GIL: Klayman

[keith]

There's a Grateful Dead song about that ...

You cant just leave it like that.

Ya make a musical reference, ya gotta demonstrate it.

[Ben-Prime]

There's a Grateful Dead song about that ...

You cant just leave it like that.

Ya make a musical reference, ya gotta demonstrate it.

Indeed, it's like paying the dog tax or cat tax in a subreddit.

[Foggy]

Off Topic

Yeah, okay, I thought it was obvsly, but that's just me.

Anyway, here's the quote from KickahaOta:

... when the guards are already on your tail, and you know that your life is already ruined when they catch you, then the law can no longer provide much of a disincentive to just keep running.

And I immediately contracted an earworm, singing,

"Got two reasons why I cry away each lonely night,
First one's named Sweet Emily, she's my heart's delight,
Second one is prison, baby, the Sheriff's on my trail,
And if he catches up with me, I'll spend my life in JAIL."



.

Edit: Now admittedly, slight difference between "guards are ... on your tail" and "Sheriff's on my trail," but it was enough to trigger the song in my little tiny headbone. And yes, your poor ol' rooster who everybody loves to kick around whenever they're bored or havin' a bad day is definitely a friend of the devil.

[Foggy]

Off Topic

Ol' Wifehorn: Good morning, how's your forum going?

Poor ol' rooster: I got an earworm (sings the verse above) Now, for coolness points on a scale of zero to ten, who sang that song?

OW: I have no idea.

That's one of the anthems of my wayward youth! More proof, if more was necessary, that she was never a teenage hippy girl. Sad.

Course, she has a lot of other redeeming qualities, but knowledge of classic rock? No.

[northland10]

When the DC Federal court and the SD Florida court dismissed various GIL v the mean leftist attorney discipline folks, there were a few that had not been combined with the ones dismissed. It had been put on hold until the combined cases were resolved. So, the people white Judeo-Christian hating board of professional responsibility informed the court about the dismissal. Therefore, the male-hating female judge (Amy Berman Jackson) ordered:

10/04/2022 MINUTE ORDER.
On May 7, 2021, this Court denied defendants' motion to consolidate this case with Klayman v. Porter, 20-cv-3109, and Klayman v. Porter, 20-cv-3579, because the court then presiding over those earlier-filed matters had already denied the motion on the grounds that "as the undersigned was [and remains] a member of the Disciplinary Panel for this District Court that imposed reciprocal discipline upon Plaintiff for conduct described in the article from which the plaintiff's defamation claims arise." See Klayman v. Porter, 20-cv-3109, Minute Order dated May 6, 2021 (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the lack of consolidation was not based on a determination that this case was not sufficiently related to the others to warrant consolidation, and this case has been stayed pending the resolution of those matters. The Klayman v. Porter cases were subsequently transferred to another court, and that court has issued a series of orders disposing of them entirely after full briefing by both sides. See Defs.' Notice Regarding Case No. 20-3109 16 at 2. Therefore, the parties are ordered to inform the Court by October 14, 2022 whether there are any reasons this Court should not adopt the orders in the related manner and dismiss this case for the reasons cited therein. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/4/22. (DMK) (Entered: 10/04/2022)

In other words, GIL has been invited to whine and berate the defendants by the 14th. I expect a request for an extension.

In a related matter, there is an mc case (miscellaneous correspondence) in ND Texas, In Re Klayman. It was started in 2020 because the court was informed of his suspension for ninety days. The newest entry:

Sep 26, 2022

Order Re: Attorney Disciplinary Action as to Larry Klayman. Standing Order to show cause why this court should not impose reciprocal discipline. (Attorney Larry Klayman received an Order of Suspension from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Active suspension period: 18 months). Cases Report for Internal Users accessible here. Attorney Response due in 14 days. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 9/26/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Order of Suspension, # 2 Correspondence) (rekc) (Entered: 09/26/2022)

Did GIL self-tattle? Of course not. The evil DC Discipline folks done saved him the trouble.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4.29.2.pdf

They will be sued next, again, in ND of Texas and it will be transferred to DC to be dismissed, just like last time. I don't think he actually has any active cases, though he does have a 5th circuit Corsi case still open. He may just ignore it.

