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

[Chados]

I kid you not.

http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/

What say you, Quatloosians?

[LightinDarkness]

I wonder which Denny's in Florida hosted this must august body of legal righteousness?

[Burnaby49]

I wonder which Denny's in Florida hosted this must august body of legal righteousness?

I'm guessing they use Olive Garden in Florida.

[GlimDropper]

I'm not so sure that this is sovereign Hooey, this is more like "the media used to talk about me but doesn't anymore so I'm going to stomp and storm like a petulant and pissed of preschooler" Hooey.

Larry Klayman used to sue the Clinton's for any reason he could think of and was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife and lauded by Rush Limbaugh for doing so. Now all he has is a column in World Net Daily where he calls Obama the "Mullah in Chief" and commenters poke him with sticks. And for as bad as his professional life has become his personal life is still worse.

Sad, sick and pathetic old man.

[notorial dissent]

Makes me wonder if FL has a counterfeit of Judicial Process statute? I certainly think this would qualify.

[Kestrel]

I wonder which Denny's in Florida hosted this must august body of legal righteousness?

I notice his Home Page says "First Grand Jury held in Ocala, FL." There is one Denny's restaurant in Ocala, and another 5 miles away in Silver Springs, FL.

No need to clutter up Olive Garden, or go to the expense.

[fortinbras]

from my compilation:

And regarding make-believe grand juries: Grand juries are convened and supervised by courts within their districts, and the members of the grand jury are selected at random from a fair cross section of the district population. Courts will not accept, nor recognize, any attempted indictments or other presentments from make-believe grand juries, not validly convened or chosen. In re Super American Grand Jury (DDC 7/2/2009); ditto In re American Grand Jury a/k/a Super Grand Jury II (MD Tenn 11/6/2009). Setting up one of these make-believe grand juries is a very effective way to get into serious trouble. State v. Wickstrom (1984) 118 Wis.2d 339, 348 NW2d 183; Wickstrom v. Schardt (7th Cir 1986) 798 F2d 268; State v. J.E.B. (1991) 161 Wis.2d 659, 469 NW2d 192 cert.den 503 US 940.

I will add that I had seen announcements, going back to the Montana Freemen, the Republic of Texas, and similar organizaitions, that among their first "official" efforts would be setting up a "grand jury" of their own - populated by its own volunteer enthusiasts, who already had a chip on their shoulder, with the organization's own pseudolegal training - with a view toward indicting anyone who stood in their way. Membership in this grand jury was treated as a long-term public office. Apparently this make-believe grand jury would have some muscle in the organization's intended version of the militia.

[wserra]

Courts will not accept, nor recognize, any attempted indictments or other presentments from make-believe grand juries, not validly convened or chosen. In re Super American Grand Jury (DDC 7/2/2009)

In re Super American Grand Jury, 09-mc-346 (DDC), was an amusing bit of legal trivia. A bunch of wackos tried to file an indictment for treason and fraud (mainly birfer nonsense) against Obama in DC federal court. The "grand jury" had convened not - as some of you naively assume - at a Denny's, but rather "online in a private website". Sounds secure to me, right? The "grand jury" supposedly had 172 members, not counting those who had to be on hand to provide water and nourishment to the grand jurors in straitjackets.

Anyway, Chief Judge Lamberth refused to allow the filings, for obvious reasons. They ask him to reconsider, and he actually does. He orders that the "presentments" will be filed upon paying the $350 filing fee, and then will be immediately dismissed. That wasn't what the "grand jurors" had in mind. They grumble and fulminate about how the order is "outrageous" and "out of the question". They threaten that dismissing the case would be "Obstruction of Justice" and "an attack on the Constitution and the People" and "Misprision of Treason or Felony". Ooh, big words. They finish: "Refusing to act is no longer an option".

Well, they never pay, Judge Lamberth never acts, and Obama is re-elected. Do these guys ever realize how much they resemble six-year-olds threatening to stamp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue?

[ashlynne39]

So I looked at the website and on this page (http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/121026-article.php), he says:

The website also contains discussions of the legal basis for Citizens' Grand Juries, which have been held to be as constitutional as the grand jury, according to a Supreme Court decision United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

I just looked up the case and maybe I missed it but I'm not seeing where US v. Williams held citizens' grand juries to be constitutional. Thoughts? Anyone else looked at this case? I'm wondering if this case is one often cited by the sovereign crowd as "proof" that what they are doing is legal.

