The "Citizens' Grand Jury." (Larry Klayman)

[fortinbras]

A check of LEXIS shows that Larry Klayman's law firm has branches in DC and some other places and that he is favorite lawyer of the Republican right, for example representing Judicial Watch in a fight with the IRS (the IRS wanted to audit JW because it suspected that JW was operating as a tax exempt front for Klayman), representing Gennifer Flowers in lawsuits against the Clintons, other people against the Clintons, etc.

[LPC]

Klayman is a member of the DC bar (site does not permit linking directly to search result).

He's also a member of the Florida Bar, where he was reprimanded for failing to repay an unearned fee, according to the referee's report.

[GlimDropper]

I've never seen this happen before.,...

OK, I don't read nearly as many court decisions as most people around here but I read a pretty good number of them for a layman. How often does a Judge do this:

Instead, at the heart of the Court's concern is the message that condoning Klayman's conduct would send about the integrity of the judicial system. Based upon its years of experience with this litigation, and having witnessed firsthand Klayman's long and established pattern of openly disobeying court orders, the Court finds that a severe sanction is necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial system and to deter similar misconduct in the future. As previously mentioned, Klayman's conduct rises to a level and pattern of intransigence and disrespect for the Court's authority that is not often witnessed. His failures to comply with this Court's orders have been repeated, flagrant, and unrepentant. This Court has been exceedingly generous-perhaps too generous-in affording Klayman multiple opportunities to come into compliance with the Court's orders and has repeatedly warned him of the consequences that would result from non-compliance. Ultimately, the opportunities have been squandered and the warnings left unheeded. Klayman's flagrant disregard of this Court's authority, in face of the Court's patient efforts to secure his compliance, simply cannot stand without repercussions.

The only question that remains is the appropriate sanction. In this regard, the Court agrees with Defendants that the most appropriate sanction under these circumstances is to strike Klayman's defective contributions to the parties' revised Joint Pretrial Statement-namely, his (i) statement of the case, (ii) list of witnesses, (iii) list of exhibits, and (iv) deposition designations-and to preclude Klayman from introducing any witnesses or exhibits at the trial in this action. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is fully aware that this sanction precludes Klayman from presenting any affirmative evidence in support of his claims or in defense to the counterclaims asserted against him.

Link to the Memorandum of Opinion in question. Amusingly enough Larry was suing Judicial Watch, the organization he himself started which he left for his Florida senate run. Apparently there were some issues between the two. But I've never seen nor heard of anyone so completely pissing off a Judge as Mr. Klayman did here. Was there any way he could have sued himself for professional incompetence?

[Chados]

If he is suspended in PA, he's supposed to report that in Florida. One wonders if he has.

[Chados]

I bet not. Otherwise, The Florida Bar would have suspended him too, in my opinion.

[wserra]

And then there is Klayman's ongoing suit against Facebook, in which he has already been sanctioned once. Motion to dismiss pending.

Granted. Dismissed. Streak intact.

[notorial dissent]

It would seem that Klayman is trying to match Taitz in number of cases lost, although his loss count is seriously lagging against the current master.

At this point I think only FL and his eventual drubbing in AZ are all that remains.

[GlimDropper]

My father is facing a few medical issues and is spending some time in the hospital, I've been helping my mother with some things around their house, one of which is combing through the copious amount of junk mail my father receives on a daily basis. One of the letters that arrived today was from Larry Klayman's Freedom Watch.

One cute little item is that the goal of the letter is to attract contributions and in print much smaller than the "even old people can read this without glasses" typeface there are some following statements:

"Freedom Watch, Inc was incorporated on January 9, 1995"

"We have applied for a 501(c)(3) classification from the IRS."

Larry does not say that Freedom Watch is a 501c3, which is smart because it isn't. They're an 18 year old organization funded fully by contributions but they've never moved past not for profit to tax deductible.

The letter itself is Larry's standard "Mullah in Chief" Kenyan usurper crap. He claims that he is "the only lawyer in history to win a criminal court ruling against a sitting president - Bill Clinton." Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's lying about that.

But here's where I'm wondering if a (for the moment) practicing attorney just might be dancing a little too close to the line:

<Snip>

In fact, Freedom Watch and I are also taking many legal actions to address these criminal matters. This evidence will be presented to the Citizens Grand Juries and we will seek indictments against Hussein Obama and his comrades for these crimes as well. So our efforts are not just limited to his eligibility issues, but we will also seek indictments, try and convict Hussein Obama for his many acts of blatant treason against We the People.

<Snip>

But I am not afraid to do what's right!

And I am enlisting patriots just like you to participate in the most important legal proceedings in U.S. history. Members of the Freedom Watch Citizens Grand Juries will stare down tyranny and turn the tide of injustice! With your much-needed financial support, you can help ensure that the truth wins out.

You see, legal actions, court cases, and jury oversight are expensive undertakings. But, in the same way that America's Founding Fathers worked together to break free from King George III, together you and I can realize victory against the despot Hussein Obama, who is far worse than even King George III, if we jointly pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to legally expel Hussein Obama and restore America to her former greatness!