[keith]

Edit: Now admittedly, slight difference between "guards are ... on your tail" and "Sheriff's on my trail," but it was enough to trigger the song in my little tiny headbone. And yes, your poor ol' rooster who everybody loves to kick around whenever they're bored or havin' a bad day is definitely a friend of the devil.

[/offtopic]

Far out man!

I was reading a completely DIFFERENT meaning into your assertion.

I thought you were indicating that GIL just can never figure out where to just stop.

Much like the Dead on just about every damn song they ever did. And therefore just about any GD song would do. And be appreciated.

[bob]

[KickahaOta]

"That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if that pays off for him."

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

"You may test that assumption at your convenience."

[RTH10260]

Doesn't look like GIL ever made an attempt to serve in the military, he would know better than that. Also too, I would like to see him meet up with the Secret Service.


PS. did I hear that correctly, he is too coward to make the citizen arrest by himself with the grandpas of Denny's as his posse

[bob]

[northland10]

Every defense motion has an equal and opposite GILMotion for sanctions. I think it was Newton or somebody who said that, maybe, or not.

[tek]

“Even megafirms from NYC need to follow the rules,” Klayman complained

That's pretty rich..

[northland10]

Let us now join in a moment of silence for all the irony meters lost to GIL's statement.

[Gregg]

Let us now join in a moment of silence for all the irony meters lost to GIL's statement.

"It was visible on the moons of Jupiter"

[bob]

Golf: Why did Patrick Reed withdraw and refile his defamation suit? Here’s one possible reason:

The nine-time PGA Tour winner-turned-LIV golfer was in the news again late last month when a defamation suit filed in his name against Golf Channel and Brandel Chamblee was withdrawn from federal court in Texas, only to be refiled in federal court in Florida.

In its refiled form, the suit expands upon the list of defendants (Golf Channel commentators Shane Bacon, Damon Hack and Eamon Lynch have been added), but its thrust is pretty much the same: It seeks $750 million in damages for injuries it claims Reed has suffered to his reputation as a result of “calculated, malicious, false and/or reckless attacks.”

Otherwise, the biggest change is geography: Florida instead of Texas.

Why the switch?

* * *

When Reed’s case was first filed in Texas, it was assigned to Alfred H. Bennett, a federal judge who also happens to be an avid golfer and a reported stickler for the rules of the game. Given Reed’s reputation and the judge’s fondness for playing it as it lies, it is not unreasonable to believe that Klayman felt that he and his client had gotten an unlucky draw and thought they’d stand a better chance in a different court.

This would not be unusual. Attorneys often seek out judges and jurisdictions that they believe will be favorable to their cases, says Matt Jacobs, a former federal prosecutor and partner at DLA Piper, an international law firm. In the absence of another explanation, Jacobs says, “it looks to all the world that (Klayman) is shopping around.”

In this case, though, there is another wrinkle. Klayman might have started thinking about withdrawing the case from Texas the moment Bennett was assigned to it, in August. But more recent events appear to have forced his hand.

* * *

About a month ago, on Sept. 15, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals — the highest court in the District of Columbia — upheld a recommendation that Klayman be suspended from practicing law in D.C. for conduct that was deemed unprofessional in a different case, unrelated to Reed’s — a sexual harassment suit, initially filed more than a decade ago, in which Klayman was representing the plaintiff. (You can read the court’s report on the matter here, which includes violations of the professional code that Klayman was found to have committed; Klayman told Reuters that the ruling was a “political hit” and that he had been unfairly targeted because of his support for former President Donald Trump.)

* * *

Though the 18-month suspension was handed down in D.C., it carries wider implications, because the federal district court in Texas where the Reed suit was filed has its own local rule stating that any lawyer “suspended or disbarred by another court shall immediately cease to practice before this court.” At this point, in other words, even if Klayman wanted to keep the case in Texas, he wouldn’t be permitted to represent Reed there, experts said. In the Florida district where the Reed suit has been refiled, the local rule is more lenient: An attorney can have a suspension stayed by petitioning the judge for relief.

Translation: Klayman appears to stand a better chance of being able to represent Reed in the district where the case has been refiled.

* * *

Of course, even cases that stand little chance in court can serve as a means to an end. They can have a chilling effect, quieting the critics the plaintiff hopes to silence. They can generate fat legal fees and front-page headlines.

