim, when brought into court, that they are the natural person, John Doe, rather than the corporation John Doe, who is really the one who should be sued or charged? Since they are not the entity responsible, they, the natural person must be let go immediately.

Many do that, yes, but Klayman doesn't (he isn't a sovcit). Klayman just likes to gratuitously remind everyone that he's a meat bag. (As if someone taught him in law school that was a good practice, and he never unlearned it.)

A Grossly Rotting Meatbag.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

GIL practices Cargo Cult Law. Whenever he is told to do something, or it happens to work, he does it that way forevermore, without any understanding of why it is done.

[northland10]

GIL practices Cargo Cult Law. Whenever he is told to do something, or it happens to work, he does it that way forevermore, without any understanding of why it is done.

It doesn't have to work once for him to do it over and over and over and over again.

Trying to get judges to refuse, suing judges, suing the DC Board, reporting judges to the naughty judge office, making conclusory allegations lacking factual support, filing amended complaints (as directed by a judge) without addressing the original flaws and just adding more allegations, asking for sanctions, etc.

He did manage to stop objecting to the oppositions' requests for extension while requesting multiple ones himself.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Because of that one time on a Zoom call he forgot to turn off his corporation filter?

What? When first reading that I thought he had a Zoom wardrobe malfunction. yeah, I'm going to go with it cause I'm like that.

I hereby prohibit you, neonzx, from ever contacting, emailing, chatting, seeing, or being near Hubby! You two think too much alike!
He bought himself a Tshirt which says, “In my defense, I was unsupervised”. He is the veritable wild child.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

GIL practices Cargo Cult Law. Whenever he is told to do something, or it happens to work, he does it that way forevermore, without any understanding of why it is done.

It doesn't have to work once for him to do it over and over and over and over again.

Trying to get judges to refuse, suing judges, suing the DC Board, reporting judges to the naughty judge office, making conclusory allegations lacking factual support, filing amended complaints (as directed by a judge) without addressing the original flaws and just adding more allegations, asking for sanctions, etc.

He did manage to stop objecting to the oppositions' requests for extension while requesting multiple ones himself.

Oh, it doesn't have to have worked for him, he just has to have seen it work.

[northland10]

Klayman had sued various members of the DC Board of Professional Responsibility (again) along with the complainant involved in the case where he was suspended for 18 months. Surprise, surprise.... dismissed, with prejudice.

He got a few federal court jurisdictions to put any discipline on hold because he claimed that this rule 60 case would reverse his suspension. I guess I need to check and see if any of them bother to take it back up after the board informs them (because he won't though he will claim he is appealing).

So the quick reasons for dismissal:

1. DC Superior Court cannot reverse a DC Court of Appeals ruling, or tell them what to do.
2. His discipline had been adjusted by the DC COA and they are the final word (not mentioned was his appeal to SCOTUS was denied).
3. DC Board has immunity
4. Other stuff that Bob can better explain
5. Oh yeah, Twombly.

2022-CAB-005235.pdf

(394.47 KiB) Downloaded 5 times

He also filed a case against the board, again, back in January.

In his Florida discipline case pending at the Florida Supreme Court, the referee asked for and received an extension for filing their report because there was some sanction hearing scheduled earlier in February but got moved back to around the day the report was due. Apparently, the referee needs to know the outcome for their report. I do not know what this sanction hearing was about or where it was. I may need to actually fire up my Pacer and see if there is movement in his few remaining cases, or Judge Walton lowered the ban hammer on him suing the board, again.

[bob]

In his Florida discipline case pending at the Florida Supreme Court, the referee asked for and received an extension for filing their report because there was some sanction hearing scheduled earlier in February but got moved back to around the day the report was due. Apparently, the referee needs to know the outcome for their report. I do not know what this sanction hearing was about or where it was.

I haven't been following this, but I infer the Florida litigation ultimately is reciprocal discipline for the D.C. bar's sanctions. And Klayman is being Klayman by endlessly asking for delays because there's always something pending somewhere that will (any day now!) undo everything the double-plus-no-good DC bar did.

