Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

GIL: Klayman

W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#576

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

northland10 wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:57 pm In some of his cases against the DC attorney discipline folks:
IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must (1) grant the defendants’
motion for injunction
, (2) grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss, (3) deny as moot the
defendants’ motion for interim relief, (4) deny the plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions, and (5)
deny as moot the defendants’ motion to strike.

SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2022.

REGGIE B. WALTON
United States District Judge
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... 0cv3109-94

Guess who is on deck to be sued by GIL, unless he was in an earlier group that was already dismissed.

This one is seriously heavy in the footnotes.

Not sure how many ones are left. I will need to look around.
Vexatious litigant!
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#577

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

Footnote 4 :dance:
4 The Court also notes that, although the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, as an attorney he “is not automatically subject
to the very liberal standards afforded to a non-attorney pro se plaintiff because an attorney is presumed to have a
knowledge of the legal system and need less protections from the [C]ourt.” Richards v. Duke Univ., 480 F. Supp.
2d 222, 234 (D.D.C. 2007). Therefore, the Court “will not give [him] all the benefits of the liberal standards that are
afforded to pro se litigants and [the] plaintiff’s pro se status will not weigh in favor of denying the defendants’
motion to dismiss.” Id. at 235; see also Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 910 F. Supp. 2d 314, 317 (D.D.C. 2012) (declining
to afford the plaintiff Larry Klayman special consideration as a pro se plaintiff, because he is an attorney)
.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#578

Post by bob »

D.D.C. wrote:For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it must (1) grant the defendants’ motion for injunction, (2) grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss, (3) deny as moot the defendants’ motion for interim relief, (4) deny the plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions, and (5) deny as moot the defendants’ motion to strike.
Or, by its full name: Defendants’ Motion for an Injunction Against Vexatious Litigation by Plaintiff.

The DDC enjoined Klayman from suing the D.C. Bar's employees! :o

But it looks like the court stayed its order pending Klayman's immediate appeal. :bored:
Edit: Ninja'ed by the Vick!
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#579

Post by northland10 »

His recent discipline case (the one where they put him on an interim suspension) was argued on 16 June. He had Melissa Isaak for that one. After the oral arguments, he filed:
06/23/2022 Filed Respondent Larry Klayman's Motion for Leave to File Post Hearing Brief and Second Supplement to Motion for Sanctions. (Respondent)
Post-hearing briefs and supplements for some earlier filing seem to be his go-to lately. I have seen him asking to supplement in a bunch of his cases, including after oral arguments.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#580

Post by northland10 »

Last week, in the original Klayman v Judicial Watch, GIL filed a notice:
NOTICE OF LITIGATION


Larry Klayman hereby provides notice that there is currently pending litigation against the Honorable Colleen Kollar Kotelly and Hon. G. Michael Harvey with regard to this action and that service of process has been made. Klayman v. Kotelly et al, l:22-cv-2074 (D.D.C.). Exhibit 1; Complaint and Affidavit of Service. There is also pending litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Klayman v. Rao et al, 21-5269 (D.C. Cir.) with regard to the
underlying judgment in this case and it’s enforceability.
He has tried this before and it never worked. He is intentionally trying to slow dow the attorney fees part of the case and trying a way to get rid of his hated judge.

In short, he sued a judge and is now trying to get her recused or at least slow down the case. Isn't this a classic case of why it is not allowed?

Oh, and SCOTUS already denied the petition and the petition for reconsideration.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#581

Post by northland10 »

In the appeals of Klayman v. Rao, the decision is.. wait for it.

Affirmed. :faint:

Seems the visiting panel decided this was nothing more than attempt to relitigate Klayman v JW which had already been affirmed by the DC Circuit and SCOTUS denied the writ (and reconsideration). I'm shocked.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 962729.pdf\\
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9546
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Re: GIL: Klayman

#582

Post by Foggy »

:shock:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#583

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

SMACKDOWN FRIDAY :boxing:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#584

Post by northland10 »

Welcome to Smackdown Thursday. The DC Court of Appeals has affirmed the DC Board of Professional Responsibility's opinion and has suspended Klayman for 18 months with a fitness requirement.

Now, for those named Bob, you may remember that he has been interim suspended since January 2021, which is now past 18 months. One may think that all he has to do is the fitness requirement. However, there is a big wrinkle.

There is a requirement for attorneys suspended by DC that they must file an affidavit in compliance with Section 14(g). I suppose it is best called the self-tattle rule. Despite the order for the interim suspension reminding him he must file the affidavit, he failed to file it. He claimed in the court hearing that he only needed to file it after a final order. The court disagreed.