On that last front, Klayman — who in 2020 sued the Chinese government for $20 trillion over the coronavirus outbreak — has proven himself adept. The Southern Poverty Law Center has called him “pathologically litigious.” A colleague once said that Klayman was the type of lawyer who would “sue you for criticizing his tie.”

Like Reed, Klayman has a reputation.

“Who your lawyer is doesn’t always dictate the merits of your case,” [DLA Piper partner Matt] Jacobs says. “But if you can’t find an attorney who hasn’t been suspended to represent you, that might suggest a problem with your case to begin with.”

[northland10]

On a related note, in the DC Court of Appeals, there was some activity on the docket:

As a recap, on the day he was suspended he filed:

Notice of intent to file petition for rehearing for rehearing en banc, petition for writ of mandamus before the Supreme Court, and other Legal Actions if necessary as a result of constitutional violation by the panel. (Respondent)

So, after that, we have:

09/29/2022 Filed Respondent Larry Klayman's Petition For Rehearing En Banc (Respondent) Denied
09/30/2022 Filed Notice Received of non compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, Sect 14(g). (Petitioner Bar Counsel)
09/30/2022 Filed Response to Notice of Non-Compliance (Respondent)
09/30/2022 Filed Motion To Stay (Respondent) Denied
10/06/2022 Filed Order Denying respondent petition for rehearing en banc (Larry Klayman)
10/06/2022 Filed Order Denying respondent motion to stay
10/17/2022 Lodged Notice to preserve the record. (Respondent)
10/17/2022 Filed Affidavit of Compliance with D.C. Bar Rule, Sect. 14(g). (Respondent)

I am not sure what a motion to stay would accomplish since he was already on an interim suspension. If is suspension was being stayed, he would still have the interim since he never filed the affidavit.

It took another few weeks but it looks like he finally got around to something he should have filed over 18 months ago. Now his 18 month clock can start.

Looks like the bar counsel was busy tattling on him again. Big meanies.

[northland10]

That Law & Order article:

In a phone interview, Klayman criticized the summary order as a “poorly reasoned” decision by “Clinton and Obama appointees that they stated should not be used as precedent.” Rulings issued by summary order do not have precedential effect.

Literally the first line of the order:

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.

“I mean, frankly it’s a disgrace — and you can quote me on that,” added Klayman, who vowed to pursue an appeal before a full en banc panel of the Second Circuit.

Klayman gotta.

On 28 July, Larry filed a motion to recall the mandate (which was issued that day) and give him a 5-day extension to file the petition for rehearing on 3 August. He claimed his paralegal made an honest mistake as she put it on the calendar as 8 August, following the local rules of DC, where he has filed often, instead of the 2nd circuit. It was an honest mistake and not some attempt at delay, so he says.

Though there was no response from the court he filed a petition anyway.

The court finally responded this week:

MOTION ORDER, denying motion to recall mandate [113] filed by Appellant Kayla Moore and Roy Stewart Moore; denying motion to extension of time nunc pro tunc to file a petition for rehearing en banc. [113] filed by Appellant Kayla Moore and Roy Stewart Moore, by RSP, GEL, RJL, FILED. [3403154][120] [21-1702] [Entered: 10/19/2022 08:41 AM]

It is foolish to represent yourself, but still less foolish than having Klayman represent you.

[northland10]

In a related matter, there is an mc case (miscellaneous correspondence) in ND Texas, In Re Klayman. It was started in 2020 because the court was informed of his suspension for ninety days. The newest entry:

Sep 26, 2022

Order Re: Attorney Disciplinary Action as to Larry Klayman. Standing Order to show cause why this court should not impose reciprocal discipline. (Attorney Larry Klayman received an Order of Suspension from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Active suspension period: 18 months). Cases Report for Internal Users accessible here. Attorney Response due in 14 days. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 9/26/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Order of Suspension, # 2 Correspondence) (rekc) (Entered: 09/26/2022)

Did GIL self-tattle? Of course not. The evil DC Discipline folks done saved him the trouble.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4.29.2.pdf

They will be sued next, again, in ND of Texas and it will be transferred to DC to be dismissed, just like last time. I don't think he actually has any active cases, though he does have a 5th circuit Corsi case still open. He may just ignore it.

