GIL: Klayman

[Sam the Centipede]

There is a common thread among birthers and their non-birthing occupationals:
Klayman: crap lawyer
Apuzzo (the late): another crap lawyer
Rondeau: crap journalist (although apparently competent harpist)
Taitz: crap dentist, crap lawyer
Zullo: crap detective
Arpaio: crap sheriff
Smith (he, Lucas): crap forger, crap scammer
Trump: crap president, and, well, crap everything

[humblescribe]

In other words, they all practitioners of scatology.

[bob]

FW: GERSTEIN INDICTED FOR THEFT OF DRAFT DOBBS DECISION RESULTING IN ASSASINATION ATTEMPT VS. KAVANAUGH.

Executive summary: Josh Gerstein, the Politico reporter who wrote about the leaked SCOTUS memo, will get the Denny's treatment from Klayman.

[northland10]

In Klayman v. Fitton, the DC Circuit denied his petition for a reharing en banc, so of course:

NOTICE OF FURTHER LEGAL ACTION, COMPLAINTS AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR AND OVER JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT filed by Larry Elliott Klayman

He quotes Jefferson a bunch and says:

Further legal actions are also planned against the judges of this Court who, having engaged in a dishonest en banc review, have furthered the unethical and illegal conduct of the three-judge panel.

He never bothered to take the Klayman v most of the DC circuit to SCOTUS. Actually, he seems to be leave it at whining in filings.

He also mentions his recent book, "It Takes a Counter-Revolution: Wake Up America!"

Klayman v Fitton - Notice of Sup Ct.doc.pdf

(75 KiB) Downloaded 19 times

[northland10]

And, he has filed against the DC Board of Professional Responsibility and members thereof, in the DC Superior Court this time. He added the person who was the subject of the complaint this time, probably trying to use that to both harass her and try to find a way around the injunction the DC Federal Court has against him filing against the board without permission. He included Matthew Kaiser again even though his term on the DC Board has ended.

Here is the order for the injunction:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 2.95.0.pdf

The DC Board's Motion to Clarify after GIL filed another one.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .101.0.pdf

Larry's Reponse.. this is not a "new" case but a Rule 60 case for the Superior Court of DC which is not a federal court, blah. blah blah
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .103.0.pdf

Here is the DC Superior Court Complaint.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .101.1.pdf

[realist]

Klayman's direct beg for money. Please give to me even though you get no benefit by doing so.

Freedom Watch/Larry Klayman,Esq.
@FreedomWatchUSA
Please Renew Your Vital Support for 2023

Dear Friend,

Please give a crucial $25, $50, $100, $250, or more IMMEDIATELY to fully fund my two critical lawsuits and other hard-hitting legal actions to FREE ALL JANUARY 6 PROTESTERS and GET THEM JUSTICE.

If you haven't already renewed your vital support for Freedom Watch for 2023, please give what you can right away.

As a faithful supporter of Freedom Watch, you know I'm fighting tooth and nail for the January 6 peaceful protesters with two critical, class action lawsuits and other hard-hitting legal actions.

And you know I'm seeking criminal convictions of Joe Biden, Anthony Fauci, Attorney General Merrick, and FBI Director Christopher Wray for their grave crimes against the American people.

https://www.freedomwatchusa.org/please- ... t-for-2023

[RTH10260]

I will not support you until someone makes the contribution work x10 x30 x100 times by throwing in hot air

[northland10]

I don't think he can pay off the 2M+ award with funds donated to a 501(c)3.

[Luke]

Realist, how much did you donate? How much did you have to donate to get a Denny's Grand Slam Grand Jury Breakfast?

Good to see GIL finally got serious about taking people's money and is only focusing on real things he can accomplish vs. fantasyland grievances that aren't worth the electrons they take from the universe.

[Foggy]

Larry doesn't seem to know Merrick's last name.

[realist]

Setting aside Klayman's histrionics (and I've not checked the docket) but to me it seems mighty early in this case for discovery
One thing he doesn't attach is a copy of the supposed authorized subpoena.
And just a WAG but I'd bet Tiger, who operates several companies, has a person designated to accept service of process.