All this means is that the 18-month clock does not start moving until he files the affidavit. The suspension is for 18 months after that (and the fitness requirement which is also getting past his ability to achieve).

https://www.dcbar.org/ServeFile/GetDisc ... layman.pdf
101010 :towel:
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#585

Post by KickahaOta »

This is my shocked face.

I am shocked.

Well, actually, not shocked.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#586

Post by bob »

northland10 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:00 pmAll this means is that the 18-month clock does not start moving until he files the affidavit. The suspension is for 18 months after that (and the fitness requirement which is also getting past his ability to achieve).
Oh, wow.

If Klayman Klaymans, he'll on principle not self tattle just so he can throw paper to reconsider and then seek relief from SCOTUS.

But Klayman ought to know the real burden is the fitness requirement: he ought to know he'll never convince the DC Bar he's fit. Especially after repeatedly suing them. In other words, this ruling essentially is a death sentence for his DC license.

But but: Florida doesn't seem to care. Klayman can still tout his Florida license and dare a court not to accept it.

The DC court's ruling will impede Klayman's ability to file in federal courts if the DC Bar is willing to put effort into tattling on Klayman. Which it likely will be considering it just received a vex-lit order intended to prevent Klayman from suing it again.

And the DC Bar has time on its side: Klayman is old, while the bar can hire new, young attorneys.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#587

Post by KickahaOta »

I try to look on the bright side.

As legal kooks start to rack up sanctions and vex-lit orders, their legal 'attentions' often shift away from whatever private citizens they were originally harassing, and towards the judicial institutions imposing the sanctions and the vex-lit orders.

For judicial institutions, dealing with legal kooks is all in a day's work. It's expected. As a taxpayer, it's annoying. But it's ultimately much less harmful, because judicial institutions can deal with it in ways that private citizens can't.

Klayman used to be a sad, pathetic sideshow representing other sad, pathetic sideshows in suits that did real damage. He's now a sad, pathetic sideshow lost in his own eternal battles against judicial institutions. I'd call that an improvement.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#588

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:58 pm The DC court's ruling will impede Klayman's ability to file in federal courts if the DC Bar is willing to put effort into tattling on Klayman. Which it likely will be considering it just received a vex-lit order intended to prevent Klayman from suing it again.
IIRC, one of the things he included in his cases against the board and staff was that they were tattling on him to other jurisdictions. In checking section 14, to be fair, I do not see a requirement that he actually inform other jurisdictions. However, he is to list them in the affidavit, which he never filed anyway.

And in any case, the courts already ruled that even if he was not required to self-tattle to other jurisdictions, there is nothing in the rules preventing the Board of Professional Responsibility from tattling instead.

KickahaOta wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:49 pm For judicial institutions, dealing with legal kooks is all in a day's work. It's expected. As a taxpayer, it's annoying. But it's ultimately much less harmful, because judicial institutions can deal with it in ways that private citizens can't.

Klayman used to be a sad, pathetic sideshow representing other sad, pathetic sideshows in suits that did real damage. He's now a sad, pathetic sideshow lost in his own eternal battles against judicial institutions. I'd call that an improvement.
On the even brighter side:

1. He self-sanctions with all these cases where he has to pay the filing fee.
2. There are still 2-3 discipline cases in progress. That was confirmed in one of his many cases against the DC folks. (9th Circuit/Bundy case behavior, Montgomery, Santilli maybe, and for suing the entire DC court of appeals.. okay, that would be 4).
3. He owes $2M+ to Judicial Watch for that lost case. SCOTUS has denied cert and the reconsideration, so it is a done deal.
4. He may owe another $1.3M in fees to Judicial Watch for said case. It is still in progress. Instead of defending himself against the attorney fees, he is too busy trying to get the judge to recuse or sue her, again (ignore that the DC Circuit has said she did fine) and I think he keeps asking for sanctions which is odd but I may be confusing that with his other cases. He likes asking for sanctions.
5. He does have one talent. How many folks sue an organization and end up having to pay the organization a large award, not just the attorney fees but an award? He sued JW, they countersued, and then he was sanctioned so badly for his behavior (ignoring deadlines, discovery violations, etc.) that he was not allowed to defend himself on most issues and so, the trial only covered the countersuit.