GIL filed a response. when I checked at the download screen for the docu:

The document you requested is 771 pages. You will only be billed for 30 pages.

A 771-page response? Okay, the response was only 23 pages, and the rest was exhibits that look like many of the various submissions and transcripts.

Yes, of course, he name-drops Rotunda and includes the 2016 letter in the exhibits.

For those who have time for it.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4.30.0.pdf

[northland10]

I always do GIL updates in bursts, mainly because I only check the docket every week or 2. In this latest installment, we return to Larry's true love for lawsuits, Fitton or Judicial Watch. In honesty, I was only mildly paying attention to the appeal as the final was expected. Well, today, I noticed something.

So, oral arguments were on 4 October. The recording is currently here:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recording ... 1-7125.mp3

I provide the link here (I have not had the time or brain power to listen) because, according to GIL, Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph was a big meany and asked inappropriate questions (something about "beating his wife" and "sexually harassing an office manager").

After the oral arguments, GIL filed: "NOTICE [1967393] TO MERITS PANEL OF APPELLANT'S INTENTION TO MOVETO FILE POST ORAL ARGUMENT BRIEF AND OTHER RELATED PLEADINGS filed by Larry Elliott Klayman [Service Date: 10/04/2022 ] [21-7125] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 10/04/2022 12:47 PM]"

Gil v Fitton - Notice Post Oral Argument.pdf

(131.25 KiB) Downloaded 22 times

Klayman likes filing notices, and at least this is short.

He followed up with "APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF LARRY KLAYMAN’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE A. RAYMOND RANDOLPH PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 144" (sorry for yelling.. it's a legal thing). I have not read this one.

GIL v Fitton - Randolph DQ Mtn and Affidavit v4.pdf

(471.46 KiB) Downloaded 27 times

Another reason to get annoyed. He puts so much crap even into 60 pages it is hard to get it small enough to be able to upload here (appellant court docs don't post to CourtListener...grr).

Fitton responds:

Gil v Fitton - Fitton opp to GIl Mot to disqualify.pdf

(188.51 KiB) Downloaded 25 times

Executive Summary

1. Klayman misrepresents what the judges said to him.
2. Klayman misrepresents arguments by appellees counsel
3. Um... this really looks like a post-argument brief and not a whine about a judge.
4. Klayman is a vexatious bag of poop chunks.

I may have added the last one.

[northland10]

So, after all his whining at the DC Circuit, the big meanies up rule anyway. Spolier alert... Affirmed.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 970393.pdf

Some high points:

Klayman’s complaint is rife with conclusory allegations lacking factual support that Fitton made a defamatory statement to Stone... see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)

Iqbal strikes again.

The next paragraph makes sure Twombly does not feel left out.

We agree with the district court that on the face of the complaint Klayman’s claim is not plausible. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

GIL's contention has been that Fitton told Stone before the interview, but then there is this (among other things):

On the other hand, it is plausible that Stone got his information about Klayman’s departure from public sources. Klayman’s 2003 departure from Judicial Watch became the subject of more than fifteen years of litigation, most notably culminating in a thirteen-day jury trial in the district court, where “[t]he primary factual issue was the reason for Klayman’s departure [from Judicial Watch].” Klayman v. Jud. Watch, Inc., 6 F.4th 1301, 1307, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2731 (2022), reh’g denied, 2022 WL 3021506 (U.S. Aug. 1, 2022). As recounted in our opinion affirming the $2.3 million verdict against Klayman, the jury heard evidence that while Klayman was at Judicial Watch, he physically abused his then-wife, see id.; that he was pursuing a romantic relationship with a Judicial Watch employee, id. at 1307; that his wife had filed a complaint for divorce, id.; and that Fitton, upon learning of these matters, told Klayman to resign. Id. There is no need to determine whether this evidence could be construed as “sexual harassment.” The important point is that a trial involving Klayman took place, and the jury returned its verdict against Klayman, all before Stone’s statement on InfoWars. See id. at 1321.

He loves too sue people over things that are in the public record (see Klayman v City Pages).

Oh yeah, and that recusal thing?

Klayman’s motion to recuse is denied

[bob]

At this point, the question is who is grifting whom?

[northland10]

In Klayman v Rao, and most of the rest of the DC Circuit (causing them to use a panel from outside the circuit), he filed a petition for a rehearing en banc.