<Snip>

Now I need your urgent help, to back the Freedom Watch Citizens Grand Jury effort to put Hussein Obama away in prison, "where the sun doesn't shine," -- for his treasonous acts -- and the other Freedom Watch lawsuits that are designed to remove him form office.

<Snip>

[Anti-Obama screed to stupid to type] The Freedom Watch Citizens Grand Juries my friend, could very well be our last line of defense!

So, please, for the sake of our beloved country -- the nation we seek to pass down to our children and grand children -- send your best possible gift to Freedom Watch today. The longer we delay, the closer America gets to full - fledged tyranny!

My friend, is $10,000 too high a price to restore our Constitutional Republic? Is $25,000 too much to remove Barack Hussein Obama, the illegitimate Black Muslim, socialist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian usurper and traitor, from Washington, D.C. and the national body politic?

[Father's name], I believe you're the 21st century patriot who, with one stroke in your checkbook, can stand up to King Obama I and his hateful friends, like so-called Revs. Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson -- all anti-Semitic prostitutes who hate true Christians and people of true faith.

Please, Freedom Watch, your country, and I need you now!

In defense of truth, freedom and the American way of life,

[signature]
Larry Klayman, Esq.

P.S. Freedom Watch's Citizens Grand Juries will indict the mullah in chief, seek to try him for his treasonous acts, and have him thrown in prision with other criminals. Then, Obama will be the warning for future American presidents to not defraud the American people and engage in treasonous acts that harm and threaten America's very survival.

God it hurts my head to type that crap.

But, speaking as a licensed attorney he seems rather strongly to imply that his Citizens Grand Juries have legal authority and the power to issue orders other than off a Denny's menu. Is it in any way a violation of ethical standards for an attorney to solicit donations for a make believe legal action to be heard by a "let's just pretend we're a" grand jury? Please, after reading and typing out all that crap I feel a desperate need to talk to a used car salesman to restore my faith in goodness of humanity, can Larry get in trouble for this crap?

[notorial dissent]

As an aside, since when have ethics, integrity, honesty, or reality been a consideration for Klayman?

[Chados]

Is it in any way a violation of ethical standards for an attorney to solicit donations for a make believe legal action to be heard by a "let's just pretend we're a" grand jury? Please, after reading and typing out all that crap I feel a desperate need to talk to a used car salesman to restore my faith in goodness of humanity, can Larry get in trouble for this crap?

Yes. All someone need do is report him to The Florida Bar.

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBConsum ... enDocument

[notorial dissent]

I would suspect that at this point Klayman has his very own filing cabinet for complaints with the FL bar, considering his behavior the last couple of years. Now whether they will actually do anything about it is open to debate, they don't seem to have done much to date.

[grixit]

I would suspect that at this point Klayman has his very own filing cabinet Repository! for complaints with the FL bar, considering his behavior the last couple of years. Now whether they will actually do anything about it is open to debate, they don't seem to have done much to date.

Fixed it for you.

[notorial dissent]

Too true!

[wserra]

Well, Klayman is at it again.

A few days ago, he filed a civil RICO suit in DCDC (14cv1484) against three people whose names you would expect to see on a Klayman complaint (President Obama, former SecState Clinton and present SecState Kerry), one whose name you wouldn't (U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon) and an organization upon which service might prove difficult (Hamas). In the 55-page complaint, Klayman (who is an individual plaintiff as well as the plaintiffs' attorney) alleges a conspiracy involving "funding within the United States of America – through fraud, money-laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, conversion and corruption – of terrorism, violence, organized crime, and warfare committed by HAMAS operating in and around Gaza and Israel".

Forget, for the moment, whether this makes any sense at all - how does Klayman have standing to sue individually? You see, he was in Israel at the time of Hamas attacks. Was he injured? Well, no, but he was "in range of indiscriminate and untargeted military attacks". Ooh. I'm in range of Russia's nuclear missiles. I'm scared of getting vaporized. Can I sue? Please? Please?

What did all these folks do to aid Hamas? Well, the "Defendants, each and every one of them, have aided and abetted and conspired to commit said acts of international terrorism, resulting in the killing, attempted killin (sic), kidnapping and maiming of scores of American and dual American-Israeli citizens in Israel since September 2000". And how did they do that? Why, by enforcing the law of the land. That's not how Klayman puts it, of course, but that's what it amounts to. His sources include a commentator on Egyptian television, writer Pamela "Creeping Sharia" Geller (proud winner of the Guardian of Freedom award by the Nassau County Federation of Republican Women, not to mention “American Patriot of the Year” from the Queens Village Republican Club), and mainly (of course) his employer, World Nut Daily.

And to what does all this nefariousness entitle Klayman & Co.? The modest sum of $1.5 billion.

The case was assigned to a new DJ, Tanya Chutkan. Judge Chutkan is a former DC public defender, as well as a former partner at Boies Schiller. I'm sure she'll just love Klayman.