This is a big reason why the rule is "never ever represent yourself." The only more important rule is "never let GIL represent you."
101010 :towel:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#589

Post by northland10 »

For completeness, Florida requires:
(1) Notice of Discipline by a Foreign Jurisdiction. A member of The Florida Bar must file a copy of any order or judgment by a court or other
authorized disciplinary agency of another state or by a federal court effecting a disciplinary resignation, disciplinary revocation, disbarment,
or suspension or any other surrender of the member’s license to practice law in lieu of discipline with the Supreme Court of Florida and the executive director of The Florida Bar within 30 days of its effective
date.
My bet is that he never informed Florida of the initial suspension and if he is called on it, he is going to say that it was interim and not a final order, so he did not have to. The DC Court of Appeals said no no on that one, but I don't know what the Florida Bar and Supreme Court think on that.
101010 :towel:
woodworker
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:58 am
Location: San Mateo, Calif
Occupation: Slave to my cats

Re: GIL: Klayman

#590

Post by woodworker »

It is a good thing that none of us would ever tattle on him, especially if he were seeking PHV somewhere. Such tattling would make me so sad.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: GIL: Klayman

#591

Post by Luke »

Thanks for the updates! Amazing GIL's 18 months don't start until he files the affidavit, so fun. And great seeing GIL is staying focused on what really counts -- Freedom Watch's Citizens' Grand Jury. 🤡 Good to see GIL taking on projects that are have a chance of success and not just more grifting.
Freedom Watch/Larry Klayman,Esq.🇺🇸 @FreedomWatchUSA Sep 14
Freedom Watch's Citizens' Grand Jury to Seek the Criminal Indictment of Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray and President Joe Biden Over Alleged Illegal and Unconstitutional Raid on President Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence!



NATION IN CRISIS: TIME TO HOLD CRIMINAL "ELITE" GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO ACCOUNT!
Freedom Watch's Citizens' Grand Jury in Action!
Donate and Support Freedom Watch at www.FreedomWatchUSA.org

GIL looks a lot older in this video.





https://www.freedomwatchusa.org/nation- ... vernment-o



Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#592

Post by KickahaOta »

bob wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:58 pm But Klayman ought to know the real burden is the fitness requirement: he ought to know he'll never convince the DC Bar he's fit. Especially after repeatedly suing them. In other words, this ruling essentially is a death sentence for his DC license.

But but: Florida doesn't seem to care. Klayman can still tout his Florida license and dare a court not to accept it.
And then what?

A dare is only useful if you can back it up.

GIL's reached the "I Ain't as Good as I Once Was" stage, only he lacks the funny self-deprecation, and he definitely lacks Toby Keith's singing voice. Every ounce of GIL's pride is telling him that he hasn't lost a step, that he can keep on mixing it up with the big boys. But everywhere he goes now, he just keeps getting picked up by the bouncer and thrown back across the bar.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: GIL: Klayman

#593

Post by bob »

KickahaOta wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:00 am
bob wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 5:58 pm
But but: Florida doesn't seem to care. Klayman can still tout his Florida license and dare a court not to accept it.
And then what?

A dare is only useful if you can back it up.
It is unlikely the typical judge is aware of Klayman's bar problems. So if Klayman files in a non-Florida court, and then seeks PHV status based on his valid Florida license, the court would likely approve the PHV application because it would have no reason not to.

And by the time his opponents and the court are up to speed on Klayman's history, he's already onto a new court in a new case. Because Klayman isn't filing these suits to eventually win; they are just marketing for his grift.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#594

Post by KickahaOta »

bob wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 3:39 am It is unlikely the typical judge is aware of Klayman's bar problems. So if Klayman files in a non-Florida court, and then seeks PHV status based on his valid Florida license, the court would likely approve the PHV application because it would have no reason not to.

And by the time his opponents and the court are up to speed on Klayman's history, he's already onto a new court in a new case. Because Klayman isn't filing these suits to eventually win; they are just marketing for his grift.
Isn't that the sort of thing that gets less and less effective in our late-stage-capitalistic Internet-dystopian society? (The 'caught by surprise' part, not the 'grifting' part. Grifting juts gets better.)
  • Attorney disciplinary histories have often been kept under wraps, and often still are. But the Internet has punched holes in that, especially for the high-profile repeat offenders like GIL. You can Google "Larry Klayman", and the first entry in the results is his Wikipedia article, and the first three paragraphs scream 'LOOK AT THIS MAN'S LITIGATION HISTORY AND PAST SANCTIONS. HERE ARE FOOTNOTES.'
  • Many court dockets are so much more easily searchable these days. It's so much easier to keep track of what someone like GIL is doing. Which means that if even one person decides to be vindictive towards GIL, it becomes so much easier for that person to spot new cases and send a quick informational 'care package' to opposing attorneys. And one of GIL's many talents is providing people with motivation to be vindictive towards GIL.
There would seem to be two more GIL-specific factors negating the element of surprise:
  • GIL seems to have reached the stage of kookery where he injects his own self-defeating life story into every interaction. How many of GIL's filings now list the players in the conspiracy against him, and rail against the horrible things they have done to bring him down? This helpfully provides a warning that he is a kook, as well as an extremely useful list of search keywords.
  • Whether or not grifting is the primary motivation for what he's doing, there's no question that it's a big part of the picture. And the problem with using a new legal case as public grifting material is that, by definition, you can't be quiet about it. (Especially not if you're GIL.) Those sweet donations won't come in unless you announce your latest foray against the evildoers. But that very announcement also screams "ATTENTION, all people whom I have prodded into vindictiveness! Here is a new case I have filed! Please check the docket for all the information needed to contact the opposing parties!"
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#595

