GIL: Klayman

[Gregg]

a good summary of what's been going down with GIL since 2001

You're gonna need a bigger internet.

[Luke]

WARNING: Lock up your irony meter before continuing.








A few minutes in, GIL is MIFFED. He unironically says Congressional Republicans are just going to do Biden "show trials" to "raise money".



They all love talking about how THEY, " We the people" can change the government .They are so stupid, only they are the people.

[northland10]

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 the 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

[bob]

And the hits keep on coming: Front Office Sports: Judge Dismisses Both of Patrick Reed’s Defamation Cases:

* 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 court's dismissal.

Ob.:

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.”

[northland10]

I have not had a chance to read the ruling yet, but I got a chuckle out of a few things in scanning it.

1. The court says it is a shotgun pleading so fix it, and Klayman files an amended complaint that does to correct the shotgun pleading. I'm shocked he would do this again.

2. Quoted in the ruling

Zimmerman v Buttigieg (rulings in the pre-kick GIL to the curb parts of of that case, I think)
Corsi v Newsmax Media (I don't know if I remember this one but they lost, were hit with attorney feeds, appealed that as well, got threaty about sending a complaint to the judicial council, and then settled on the fees - I assume Corsi wanted to GIL's digging).
Klayman v Judicial Watch, part 153
Klayman v City Pages.

Looks like somebody did their homework on GILFails in Florida.

[northland10]

For completeness, Larry has 4 cases against the DC Bar and its various folks. Three of them had been scheduled for Oral Arguments on the 16th, though not officially combined. However, in two of them, the panel has decided to proceed without Oral Arguments. The remaining one was combined with a new appeal due to the DC circuit cleaning up the remaining, including the order that he stop suing the DC board. That one is combined with the case that is still apparently scheduled for argument. It may be the same original case as the first appeal.

The panel for this mess is Millett, Rao, and Rogers. I expect some complaining about that.

On a separate note, he has filed a new case for Jesus Rivera in the ND of Florida (Rivera was a January 6 defendant who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 8 months, and it appears he was released in July). The original one, apparently intended to be a class action, was dismissed in July.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.36.0.pdf

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.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 94.1.0.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... stigation/

[bob]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

viewtopic.php?p=55166#p55166

I just realized that he refiled in the County of Los Angeles not long after the CD of CA booted the other case. The new case was promptly removed to the CD of CA. There was an amended complaint filed which Larry did include himself as PHV pending, though he never actually applied.

Amended Complaint
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.20.0.pdf

Motion to Dismiss in which the defense points out Klayman, who has not applied for PHV yet, has been naughty. He asked the defendants to agree to PHV to which they point out, the local rules don't include a requirement that they do not oppose.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.21.0.pdf

Klayman's, um Plaintiffs, response. There is a super large footnote whining about how he cannot get local counsel to support because the even leftists like Biden are ganging up against Klayaman. He probably whined about something to do with the Plaintiff as well but I forgot to read that.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.22.0.pdf

Defendants reply explaining where he was wrong and, oh, by the way, Klayman is practicing without having petitioned for PHV (and citing a case he argued some 20 years back)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.23.0.pdf

Dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Judge said, we already did this before. Nothing has changed. Iqbal, etc. Oh, and again, no counsel, no class action.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.25.0.pdf

Please reconsider
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.26.0.pdf

No
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.29.0.pdf

Appeal... this was a fun little docket entry:

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.

Affirmed with a short statement.

The District Court Docket.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60 ... stigation/

Questions for the lawyers.... can the defendant from the California case be booted from the Florida case because of res judicata?

[northland10]

Quick update on some of his failed Florida state cases. The 4th appellate granted the request for attorney fees (dependant on the local court's determinations) for Politico and Commie Girl Industries (i.e. Wonkette). That made me happy.

Roger Stone was denied attorney fees. This also makes me happy.

[bob]

Questions for the lawyers.... can the defendant from the California case be booted from the Florida case because of res judicata?

As (almost) always, "it depends."

There certainly are doctrines that would preclude relitigating the claims. And I wouldn't be surprised if some form of preclusion was argued. Which Klayman shirley will oppose.

[northland10]

For those who missed GIL's oral arguments against the GIL-hating leftist Board of White Judeo-Christian haters at the DC Circuit, the audio recording is available here.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recording ... =6&scode=1

He has 4 cases in front of the circuit but the newest one (just recently appealed) was combined with 22-7123 which was already being argued. The other two are being decided without argument.