Remember the part about how sued most of the DC Circuit? I don't think he thought this through. The clerk ordered:

O R D E R
Appellant’s complaint filed on September 21, 2021, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia named as defendants all the judges sitting on this court at that time. Accordingly this appeal was assigned to three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth, Eighth, and Second Circuits, sitting by designation. By opinion and judgment filed September 9, 2022, the panel sitting by designation affirmed the district court’s order filed October 25, 2021. Appellant filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, and there being no judges of this court available to constitute an en banc court, it is

ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc be dismissed.

Of course, he asked for reconsideration and apparently wanted the en banc court to be folks from outside the district, to which the original panel ordered per curium:

BEFORE: Higginson*, Erickson**, and Sack***, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the motion to set aside the order of October 11, 2022, dismissing appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, it is ORDERED that the motion be denied. Appellant has cited no authority that would permit the court to transfer this appeal to another circuit for consideration of a petition for rehearing en banc.
Per Curiam

Klayman responded with (the title that is nearly longer than the notice, is formatting as was done on his filing):

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF LARRY KLAYMAN'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH U.S. SUPREME
COURT AND TO INITIATE ACTION AGAINST JUDGES OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FOR DENYING RIGHT TO FILE AND HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED A PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Appellant Larry Klayman (“Appellant”) Larry Klayman hereby files and serves notice that he has not exhausted his legal remedies in this cause and will be filing a petition for writ of mandamus before the U.S. Supreme Court as well as a civil action against the judges of this Court for having refused to even consider Mr. Klayman petition for rehearing en banc, which as matter of right he was permitted to file and have considered by a non-conflicted judiciary.

Dated: October 19, 2022

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman

Does he think he threats to go to SCOTUS mean a thing to the court? The same goes for suing the court which has gone so well for him in the past, including this case which caused the court to lack an en banc panel because he was suing all of them in this case.

For completeness, here is is argument that the en banc petition should be to other circuits:

As set forth by Appellant in his Petition for Rehearing En Banc, this matter should be transferred to another Court for en banc proceedings, similar to how the three-judge panel in this appeal was comprised of judges from other circuits. To deny Appellant the right to even petition for rehearing en banc constitutes another clear violation of his due process rights, as the absolute ability to do so is expressly set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35. The clerk of this Court has absolutely no authority to deprive him of this avenue of relief. Accordingly, this October 11, 2022 order must be set aside, and Appellant’s timely filed Petition for Rehearing En Banc must be accepted by the Court and referred to another circuit for adjudication.

Dated: October 12, 2022

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Grossly Inappropriate Larry

Yeah, he is missing any argument that supports transferring it to another court. He also does not understand that, IMH-IANAL-O, the entire process of en banc hearings is generally discretionary, not an absolute right. In addition, FRAP 35 says they are not favored. He's just wasting time instead of going ahead and filing with SCOTUS (which will be denied).

All I can figure is this is an attempt at trying to keep the clock running a bit longer to give him more time to procrastinate on the SCOTUS filing.

[northland10]

In the Fitton appeal:

NOTICE [1971056] NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI IF NECESSARY filed by Larry Elliott Klayman [Service Date: 10/28/2022 ] [21-7125] (Klayman, Larry) [Entered: 10/28/2022 12:59 PM]

Yet again, he sends a notice instead of just filing the unfavored en banc petition, and then the loser Writ petition.

He's not right in the head.

[northland10]

And now, more lawsuits will be flung at the DC Circuit, or at least the clerk.

O R D E R
Upon consideration of an order issued by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on September 15, 2022, which states that Larry E. Klayman was suspended from the practice of law by that court, and it appearing that Larry E. Klayman is respondent, Larry Elliott Klayman, who was admitted to the bar of this court on April 22, 1988, under number 38297, it is

ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that respondent show cause by November 23, 2022, why the imposition of identical discipline by this court would be
unwarranted. See Rule IV (a) & (c) of the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The response to the order to show cause may not exceed the length limitations established by Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2) (5,200 words if produced using a computer; 20 pages if handwritten or typewritten).

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent, along with a copy of the order from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first class mail.

This was a clerk's order, in which the clerk ordered himself to send a copy to the respondent.