Freedom Watch/Larry Klayman,Esq.
@FreedomWatchUSA
Tiger Woods Evades Service of Process in Class Action Antitrust Case

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Tiger files defamation case? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[bob]

Tiger files defamation case? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Against Klayman? In this economy?

(No.)

[bob]

NOT DR. JILL!!!

[Frater I*I]

NOT DR. JILL!!!

Ohhhhh please ask him for what exactly....

[northland10]

I had wondered what happened to GIL's threat to go to SCOTUS on various appeals. I had checked the docket from time to time.

Well, today, I see he filed petitions for his suspension by the DC Court of Appeals and the Rao case from the DC Circuit. However, these were not Cert Petitions but petitions for an extraordinary writ, i.e. writ of mandamus. I am not sure why he did that unless it is because he was too busy indicting folks with his extra-special grand juries with sprinkles he blew the 90-day deadline for a cert petition. GIL filed these at the beginning of January.

Unlike the 90-day deadline for a cert petition, I don't see a deadline for a Writ of I'm a Dumbass in the rules.

So we have the question part for his DC suspension.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Did the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (“DCCA”) err by “temporarily suspending” (“Mr. Klayman”) from the practice of law pending the outcome of In re Klayman, 20-BG-583 (D.C.C.A.) (the “Sataki Matter”) for twenty (20) months and then on September 15,
2022, further formally suspending Mr. Klayman for eighteen (18) months with a reinstatement provision, and therefore failing to grant Mr. Klayman “time served” after a twenty (20) months unconstitutional “temporary suspension” while the proceeding was pending?

Thus, the question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the DCCA to reduce Mr. Klayman’s suspension to “time served” during the temporary suspension period.

Northland10's answer... no they did not error in suspending you, and the reason you did not get "time served" is that you did not file the Affidavit of Compliance with D.C. Bar Rule, Sect. 14(g). Even IANAL me easily figured out that you should do it even on an interim suspension. The DC Court of Appeals was quite clear on this.

Full petition which I have not read.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... _Brief.pdf

Then there is suing the judges in the DC Circuit. This one, they actually brought in judges from other circuits and they told him he was an idiot.

QUESTION PRESENTED
Petitioner Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit styled Klayman v. Rao et al., 21-cv-2473 (D.D.C.) (the “Rao Case”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”), and subsequently appealed that case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”), (the “Rao Appeal”), to remedy totally egregious errors that occurred in a separate case styled Klayman v. Judicial Watch Inc. et al., 1:06-cv-670 (D.D.C.) (the “JW Case”) and its appeal Klayman v. Judicial Watch Inc. et al., 19-7105 (D.C. Cir.) (the “JW Appeal”).

The Rao Case and appeal sought to obtain injunctive relief and an order mandating that (1) the D.C. Circuit conduct a bona fide review of the record in the JW Case and JW Appeal and (2) a new trial of the JW Case. Thus, the Rao Case necessarily named as Defendants the judges of the D.C. Circuit, as well as judges in the District Court related to the JW Case.

The question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the District Court to conduct a new trial in the JW Case?

Northland10's opinion: Hey bonehead. Are you really asking them to direct the district court to conduct a new trial for a case in which they already denied cert and a rehearing? Was NO, and NO not enough? Do you need, "No f***head, now go the f** away"?

This may be why they don't let me write opinions for SCOTUS.

The petition I did not read beyond the first page but I am assuming it is stupid.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... r%20br.pdf

Well, at least he did not blame the delay on the help this time.

[northland10]

IANAL lawyer, but this sounds like he was telling the court, don't suspend me and if you are inclined to, do you own homework on why I should not be. What sending you 500 pages was not enough?