[northland10]

In his Florida discipline case pending at the Florida Supreme Court, the referee asked for and received an extension for filing their report because there was some sanction hearing scheduled earlier in February but got moved back to around the day the report was due. Apparently, the referee needs to know the outcome for their report. I do not know what this sanction hearing was about or where it was.

I haven't been following this, but I infer the Florida litigation ultimately is reciprocal discipline for the D.C. bar's sanctions. And Klayman is being Klayman by endlessly asking for delays because there's always something pending somewhere that will (any day now!) undo everything the double-plus-no-good DC bar did.

IIRC, the bar said they put a hold on the 90-day suspension reciprocal discipline while he was claiming it was going to go away so this case may cover both. It's been a while since I read through their original filing.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

I always look forward to Friday updates on this thread. SMACKDOWN!

[northland10]

Way back in 2018, Bob posted a quote from an WND article in the Klayman thread.

https://formerly.thefogbow.com/forum/vi ... 4#p1046854

Cite pain, emotional distress, mental stress, more

A former Justice Department lawyer and founder of Freedom Watch who in the past has sued the National Security Agency, Hugo Chavez on behalf of torture victims, journalists, Taliban and al-Qaida and more, now is bringing a case against Mexico and its police for allegedly deliberately gunning down a U.S. officer.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Texas against the “free and sovereign state of Tamaulipos” and its police department.

It’s on behalf of Danny Shaw, a Texas state trooper, and his wife, Melissa Shaw, of Forney, Texas.

Two officers of the Tamaulipas state police “attempted to murder Plaintiff Shaw under the direction of defendants, and while acting within the scope of their employment as government officers,” the case alleges.

There were drug runners in the area, and they fled to the U.S. side of the Rio Grande, where Shaw and other American officers were, the case explains.

The defendants are accused of deliberately shooting and hitting Shaw at that time.

Soon after in the thread:

woodworker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:00 pm
Is GIL licensed in Texas, PHV or what.

He's not licensed in Texas.* But in his suit against The Blacks (in N.D. Tex.), he's filing everything under his D.C. license.

And please dear dog, sanction his ass for this frivolous law suit.

Won't happen, as this is just a Klayman Special; it was filed for the headlines, but will be dismissed for failing to serve.


* N.D. Tex. and S.D. Tex. admit anyone (Texas license not required); Klayman's probably admitted to those courts.

In regards to the admission issue, he did not file for PHV until mid-January. The court denied the petition. Klayman ordered a transcript but nothing has been posted to the docket.

After that, the Shaw's dragged their feet on finding new counsel and, as Bob predicted, serving the defendants (it was not attempted for years). They did finally get an attorney, the same Sanjay that GIL uses in Texas when he can't get admitted. Said attorney did not show up for various hearings.

The case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, but they talked the court into re-opening it and did finally did serve a defendant who promptly moved to dismiss.

It was dismissed for failure to prosecute, again.

They appealed that and the denial of GIL's PHV petition. This week (6 years after the case was initially filed), the 5th affirmed the dismissal.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/u ... 0422.0.pdf

Here is the original docket but very few docs purchased.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/82 ... an-states/

[northland10]

In his Florida discipline case pending at the Florida Supreme Court, the referee asked for and received an extension for filing their report because there was some sanction hearing scheduled earlier in February but got moved back to around the day the report was due. Apparently, the referee needs to know the outcome for their report. I do not know what this sanction hearing was about or where it was.

I haven't been following this, but I infer the Florida litigation ultimately is reciprocal discipline for the D.C. bar's sanctions. And Klayman is being Klayman by endlessly asking for delays because there's always something pending somewhere that will (any day now!) undo everything the double-plus-no-good DC bar did.

As to the mentioned "sanction hearing," I just realized he is in the final few months of his 18-month suspension (based on when he finally filed the required affidavit in October of 2022). He may have filed a petition for reinstatement in order to be reinstated when the suspension ends. I assume the disciplinary counsel opposed it and, thus, has triggered a hearing with the Hearing Committee. That may be the hearing referred to in the Florida case and would make sense since it would be germane to any report filed by the Florida Bar or referee.

