Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23548
Complaint

Commentary from OBC

Quote:
Ultra Leftist Publications Use Klayman Children to Harm Him in Retaliation for His Legal Representation of Conservative Clients Fighting Radical Homosexual and Pro Illegal Immigrant Agendas

(Ocala, Florida, March 25, 2013). Today, Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch announced the filing of a lawsuit in federal court (Case No. 5:13-cv-00143 ACC –PRL) in Ocala, Florida, against City Pages and Phoenix New Times, both owned and operated by the ultra leftist media holding and parent company Voice Media Group. These companies and certain named reporters were sued for defamation and defamation by inference under Florida law, for having widely published domestically and internationally false and misleading statements that Klayman has committed and was convicted of the crime of sexually abusing his own two children. To the contrary, these charges having been leveled for strategic purposes by his ex wife, typically in a custody proceeding, which Klayman had initiated many years ago, were dismissed by the Cleveland Department of Children and Families, and the Sheriff and District Attorney of Cayahoga County. In addition, Klayman had voluntarily taken and passed a polygraph test, while his ex wife refused to do so over her false charges. The children also had admitted to investigators that they were coached by their mother and refused to implicate Klayman in any wrongdoing.

The complaint (see www.larryklayman.com) alleges that Defendants negligently, intentionally and maliciously sought to severely injure Klayman in retaliation for his legal representation of Bradlee Dean, a Christian preacher whose group, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide (YCR), teaches Judeo-Christian values to school children and who sued Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, an avowed lesbian, over her defamatory attacks on them for mentoring children to reject the homosexual lifestyle taught to children in many schools today. In addition, Klayman also alleges that the defamatory attacks on Klayman also amounted to retaliation over his legal representation of voters in Arizona who are opposing a recall petition to remove Sheriff Joe Arpaio from office. In each instance, the complaint alleges that the publications and their reporters who sought to harm Klayman are part of the radical gay, lesbian and transgender “rights” and pro illegal immigrant agendas of the far left. :roll:

Klayman stated: “To falsely use my young children to try to harm my clients and me is the lowest of the low and these sleazy ultra leftist publications and their reporters will pay a heavy legal price for doing so.”


Klayman is really busy filing "lawsuits".

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
The complaint is Klayman settling scores under the cover of the litigation privilege.

Page 10 is where Klayman tries to explain away the adverse finding of the magistrate.*

*
A joooooo!!! (alleges Klayman).

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9356
bob wrote:
The complaint is Klayman settling scores under the cover of the litigation privilege.

Page 10 is where Klayman tries to explain away the adverse finding of the magistrate.*

*
A joooooo!!! (alleges Klayman).


These kinds of allegations and this kind of conduct are what ultimately led to the injunction barring Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona, a.k.a. "Andy Martin" from continued federal litigation. Unfortunately, unlike the Illinois Bar, which had the prudence never to grant Andy Martin a license to practice law because of his mental instability, Klayman has been allowed to rampage through the courts for decades in a blizzard of frivolous litigation.

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
The Ohio case that was the basis for the articles. Nb.:
Quote:
on more than one occasion [Klayman] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with the children. His conduct may not have been sexual in the sense that he intended to or did derive any sexual pleasure from it or that he intended his children would. That, however, does not mean that he did not engage in those acts or that his behavior was proper.

Quote:
The magistrate further found it significant that although Klayman denied any allegations of sexual abuse, he never denied that he did not engage in inappropriate behavior with the children. The magistrate further found it notable that Klayman, “for all his breast beating about his innocence * * * [he] scrupulously avoided being questioned by anyone from [children services] or from the Sheriff’s Department about the allegations,” and that he refused to answer any questions, repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, about whether he inappropriately touched the children. “Even more disturbing” to the magistrate was the fact that Klayman would not even answer the simple question regarding what he thought inappropriate touching was.

The inevitable Klayman deposition in this suit would be SECR's dream!

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19943
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
I thought the poll results as to the second worst lawyer after Orly Taitz were wrong in having Klayman ahead of Berg. This complaint modifies my opinion. They're equally bad and despicable.

Klayman's first allegation is that he is a public figure. As a result, his nasty little pleading is doomed. As long as the defendants have some basis in fact to assert he's been inappropriate in some respect (and they even use the disclaimer "allegedly"), there is no malice as a matter of law. Klayman's attempt at malice once removed (they don't like Joe Arpaio and therefore they must not like me) is doomed to fail as well.