Emphasis the court:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

O R D E R

This case is before the Court on the Petition of Larry Klayman to Not Impose Discipline Concerning Suspension by the District of Columbia Bar Pursuant to Rule 2.04 of this Honorable Court (Doc. No. 1; “Petition”), dated November 4, 2022 and filed November 8, 2022. By Order entered November 8, 2022 (Doc. No. 2), the Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan, Chief United States District Judge, Middle District of Florida, designated the undersigned to determine the petition. See Rule 2.04(b)(2), Local Rules, Middle District of Florida (“Local Rule(s)”).

The Petition notifies the Court, as mandated by Local Rule 2.04(b)(1), that Mr. Klayman has been suspended from the bar of the District of Columbia effective October 17, 2022, for a period of eighteen months, with a requirement that he show fitness before being permitted to return to the practice of law. Petition at 22. The Petition further requests that this Court decline to impose reciprocal discipline. Id. at 1.

Despite attaching to the Petition about 500 pages of exhibits, most which come from the underlying discipline proceedings in the District of Columbia, Mr. Klayman requests that the matter be summarily decided in his favor. See id. at 5-6, Exs. A-K. If the Court is not inclined to do so, Mr. Klayman contends the Court should “request the record in this case from the Board [of Professional Responsibility for the District of Columbia]” so that the Court may “have a full understanding of the facts and issues in this matter.” Id. at 5-6.

The Court is not willing to summarily decide the discipline issue in Mr. Klayman’s favor. Further, Mr. Klayman has the burden of showing that reciprocal discipline is not warranted. See Matter of Calvo, 88 F.3d 962, 966-67 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917)). Given Mr. Klayman’s burden, the Court will not take it upon itself to retrieve the underlying record of the District of Columbia proceedings.

Upon consideration, it is

ORDERED:

Mr. Klayman has until January 27, 2023 to either: 1) file a notice stating that he stands on the Petition and attached exhibits that were already submitted to the Court; or 2) submit the entirety of the record for the disciplinary proceedings in the District of Columbia. This deadline will not be extended except upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on January 13, 2023.

James R. Klindt
Federal Magistrate Judge

Klayman filed an "interim response" which was one page telling them it was an interim response and 121 pages of stuff from the 5th circuit saying they will not impose discipline while his hail mary rule 60 complaint is in the DC superior court. He also attached that and some transcript of something.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 02.4.0.pdf

[keith]

I had wondered what happened to GIL's threat to go to SCOTUS on various appeals. I had checked the docket from time to time.


So we have the question part for his DC suspension.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Did the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (“DCCA”) err by “temporarily suspending” (“Mr. Klayman”) from the practice of law pending the outcome of In re Klayman, 20-BG-583 (D.C.C.A.) (the “Sataki Matter”) for twenty (20) months and then on September 15,
2022, further formally suspending Mr. Klayman for eighteen (18) months with a reinstatement provision, and therefore failing to grant Mr. Klayman “time served” after a twenty (20) months unconstitutional “temporary suspension” while the proceeding was pending?

Thus, the question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the DCCA to reduce Mr. Klayman’s suspension to “time served” during the temporary suspension period.

Northland10's answer... no they did not error in suspending you, and the reason you did not get "time served" is that you did not file the Affidavit of Compliance with D.C. Bar Rule, Sect. 14(g). Even IANAL me easily figured out that you should do it even on an interim suspension. The DC Court of Appeals was quite clear on this.

We'll have to live with disagreeing on this one. I maintain that the DCCA most certainly DID err in temporarily suspending his license. They should have cancelled it altogether, and permanently.

[northland10]

We'll have to live with disagreeing on this one. I maintain that the DCCA most certainly DID err in temporarily suspending his license. They should have cancelled it altogether, and permanently.

To be honest, I am not sure that the specific case was severe enough to warrant disbarment though I don't know how they determine levels. The hearing committee recommended 33 months with a fitness requirement to be reinstated. The Board recommended 18 months with fitness which the DC Court of Appeals agreed to. The irony is that because he failed to file the affidavit during his interim suspension, the total suspension time before he could be reinstated (after showing fitness) is now 38 months which is more than the original recommendation. Good job, GIL.