If so, Klayman's strategy for showing rehabilitation seems a bit weak. Suing the DC Board again (filed in January in the DC Superior Court) is not the wisest course, IMHO. He did get permission from the Federal Court (Judge Walton) as the judge determined it was a different issue, so it did not go against his order, but still, biting the hand that can reinstate you is not the wisest choice.

[bob]

Front Office Sports: Tiger Woods Deposition Delayed in Florida Antitrust Case:

Tiger Woods walked into a law firm in South Florida ahead of a scheduled deposition on Tuesday. But the 15-time major winner’s interview under oath was halted by a judge before it began—the latest turn in an antitrust case filed in a Palm Beach County court by conservative activist attorney Larry Klayman.

How did Woods ever fit into Klayman's rented mailbox?

“Counsel for Tiger Woods and the PGA Tour—at the last minute, as Woods’s deposition was to begin—objected to proceeding,” Klayman tells Front Office Sports. Judge Luis Delgado delayed the Woods deposition in an emergency hearing Tuesday morning, according to Klayman. (An attorney for Woods did not immediately respond to FOS.)

* * *

Attorneys for the PGA Tour and the other defendants filed a motion several months ago to disqualify Klayman from the case, but Delgado hadn’t ruled on that motion. “Mr. Klayman cannot be a lawyer in this case,” Lawrence D. Silverman, one of the defendant’s attorneys, said in a hearing last week.

On Tuesday, Delgado issued a stay in the case until that issue is resolved. According to an August filing in the case, attorneys for the defendants argued that Klayman’s “personal and financial interest in his recovery of attorneys’ fees precludes him from serving” as the lead lawyer if this lawsuit is certified as a class-action case. The defendants’ lawyers also said disqualification should be granted because Klayman could be called as a witness.

Klayman tells FOS that he will bring on another attorney to represent the class and that Woods’s deposition will likely take place in a few weeks.

“The bottom line is this: Mr. Woods cannot skate from giving oral testimony under oath for his involvement in the alleged anticompetitive conduct by the defendants, the PGA Tour and Commissioner Jay Monahan, to maintain the Tour’s monopoly by killing a new entrant into the market, LIV Golf,” Klayman says. “Regardless of the class issue Judge Degado ruled that I can proceed as a pro se plaintiff as I am the lead plaintiff, so I have not been disqualified from the case.”

* * *

While much of the case is under seal, and Woods’s deposition transcript is expected to be sealed as well for several weeks, the public filings show plenty of discord between Klayman and the other attorneys. Klayman, for example, has complained in court filings that Woods hasn’t fully complied with his subpoena for documents ahead of the deposition, according to a Friday filing.

“You seem to have forgotten [the language of the] subpoena and you obviously haven’t carefully reviewed the production,” Mike Ferrara, one of Woods’s attorneys, wrote in an email to Klayman on Thursday. “You continue to make threats and lodge accusations that are entirely unmoored from fact and law. … You have no basis on the merits for complaining about this production, and if you seek to cause our client to incur more wasted costs in responding to your unreasonable demands and false allegations, we reserve the right to seek both sanctions and costs.”

Klayman’s response to Ferrara was sent 10 minutes later: “I have reviewed all. The sanctions should apply to y’all. I don’t make threats because I always do what I say.”

Klayman gotta.

[northland10]

Klayman had sued various members of the DC Board of Professional Responsibility (again) along with the complainant involved in the case where he was suspended for 18 months. Surprise, surprise.... dismissed, with prejudice.

He got a few federal court jurisdictions to put any discipline on hold because he claimed that this rule 60 case would reverse his suspension. I guess I need to check and see if any of them bother to take it back up after the board informs them (because he won't though he will claim he is appealing).

So the quick reasons for dismissal:

1. DC Superior Court cannot reverse a DC Court of Appeals ruling, or tell them what to do.
2. His discipline had been adjusted by the DC COA and they are the final word (not mentioned was his appeal to SCOTUS was denied).
3. DC Board has immunity
4. Other stuff that Bob can better explain
5. Oh yeah, Twombly.