Beyond that, it is unlikely the court in Florida has personal jurisdiction over the dispute. And even if it did, considerations of judicial economy and convenience (which would support a "forum non conveniens" motion) would militate strongly to moving the lawsuit to Minnesota or Arizona.

My opinion: Klayman will lose the case. Whether the successful defendants will want to sue him for malicious prosecution is anybody's guess.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 1:27 pm
Posts: 331
Location: Centrally located
Occupation: Semi-retired lawyer
A further development in Klayman's Ohio case: having lost the direct appeal of his domestic relations case to the Ohio Supreme Court, he has now filed an action for a writ of mandamus, asking the OSC to order the lower courts to rule in his favor. Sure, that'll work.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ ... tyname.asp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9356
SuzieC wrote:
A further development in Klayman's Ohio case: having lost the direct appeal of his domestic relations case to the Ohio Supreme Court, he has now filed an action for a writ of mandamus, asking the OSC to order the lower courts to rule in his favor. Sure, that'll work.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ ... tyname.asp


You have to wonder at the staggering idiocy of a moron who does this. He loses a direct appeal and thinks the very court that just said the lower court was right is now going to order the lower court to make an incorrect ruling? Why? How fucking dumb do you have to be to engage in this kind of obviously unproductive, stupid activity?

Those of you who wonder why Orly still has a license to practice law should study the "career" of Larry Klansman. He has been acting like Orly since, literally, the first Clinton Administration and still has a license to practice.

Klayman's "practice" has been like the practice of a driver who, at his driver's test, runs over the instructor and three cops and they still give him a license, then he spends the next 20 years driving on the sidewalk and running over pedestrians, and yet his license is renewed regular as clockwork.

This is why Orly still has a license.

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23548
bob wrote:
The Ohio case that was the basis for the articles. Nb.:
Quote:
on more than one occasion [Klayman] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with the children. His conduct may not have been sexual in the sense that he intended to or did derive any sexual pleasure from it or that he intended his children would. That, however, does not mean that he did not engage in those acts or that his behavior was proper.

Quote:
The magistrate further found it significant that although Klayman denied any allegations of sexual abuse, he never denied that he did not engage in inappropriate behavior with the children. The magistrate further found it notable that Klayman, “for all his breast beating about his innocence * * * [he] scrupulously avoided being questioned by anyone from [children services] or from the Sheriff’s Department about the allegations,” and that he refused to answer any questions, repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, about whether he inappropriately touched the children. “Even more disturbing” to the magistrate was the fact that Klayman would not even answer the simple question regarding what he thought inappropriate touching was.

The inevitable Klayman deposition in this suit would be SECR's dream!


Indeed. \:D/

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Posts: 1870
Location: Hollywood (okay, the Valley)
Occupation: Some-time, big-time studio numbers shuffler; full-time gadfly
May I just ask these questions -- entirely rhetorical?

1) WHY can't Birfers spell the names of the people they sue? Aaron RupAr, not Ruper.
2) WHAT is a false alias? Would that be a real name???
3) WHO is doing the defamation here? Perhaps SCREW Magazine wants to sue old Larry Boy.
4) HOW can a publication be a homosexual "lifestyle"? Or any lifestyle, actually?
5) WHEN did it become okay to SMEAR individuals when suing them for defamation?
6) WHERE in the Torah or the Midrash or The Shuchan Aruch does it say that one can be a Jewish Christian.

Okay, that's the 5 W's and an H, in honor of these poor journalists attacked by KKKlayman.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9356
ObjectiveDoubter wrote:
May I just ask these questions -- entirely rhetorical?

1) WHY can't Birfers spell the names of the people they sue? Aaron RupAr, not Ruper.


Because to birfers, the only important person in a lawsuit is ME ME ME ME ME. Why would they bother spelling anyone's name correctly? Those people aren't important, except as people whose heads are to be put on pikes for the glory of the birfer.

Quote:
2) WHAT is a false alias? Would that be a real name???


A moronic use of language by a legal ignoramus, who nevertheless has a license to practice law, as they jokingly told us was a "learned profession" in law school. This was apparently an attempt at humor. I'm not finding it funny, though.

