I hope Farah is paying his lawyer hourly and that his lawyer wasn't stoopid enough to take this dog on a contingency.

Plaintiffs are world-renowned authors and publishers who have consistently and comprehensively covered the issues related to President Obama’s eligibility to be president and the validity of his birth certificate.

Plaintiffs attempted but failed to serve defendants Hearst Communications, Inc. and Mark Warren. fn6 On July 25, 2011, Defendants accepted service in exchange for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to and including September 6, 2011.

fn6 - 6 Plaintiffs failed to serve a Summons on Hearst Communications, a requisite to proper service under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). Plaintiffs also failed to serve Mark Warren properly. Plaintiffs sent a copy of the Summons and Complaint to Mr. Warren via certified mail, however, he never signed for nor received it when it was delivered to Hearst Corporation’s New York address on July 14, 2011.

I love Klayman's lie right at the beginning, in a paean to his scurrilous clients:

This leads me to believe he's charging them hourly for his "services."

If the plaintiffs are world-renowned authors and publishers, how can he argue in another section of his brief that they are not public figures? I am confuzzled.

It is also reasonable that readers would demand refunds after the credibility and accuracy of the book have been attacked.

I notice on PACER that Esquire filed its Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss earlier this week.

I don't recall reading a post about motions, hearings, rulings, etc for this lawsuit for about a month now. Have there been any additions on PACER? Thanks in advance.

I have and have had very little funds, as my financial situation continues to be dire. I do not own any investments or retirement plans and just have a few pieces of jewelry and clothing, a television, a radio, a bed and clothing and shoes. I rent my apartment. The jewelry is a watch which is of negligible value, and consists of a watch and a ring valued currently under $200.00.

MINUTE ORDER granting [7] Defendants' Motion to Stay discovery and the parties' obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 pending the Court's ruling on [4] Defendants' special motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 1/30/2012. (KD)

Something happened!



Also, Larry Klayman submitted a Motion asking for a telephone status hearing. And he signed it in the traditional Orly fashion: "/s/". Just "/s/".

Something happened!



Also, Larry Klayman submitted a Motion asking for a telephone status hearing. And he signed it in the traditional Orly fashion: "/s/". Just "/s/".

Wha? Joey won't give him any traveling money?

Cheap-ass.

So can anything be inferred by this granting of a stay, or is it pretty much SOP?

It's pretty standard, especially in federal court. But the fact that the judge finally ruled on this months-old motion might mean that there could be some other movement in the case soon.

I wonder what flavor tears Corsi squirts.

WND gets good news in suit against Esquire
Magazine facing $250 million action for false report
Published: 22 hours ago

A federal court’s recent ruling that the District of Columbia’s anti-defamation statute does not apply in federal cases could help move forward a federal lawsuit brought by WND against Esquire magazine for its false report that the WND Books expose “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President” had been recalled and repudiated by the publisher.

The WND case is being held up because Esquire has filed a motion to dismiss based on D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect media and public figures from frivolous lawsuits.

But the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ruled Feb. 2 in a case brought by the multinational corporation 3M against former Bill Clinton adviser Lanny Davis that D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law does not apply in federal cases.

WND’s attorney, Larry Klayman, said he has notified Judge Rosemary Collier of the ruling in the Davis-3M case and urged her to apply it to WND’s case and deny Esquire’s special motion to dismiss.

EXPEDITED MOTION TO VACATE STAY ORDER OF JANUARY 30, 2012 AND REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE

On January 27, 2012, Plaintiffs respectfully requested a telephonic status conference (Docket No. 13). Three days later, on January 30, 2012 this Court granted Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending the Court's Ruling on Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs hereby respectfully renew their motion for a telephonic status conference and move to vacate the Stay Order.

This Court has stayed discovery based on the DC Anti-SLAPP statute. This statute has recently been held inapplicable in this District Court. 3M Corporation v. Boulter, No. 11-cv-1527 (RLW) (D.D.C.).Thus, the Stay Order should respectfully be immediately vacated and Defendants' Special Motion to Dismiss should respectfully be disposed of as soon as practicable. This case must respectfully move forward and the sides should set a time for a discovery conference as provided in Rule 26 of Fed. R. Civ. P. The complaint in this action was filed June 28, 2012, about ten months ago, and Plaintiffs would like to move forward, especially since there is continuing harm being caused by Defendants. Plaintiffs respectfully request a telephonic status conference in the next days so the Court can set up a timetable for proceeding forward with the case.