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

For those of us with leaky brainpans, what are the requirements to show fitness? It's been a hot minute since the original suspension was announced.
:popcorn:
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#596

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

Fogbowzers -> :kickface: <- KKKlayman filing for PHV status
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: GIL: Klayman

#597

Post by northland10 »

In his case against Rao and a bunch of other judges from DC which was recently affirmed, he filed a notice.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Appellant Larry Klayman (“Appellant”) hereby informs the Court that in light of its order of today, September 9, 2022 affirming the erroneous orders of the Lower Court, Appellant will be timely filing a Petition for Rehearing En Banc on or before September 23, 2022 as provided for under D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 40(a)(1) and if this matter is not take up en banc, a petition for writ of mandamus before the U.S. Supreme Court as suggested by the three judge panel during oral argument of this cause.

Dated: September 9, 2022
What is the point of a notice that you will be filing except to threaten the court that you will take this all the way? Either file or don't file. Is there a rule that you need to tell them they are wrong so you will be filing a petition in the future?

He also filed a notice in the original JW case as if the case against RAO, because she wrote the opinion on the JW case, somehow directly impacts this case and, yes, the award. I am pretty sure it does not, and this is nothing but another delay attempt.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .656.0.pdf
101010 :towel:
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#598

Post by KickahaOta »

This is one of GIL's tics. He cannot bring himself to simply file a document that will send a case to another judge or judges (whether that be an appeal, a mandamus motion, a Demand for Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card, whatever). He is compelled to first file a completely redundant and legally meaningless notice that he is about to call your supervisor, oh won't you be sorry. This is apparently based on the theory that the presiding judge has never even considered the possibility that decisions can be reviewed, and will respond with "Oh my $DEITY, what a fool I've been, what can I do to make it up to you, Mr. Klayman, sir?"
► Show Spoiler
If it is a delay attempt, it is a completely ineffective delay attempt. This is a legally meaningless collection of electrons, possibly accompanied by one or more legally meaningless pieces of paper. It does not stop the clock on anything else that's happening. Even GIL, bless his heart, knows this.

It's just something he does.
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#599

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

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.
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: GIL: Klayman

#600

Post by KickahaOta »

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.
No. In the US federal system and many state systems, when you want to appeal a district court's decision, you file your notice of appeal with the district court itself, not with the appellate court.

So the "notice that I'm going to file a notice" is completely redundant and silly.

This makes more sense if you time-travel with me back to the frontier days, when a lot of these procedures were originally invented.

You go to the county courthouse and file your case. Yada yada yada, you lose.

You file a notice of appeal with the county clerk. The clerk pulls the record of the case, adds the notice of appeal, and sends it... nowhere. Just puts it in a different place, in a different part of the office.

Sometime later, the appellate judge(s) would show up, quite possibly on a stagecoach. They're called Circuit Courts of Appeals for a reason. The appellate judges would literally ride in a circuit around their assigned territories, hearing appeals as they went.

The appellate judges would pull those files from that different part of the county clerk's office, and appellate justice would be done. Yada yada yada, you lose again.

You do not file your petition for certiorari with the clerk. You write it up, and off it goes on a mail train to Washington DC. The clerks at the Supreme Court do not want to have to deal with bulky files being sent from all over the country, especially when the Court will only actually rule on a small percentage of cases. That's why the goal of your petition isn't to convince the Court that you should win; it's to convince the court to even look.

If four justices of the Supreme Court are interested enough in your petition, then the clerk of the Supreme Court writes out a writ of certiorari and mails it off to the county clerk. Then, and only then, the case record itself goes off to Washington.

That's what a writ of certiorari historically is -- a message from the Supreme Court clerk to the county court clerk saying, "Send me this stuff."

Obviously, everything is electronic now, but you'll still see that notices of appeal are handled this way in PACER. The notice is filed on the district court case docket. Then the clerk transmits it along to the appellate court's PACER system, either creating a new appellate docket or adding it to the existing docket.
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”