Quote:
3) WHO is doing the defamation here? Perhaps SCREW Magazine wants to sue old Larry Boy.


They had a really scandalous name, plus it was run by a guy named Goldstein. Really Jewy, right? So he must be bad.

Quote:
4) HOW can a publication be a homosexual "lifestyle"? Or any lifestyle, actually?


How can anything Larry Klansman says even be taken seriously when he apparently didn't bother even learning the English language, much less any language spoken by lawyers?

Quote:
5) WHEN did it become okay to SMEAR individuals when suing them for defamation?


The litigation privilege! The one thing Larry Klansman understands! He can say whatever crazy, lying-ass shit he likes in a legal complaint, and it is privileged against defamation.

Quote:
6) WHERE in the Torah or the Midrash or The Shuchan Aruch does it say that one can be a Jewish Christian.

Okay, that's the 5 W's and an H, in honor of these poor journalists attacked by KKKlayman.


I seem to recall there's a name for people who believe Jesus is the Son of God.

They're called Christians. At least the ones who actually believe that are called that. I'm not sure what to call Larry Klansman.

Oh, yeah.

A motherfucker. A lying, scumbag motherfucker. So there's that.

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 2107
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
The litigation privilege! The one thing Larry Klansman understands! He can say whatever crazy, lying-ass shit he likes in a legal complaint, and it is privileged against defamation.

The complaint linked to in this thread is posted on www .larryklayman.com. I'm not saying that anyone named in the complaint necessarily has a defamation case against him, but if Klayman himself posted this complaint on his web site, is the content still protected by the litigation privilege?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 5518
Location: You Sue-We Serve Legal Support Services, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96813
Wouldn't it be far simpler for Larry to ask his buddy Joe Arpaio to arrest Mike Lacey? :-

_________________
“I can assure you that already in the Pavlovian swamps of the nutso right, the glands are swelling. Theirs is a different planet from the one you and I inhabit. ” - Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent and editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Michael Tomasky, May 12, 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Posts: 4917
Location: Glocca Morra
The Phoenix New Times doesn't think much of Klayman.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... imes_i.php

Quote:
Um, okay. This, coming from someone who introduced a "birther" affidavit from Arpaio as evidence in an actual courtroom.


Edit: They actually seem kinda amused at being a defendant :)

_________________
"What's it like being an atheist? It's like being the only sober person in a car full of drunks, and they refuse to let you drive." Thomas Jefferson

Birtherism is so ridiculous that I no longer feel obligated to treat proponents w/slightest degree of respect or civility


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23548
GreatGrey wrote:
The Phoenix New Times doesn't think much of Klayman.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... imes_i.php

Quote:
Um, okay. This, coming from someone who introduced a "birther" affidavit from Arpaio as evidence in an actual courtroom.


Edit: They actually seem kinda amused at being a defendant :)


So my question is what, exactly, are this asshole's damages? His reputation as an attorney is that he's a vexatious idiot. On a personal level he's a "writer" for friggin' WND, a deadbeat dad, et cetera. 8>

I mean, he sued his own mother, for crying out loud.

And for any of you birthers who don't believe that... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... watch.html

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:19 am
Posts: 241
Location: Chicago area - Illinois
I poked around to attempt to find a case that Klayman actually won. I thought checking the Freedom Watch website might highlight those cases. Unfortunately, the ones he highlighted were all eventually dismissed, or are new. Has this guy ever won a case? He even managed to mess up an FOIA case (Freedom Watch v. Department of State).

This will be easy work for City Pages. Who knows, given he already has a public reprimand in Florida, maybe he will be nice enough to give the Florida Bar something to disbar him with.

_________________
"ignoring Orly Taitz is not among the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1962" – Memorandum in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9356
AnitaMaria wrote:
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
The litigation privilege! The one thing Larry Klansman understands! He can say whatever crazy, lying-ass shit he likes in a legal complaint, and it is privileged against defamation.

The complaint linked to in this thread is posted on www .larryklayman.com. I'm not saying that anyone named in the complaint necessarily has a defamation case against him, but if Klayman himself posted this complaint on his web site, is the content still protected by the litigation privilege?


Short answer: possibly not! He can figure out the details himself. Actually, he probably can't. But it's really up to him.