Given all his recent games, I have doubts he will be able to show fitness (suing the DC Board multiple times in multiple jurisdictions probably will not help).

Even if he does, I am comforted by the fact there are at least 3 confirmed cases still pending (they were confirmed in a filing of one of his cases against the board and board staff).

1. A complaint by Dennis Montgomery. Yes, that guy. I seriously doubt this one will go anywhere. Montgomery is hardly a trustworthy source, and if they needed an in-person testimony, well, he's probably on the deathbed again. GIL did sue Montgomery for filing the complaint, so he has that going for him (it was tossed). I suspect during GIL's representation of Dennis, they lied to each other with wild abandon.

2. The complaint from the 9th circuit for lying to the Nevada District and the 9th regarding his pending discipline in DIC during his attempts to represent Bundy. They did hold a hearing for this one already. The DC Board is really slow. I did see the bill of particulars for this one at one point.

3. Most recently, there is a case based on, I think, his attempt to sue every judge at the DC Court of Appeals.

[keith]

We'll have to live with disagreeing on this one. I maintain that the DCCA most certainly DID err in temporarily suspending his license. They should have cancelled it altogether, and permanently.

To be honest, I am not sure that the specific case was severe enough to warrant disbarment though I don't know how they determine levels.

You are thinking too much.

He's an asshole and he is wasting peoples time and energy.

Be done with him already.

[Foggy]

I suspect during [Klayman's] representation of [Montgomery], they lied to each other with wild abandon.

Ya think?

[bob]

Golfweek [USA Today]: Patrick Reed's attorney demands on-air apology from CNN's Jake Tapper, Bob Costas; threatens $450M lawsuit:

An attorney representing Patrick Reed has added yet another lawsuit to a lengthy list of recent filings against media companies and personalities.

During a segment on CNN last week, studio host Jake Tapper chatted with longtime announcer and reporter Bob Costas about the court battle between the PGA Tour and LIV Golf. A letter from Larry Klayman, the attorney representing Reed, is demanding an on-air apology from the duo for what it calls a “highly defamatory piece.”

If not, Klayman’s letter says his group reserves the right “to sue Tapper, Costas and CNN pursuant to Florida Statute 770.01 for damages well in excess of $450,000,000 dollars which includes compensatory, actual, special and punitive damages.”

It should be noted that the piece didn’t include a mention of Reed, who has fallen down to No. 80 on the Official World Golf Ranking since moving to LIV Golf.

In 2022, Klayman filed and then refiled a $750 million defamation lawsuit against Golf Channel’s Brandel Chamblee, Damon Hack, Shane Bacon, as well as Golfweek columnist Eamon Lynch and its parent company, Gannett, then added a $250 million lawsuit against author Shane Ryan, Hachette Publishing, the New York Post and Fox Sports, as well as Associated Press golf writer Doug Ferguson and the organization for whom he works.

[Luke]

UPDATE 3:50 pm ET: CNN senior vice president Matt Dornic provided a statement to Mediaite calling the lawsuit threat “frivolous” and stating that the network would “aggressively defend its reporting”:

"This would be a completely frivolous lawsuit, whose aim is to chill free speech and intimidate journalists from covering important stories about the Saudi government and the Saudi-backed LIV golf tournament. CNN will aggressively defend its reporting, which did not even mention the plaintiff in its coverage."

https://www.mediaite.com/sports/liv-gol ... ke-tapper/

[Sam the Centipede]

This circus now needs a new attorney representing Reed to sue Grossly Inappropriate Larry for the reputational damage caused to him by Klayman's frivolous lawsuits.

Could Orly dust off her law certificate and take up the fight?

[bob]

CNN will aggressively defend its reporting, which did not even mention the plaintiff in its coverage."

To be fair to Klayman, defamation doesn't require a person to be specifically named, provided the identity of the person targeted is sufficiently inferrable. ("Innuendo" is the legal term of art for this.)

But, yeah: a $450M nastygram will be roundfiled, along with all the other Klayman nastygrams.