And because Klayman v Judicial WAtch 2006 will never end, he is appealing the attorney award (which the magistrate already cut down from what JW claimed). He will again try to argue the merits of the original case and that JW is committing fraud against him because that is what he does.

[northland10]

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

He has a 2pm Board Oral Arguments on 21 December in this case. You can find the YouTube link on their schedule:
https://www.dcbar.org/Attorney-Discipli ... t-Schedule

On a side note, go find that oil leak Jeffery Clark had a pre-hearing last Thursday, and Roodles has Board Oral Arguments next Thursday 2 November at 2pm.

[northland10]

In his Patrick Reed cases, where the court dismissed the cases, GIL continues his process of predictability.

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.

Re-hashing of the case briefings in a separate motion (or even separate case) is standard Klayman.

Somebody did their own research on Klayman:

ARGUMENT

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.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 5.90.0.pdf

I did not bother with GIL's motion. I assume it is 116 pages of nothing like we've seen before.

[northland10]

GIL is perplexed by the Florida SC rules.

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.

As for his motion to stay, same s*** different day (only the first 2 paragraphs):

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.

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.

Also, in the list of courts who held off for now, he forgot to mention Cannon's ruling that suspended him from the Southern District of Florida. Lack of candor.. I'm shocked.

I am unsure how the DC Sup case means he will somehow have his earlier 90-day suspension reversed.

Oh yeah, he had the Florida Bar back off on the 90-day suspension on the assurance he was taking care of it, and then never informed them that he failed.

What a GIL

[bob]

"For completeness": Law360: Atty Larry Klayman Fights Bid To Disbar Him In DC.

It is behind a paywall, but you know the drill: "Everyone is against poor Larry because he represents unpopular clients."

The hearing:

A brim skim leads to the prediction that Klayman's D.C. license will be suspended effectively for the rest of his life (NADT).

Klayman is also battling to keep his Florida bar card. But as long as either his Florida or D.C. card is still active, he can still appear in the federal courts (that have not yet precluded him from practicing before those courts).

[northland10]

So much winning. I don't know how GIL can stand it.

In one of the GIL v the evil DC Board of Prof Resp appeals.

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.

Iqbal and Twombly take another bow.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... dgment.pdf

It's always fun when a court cites one of his previous fails, though choosing which one can take a while. There are many.

[northland10]

Larry sued, again, his favorite judge, Kollar-Kotelly (the JW endless case judge), in the DC Superior Court back in September. He never served the defendant. The government, though never served, removed it to the DC District on 19 December.

He earlier sued Rao, et al, in the Superior court, never served the defendants, and they removed it where it died.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68 ... r-kotelly/

[bob]

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.

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!”

Klayman says that after every loss.

Can Klayman still practice in the 11th?

[northland10]

He must get really tired of all this winning.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... dgment.pdf

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.

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.

[Sam the Centipede]

When I read rulings like that NL quoted I think of the judges: their vorpal blades went snicker-snack! It feels appropriate to such elegant slicing and dicing, thumping and dumping.

[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.

Klayman says that after every loss.

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.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .100.0.pdf

He smacked GIL around on the recusal and reconsideration motions which GIL will probably use as a claim of bias and ask for recusal again. As for the Anti-SLAPP fee provision, while courts in the circuit have tended to apply the fee provision in federal courts, the 11th has not ruled on that provision yet so they may see it differently. Apparently, Larry tried to cite an oral argument for a Corsi appeals in the 11th regarding the fee provision as authority. The judge points out that the 11th never ruled because the case was settled before they ruled.

Can Klayman still practice in the 11th?

The jury is still out on that.

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]

From the letter on the docket.

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 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.

* In Loomer's cases in the 11th, he was listed as counsel but never made an appearance. Melissa Isaak made the appearance.

[northland10]

Can Klayman still practice in the 11th?

The jury is still out on that.

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.*

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.

Now, the 11th did not say he could not represent Corsi because he was a bad boy. They gave the same "must be a member or seek PHV" reminder as they did for the new Reed appeals. It was followed up later with:

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

They did not deny him due to discipline. He never applied. Melissa Isaak took over the case.

I expect the same will happen with Reed.

[northland10]

DC Board of Professional Responsibility had a board hearing in his Bundy/Ninth Circuit games so, on schedule, he sued the DC Board again in the DC Superior Court.

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

(498.42 KiB) Downloaded 6 times

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.

[pipistrelle]

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.

Plaintiff Larry Klayman is an individual, a natural person.

Is this sovcit talk?

[northland10]

I think it may actually be normal legal talk but the Sovs have tended to use it to great excess, however, I would let Bob confirm that (or other lawyers here).