[fortinbras]

There are serious problems with Larry Klayman's RICO suit against Obama, Hillary, and the UN Sec-Gen (I am sure that statement comes as a complete surprise).

You'd think that a lawyer - and Larry Klayman really are one - would know that, under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, ratified by the US Congress on Feb. 13, 1946, 21 UST 1418, says, in Article V § 19, that the Secretary-General (and all other UN officials) have full diplomatic immunity.
There are plenty of US court decisions recognizing that UN immunity: e.g. Brzak v. United Nations (2d Cir 2010) 597 F.3d 107 cert.den (10/4/2010) _US_, 131 S.Ct 151; Van Aggelen v. United Nations (2d Cir., Feb 20, 2009) 311 Fed.Appx 407; US v. Bahel (2d Cir. 2011) 662 F.3d 610.

There are other problems with framing a RICO suit against anybody. And just because Klayman is a lawyer is no assurance that the judge will confirm that Klayman is allowed to handle a class action suit; the Federal Rules give the judge the final say on whether a particular lawyer has all the know-how and so forth to represent a multitude all at once, and there have been plenty of instances of judges insisting that the plaintiff class get different representation.

And Klayman has fallen into the nutty litigants' rut of suing on a criminal charge with the punchline that he doesn't want any criminal penalties for the opposition if he, personally, is paid a lot of money.

[notorial dissent]

There are serious problems with Larry Klayman's RICO suit against Obama, Hillary, and the UN Sec-Gen (I am sure that statement comes as a complete surprise).

You mean besides reality, standing, and jurisdiction?????

You'd think that a lawyer - and Larry Klayman really are one - would know that...

Klayman allegedly went to a real brick and mortar law school, unlike someone else who files whackjob lawsuits, but that doesn't necessarily mean he knows better. I have always had the feeling that he slept through, or simply skipped most of the classes he was supposed to take, notably the ones on ethics and responsibility.

I'm not sure if there is even anything here that is justicable when it comes right down to it.

Klayman has proven time and time again that he is incapable of even managing one of his own cases let alone a class action, and since he is always pleading poverty, there would also be the question of how he would cover the costs.

In other words, more Klayman waste of judicial time and resources.

[LPC]

Well, Klayman is at it again.

A few days ago, he filed a civil RICO suit in DCDC (14cv1484) against three people whose names you would expect to see on a Klayman complaint (President Obama, former SecState Clinton and present SecState Kerry), [...]

Well, the "Defendants, each and every one of them, have aided and abetted and conspired to commit said acts of international terrorism, resulting in the killing, attempted killin (sic), kidnapping and maiming of scores of American and dual American-Israeli citizens in Israel since September 2000". And how did they do that? Why, by enforcing the law of the land. That's not how Klayman puts it, of course, but that's what it amounts to.

I believe that there is a Supreme Court decision out there somewhere, in which a Supreme Court justice wrote that it is "not a tort to govern," by which I think he meant that you can't sue the government (or its officials) just because you disagree with the policy decisions that they make, don't like the consequences of their policy decisions, or are harmed by their policy decisions.

[notorial dissent]

True, but that's not going to stop Leisure Suit Larry from stamping hims not so widdle feets and pouting and demanding $1.5B to go away. I am still of the opinion that that constitutes legalistic extortion, since he has neither cause, injury, or jurisdiction, let alone waver of immunity, and as you say gov't policy is not subject to his approval. He really does need to be soundly spanked and sent to his room without supper.

[grixit]

You'd think that a lawyer - and Larry Klayman really are one - would know that, under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, ratified by the US Congress on Feb. 13, 1946, 21 UST 1418, says, in Article V § 19, that the Secretary-General (and all other UN officials) have full diplomatic immunity.

No problemo, he just needs to take his case to The Hague.

[JamesVincent]

A few days ago, he filed a civil RICO suit in DCDC (14cv1484) against three people whose names you would expect to see on a Klayman complaint (President Obama, former SecState Clinton and present SecState Kerry),....

...."Defendants, each and every one of them, have aided and abetted and conspired to commit said acts of international terrorism, resulting in the killing, attempted killin (sic), kidnapping and maiming of scores of American and dual American-Israeli citizens in Israel since September 2000".

Only one little problem with that, oh hell, there's a bunch of problems but really. Obama wasn't in any government office at that time. Neither was Hilary. Even if you could count being First Lady as an office with governmental power, really stretching it there, she had no official position in government. And Kerry was only a Senator, no real power there. So..... how do you sue someone for a tort, and giving a specific time frame, and giving it as foreign policy, when they were in no position to commit said tort in that timeframe?

Even beyond all the other flaws in his action, besides being illegal and all that, I mean really, none of them had any power in 2000 to be able to cause the damage. If you had wanted to really go after someone responsible (still illegal but hey, lets give it a whirl) in the timeframe mentioned you would have to sue Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama since they would have been the ones actually in power, in that timeframe, to have had responsibility for foreign policy. But I'm trying to make sense again, never works out when trying to look through these people's actions.