Edit: The gnarly details are unlikely to be that important. This clown has a very bad habit of spewing all kinds of bullshit all the time, so it probably won't matter. In any event, while I would not be optimistic about someone pursuing a defamation claim about a legal complaint even an idiot like Larry Klayman posted on his website, his posting of it is not necessarily protected. It might be. But it also might not be.

The issue is that (to edit again) he has an absolute privilege against defamation in the statements in the actual complaint itself. To the extent he repeats these same allegations outside a legal pleading, they are subject at most to what is called a "qualified" privilege. This qualified privilege is somewhat like that applying to those reporting his own legal travails.

You'd think he'd have some idea of the state of the law in this area. After all, he's the one filing a defamation complaint based upon people repeating a magistrate's findings that he "inappropriately" touched his children. A legal complaint in which his first factual allegation, as Sterngard points out, is that he is a public figure.

And (to edit again), if there is a single fact that would result in your complaint immediately being subject to dismissal, you don't make it the first factual allegation in your own complaint. You hope the other side doesn't notice it. What Klansman did is akin to saying, at the opening of his frivolous complaint, "and the reason you chuck my frivolous pile of shit off your docket immediately is X."

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Also: The rule Klayman is suggesting is stupid. E.g., OJ Simpson. Yes, Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal trial. But he also was found liable in a civil trial for causing the death of his ex-wife and Goldman. But under Klayman's proposed rule, every media outlet could not rely on a civil trial's actual result, and must instead independently research whether the trial's result was accurate.
Especially if "rubber stamped" by a bunch of joooooos!!!

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9356
Another detail of Klansman's utter incompetence. He based his appeal, that put his "inappropriate" behavior into a published appellate record that is now in physical books in every legal library in Ohio, on challenges to the factual findings of a magistrate.

He didn't have to do this. It was only barely relevant to his appeal, whether his claims are remotely accurate or not, and considering it's Larry Klansman, I doubt they are.

In appellate practice, the most difficult claims to succeed on (even if you are a competent attorney which Klansman is not) are claims based on fact-findings by the trial court. In this case, that was the magistrate's findings. K. basically underlined those factual findings and made them the centerpiece of his appeal. He apparently didn't even consider the potential results of this.

This is quite similar to how he underlines the fact that he is a public figure, by screaming LOOK AT MEEEEEEE in his complaint against the defendants in his new case, underlining again that he has to meet the much higher actual malice standard in order to survive an anti-SLAPP motion or, for that matter, a Rule 11 sanctions motion when the issue comes to the court of how frivolous, exactly, his new frivolous lawsuit is.

Is he actually too stupid to consider these things before filing a suit? Or is he so mentally ill that he just ignores these things in some kind of suicidal frenzy? It's hard to know. How incompetent do you have to be to file an appeal when the appeal itself, based on totally frivolous claims of factual inaccuracy, will just advertise incredibly damaging facts to the public?

If you did this for a paying client, you'd be subject to a malpractice lawsuit. Unluckily for Klansman, he was his own lawyer, and as the saying goes, had a fool for a client.

What's my advice for someone who isn't insane in the same situation?

Well, as it relates to the "inappropriate" touching of his children, let sleeping dogs lie. He has lost every bout in his pathetic and disgraceful family law dispute, and should have left this issue where it belonged, in family court. Where it would have remained private, true or not. The wide publicity it had was entirely his own fault. For very good reasons, the often scabrous details of family law disputes remain generally private, and are generally of no interest to the public.

However, if he had to bring this to an appellate court (and I can see no reason any sane person would have done so), he should have framed it as a legal dispute rather than a factual dispute. Legal issues are reviewed de novo, that is, the appeals court decides the issue itself, as if the lower court had never ruled. The legal issue would be that the magistrate and the lower court were in legal error even to reach a decision on this factual issue, since it was irrelevant. This would be a losing argument, but it would be better than what Klansman did. Another competent, but losing approach would be to make it a mixed issue of law and fact, and make the issue of law determinative.

I actually am not certain at all that the lower court was legally correct to make such scandalous conclusions. But Klansman completely fucked up even approaching that issue.