2022-CAB-005235.pdf

He also filed a case against the board, again, back in January.

Yeah, about that. It was filed to try an stop the current discipline case regarding his behavior at the 9th circuit. It was dismissed last week for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. DC Superior Court judge says the DC Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over discipline, which GIL has been told many times but then claims it is about tort, or fraud or something so they can. Also he claims he needs to court to have the DC Bord stop harassing him, but, um, the DC Court of Appeals ordered his last two suspensions (and SCOTUS did not take up his writ).

He had tried to get sanctions against the board for not responding to his discovery demands while the board asked for a stay. That was denied as moot.

The board had some other reasons for dismissal but the judge stuck with the obvious and didn't bother with others.

He is appealing to the DC Court of Appeals both this case and the earlier one against the Board and the complainant for his recent suspension.

[northland10]

The Florida Bar case at SCOF (Florida) things have gotten real for GIL:

Larry Elliot Klayman
RESPONDENT
Richard Adam Greenberg
REPRESENTATION

He has a lawyer for it. Ironically, he serves on the Florida Bar Committee on Professionalism(CM). Still, Klayman needs representation, and maybe this one can at least have the case proceed in an orderly fashion.

[Luke]

We've been having some fun on X at the expense of Jonathon Moseley, who is now disbarred and (still?) ranting like a lunatic on X. He was in a stupid election denier thread with some of the Luke Crew, particularly R5Philly, who was debunking him HARD. When I saw the name I went back to check and it was JM of GIL fame. During the interaction, I was able to post for his timeline the reason we call Larry "Grossly Inappropriate", and included a screenshot of the magistrate's report. Haven't heard much from Moseley since then.

Always an evergreen:

GIL Klayman Children.JPG (185.98 KiB) Viewed 98 times

[northland10]

SI: Patrick Reed Ordered to Pay Costs to Defendants in Dismissed Lawsuit:

The 33-year-old golfer must pay the legal fees associated with a defamation lawsuit he filed against several news outlets.
“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!”

Klayman says that after every loss.

Can Klayman still practice in the 11th?

I mentioned earlier that Meilssa Isaak had done some of his 11th Circuit work of his and was the original attorney for the Reed cases at the 11th, but recently asked to be removed. The court accepted it. I am not sure what that is about and I have seen her leave other cases of his.

Klayman's name is on the docket as representing the plaintiffs, but it does not appear he has made an appearance, likely because:

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]

There is another attorney Anthony C. Lake from Georgia who made his appearance in February. I think he is one of the attorneys representing David Shafer in Trump's Georgia Case.

[chancery]

Details of the court's decision were apparently sealed, apart from this summary:

Effective April 1, 2022, the Circuit Court of Prince William County revoked Jonathon Alden Moseley’s license to practice law in the Commonwealth for violating professional rules that govern safekeeping property; meritorious claims and contentions; candor toward the tribunal; fairness to opposing party and counsel; unauthorized practice of law, multijurisdictional practice of law; bar admission and disciplinary matters; judicial officials; and misconduct.

Has any additional information come out?

[northland10]

Details of the court's decision were apparently sealed, apart from this summary:

Effective April 1, 2022, the Circuit Court of Prince William County revoked Jonathon Alden Moseley’s license to practice law in the Commonwealth for violating professional rules that govern safekeeping property; meritorious claims and contentions; candor toward the tribunal; fairness to opposing party and counsel; unauthorized practice of law, multijurisdictional practice of law; bar admission and disciplinary matters; judicial officials; and misconduct.

Has any additional information come out?

This may be what you are looking for. It is in an MC case from the ED of Virginia. It appears to be the judgement from the Prince Willliam County Court

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 27.2.0.pdf

A couple years before, they is an order from the Eastern District of Virginia finding him in contempt and suspending him from practicing in the ED of Virignia. There is some background on some nastiness in the Fairfax court where he managed to get locked up for contempt.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .1.0_1.pdf