Then, the next issue of Klansman's incompetence. He emphasizes that he's a public figure in his complaint almost immediately. He shouldn't have done that. He should have at least tried to claim that he was a private figure at least for the purposes of these scabrous allegations. . .even though the fact that he personally publicized them himself undercuts that.

Actually, the wisest thing for Klansman to do is STFU. But he won't.

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Posts: 4917
Location: Glocca Morra
Wonkette is put out cuz Larry K didn't include them.

Quote:
If Bradlee was going to sue us, why won’t his terrible lawyer sue us? Goddammit! What are we, not pretty enough to be sued? Not young enough to be sued? Not ultra-leftist enough to be sued? Not malicious enough to be sued? OK, it could never be that last reason, as we are malicious as can be. Especially in this case, we should totally be sued, because we linked to the City Pages’ article about Klayman’s alleged child-touching. It is too boring and complicated to re-explain here, and if we did re-explain here, we wouldn’t get delicious page views to make you go read our old article on it.

http://wonkette.com/508443/in-which-won ... s-also-too

.

_________________
"What's it like being an atheist? It's like being the only sober person in a car full of drunks, and they refuse to let you drive." Thomas Jefferson

Birtherism is so ridiculous that I no longer feel obligated to treat proponents w/slightest degree of respect or civility


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 5518
Location: You Sue-We Serve Legal Support Services, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96813
Quote:
Who does a blog have to blow to get sued around here?


=)) =)) =))

_________________
“I can assure you that already in the Pavlovian swamps of the nutso right, the glands are swelling. Theirs is a different planet from the one you and I inhabit. ” - Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent and editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Michael Tomasky, May 12, 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Posts: 5954
Location: North of Eastern Midwest University
Occupation: Spark Chaser
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
Quote:
Who does a blog have to blow to get sued around here?


=)) =)) =))

You're naughty. I like you.

_________________
Image Image x 9


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:56 pm
Posts: 1860
Location: Exit 84
Those of you who enjoy a quality smackdown--particularly of a manipulative, incompetent fool like Klayman--will probably particularly enjoy this memorandum opinion from U.S. District Court (D.C.) Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, containing her denial of Klayman's motion for her recusal/disqualification. While obviously carefully written, it's a classic...a better smackdown for its more (and occasionally, less) subtle qualities...mostly because Judge Kollar-Kotelly makes it clear that Klayman pulled no wool over her eyes, managed to sneak nothing by her, and that she is simply bringing the swatter down on him as she would any pesky fly who had buzzed too long and often at the blueberry pie, and making it clear that Klayman is no more remarkable or impressive or important than any other self-aggrandizing fool trying to play games with the court.

Enjoy!

_________________

I have enlarged exhibits.
- Orly Taitz
Is Orly Taitz disbarred yet?
- Paul Lentz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 2107
Klayman subsequently sued Judge Kollar-Kotelly, U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle, the Judicial Council for the District of Columbia, and the Office of the Circuit Executive. I haven't seen the complaint, but the 9/26/2012 opinion dismissing the case (available via GPO here) seems unremarkable to me.

Klayman has appealed, of course. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9356
AnitaMaria wrote:
Klayman subsequently sued Judge Kollar-Kotelly, U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle, the Judicial Council for the District of Columbia, and the Office of the Circuit Executive. I haven't seen the complaint, but the 9/26/2012 opinion dismissing the case (available via GPO here) seems unremarkable to me.

Klayman has appealed, of course. :roll:


And like Orly, he wins because he still has a license to practice law and is not behind bars where he belongs.

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23548
Paul Lentz wrote:
Those of you who enjoy a quality smackdown--particularly of a manipulative, incompetent fool like Klayman--will probably particularly enjoy this memorandum opinion from U.S. District Court (D.C.) Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, containing her denial of Klayman's motion for her recusal/disqualification. While obviously carefully written, it's a classic...a better smackdown for its more (and occasionally, less) subtle qualities...mostly because Judge Kollar-Kotelly makes it clear that Klayman pulled no wool over her eyes, managed to sneak nothing by her, and that she is simply bringing the swatter down on him as she would any pesky fly who had buzzed too long and often at the blueberry pie, and making it clear that Klayman is no more remarkable or impressive or important than any other self-aggrandizing fool trying to play games with the court.

Enjoy!


Thanks, Paul. Indeed a great (and fun) read. \:D/

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group