[Judge Roy Bean]

So I looked at the website and on this page (http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/121026-article.php), he says:

The website also contains discussions of the legal basis for Citizens' Grand Juries, which have been held to be as constitutional as the grand jury, according to a Supreme Court decision United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

I just looked up the case and maybe I missed it but I'm not seeing where US v. Williams held citizens' grand juries to be constitutional. Thoughts? Anyone else looked at this case? I'm wondering if this case is one often cited by the sovereign crowd as "proof" that what they are doing is legal.

You have to remember who their audience is and how little they know, let alone understand about the judicial system. It matters not that anyone outside their sphere of influence is laughing or ignoring them.

[fortinbras]

US v. Williams (1992) 504 US 36, 112 S.Ct 1735, 118 L.Ed.2d 352, said NOTHING about the so-called "Citizens Grand Juries". It dealt with whether prosecutors were obliged to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, which might result in the defendant not being indicted and put through the wringer. The Supreme Court held that this was not obligatory.

Far from even accepting the notion of unofficial grand juries, the Court reiterated the fact that grand juries were part and parcel of the entire court system, under the supervision of the judges, etc., all things that seem to negative the notion of unofficial grand juries.

[Chados]

What gets me is that this character is an actual member of The Florida Bar. Yes, he is a real, no-joke, licensed attorney. For now, at least. And all the poor nutbags and wackadoodles in that part of the state are buying into this craziness because he's an attorney. He's got billboards on I-75, too.

As notorial dissent cogently observed, Florida *does* have a statute aimed at this-section 843.0855(2) and (3) Fla. Stat. would seem to apply. But the question is: Will the local State Attorney step up and take him on?

[ashlynne39]

So I looked at the website and on this page (http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/121026-article.php), he says:

The website also contains discussions of the legal basis for Citizens' Grand Juries, which have been held to be as constitutional as the grand jury, according to a Supreme Court decision United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992)

I just looked up the case and maybe I missed it but I'm not seeing where US v. Williams held citizens' grand juries to be constitutional. Thoughts? Anyone else looked at this case? I'm wondering if this case is one often cited by the sovereign crowd as "proof" that what they are doing is legal.

You have to remember who their audience is and how little they know, let alone understand about the judicial system. It matters not that anyone outside their sphere of influence is laughing or ignoring them.

I know. It just throws me that this guy is actually an attorney. He's not some Joe who is a "self-trained" lawyer. He actually went to law school, graduated, got licensed, and worked in the justice department (or so he says). While that doesn't guarantee smart and ethical, but I guess I just expect more.

[notorial dissent]

I mean really, what is so difficult about having fictional case law to back up a fictional "citizens" grand jury? Makes perfect sense to, well them. The rest of us, not so much!!

[wserra]

It just throws me that this guy is actually an attorney.

Well, sort of. His legal exploits are not exactly the stuff of legend.

His most recent embarrassment is his suit on behalf of whackjob Christian fundamentalist Bradlee Dean against Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. It's not worth going into the details; Google the names and they are readily available. Very short version: libel suit filed in July of 2011. Klayman crows in a CBS interview with Michelle Tafoya that it would cost MSNBC hundreds of millions, and that Maddow's career was over. It didn't exactly work out that way. Within a few months it was clear that not only was D.C. Superior Court Judge Joan Zeldon going to dismiss the case, but she was considering sanctions per DC's SLAPP statute. In February of this year, Klayman attempted to cut and run by filing a voluntary dismissal. Maddow objected to the dismissal, and Zeldon refused to grant it. (Were I Judge Zeldon, I could not have resisted noting that the name of Dean's organization is "You Can Run But You Can't Hide, Inc.") In June, Judge Zeldon ordered Maddow's lawyers to submit an accounting of their fees and disbursements. Dum-da-DUM-DUM. On June 25, she ordered Dean to pay them. Dean appeals, and moves to stay execution of the order. Denied. Dean moves to recuse Judge Zeldon. Denied. Motion to reconsider. Denied. Case dismissed with prejudice last Wednesday. That's about as thorough a legal whipping as one can get short of being ordered flogged in the public square.

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

And plenty more.

[LPC]

It just throws me that this guy is actually an attorney.

Not exactly. He's currently on "administrative suspension" in Pennsylvania.

The web page doesn't say why he's on administrative suspension, but the possible grounds are:

1. Failed to pay the annual fee and/or file the form required by subdivisions (a) and (d) of Enforcement Rule 219;

2. Was reported to the Court by the Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education Board under Rule 111(b), Pa.R.C.L.E., for having failed to satisfy the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules for Continuing Legal Education;

3. Failed to pay any expenses taxed pursuant to Enforcement Rule 208(g); or

4. Failed to meet the requirements for maintaining a limited law license as a Limited In-House Corporate Counsel, a foreign legal consultant, an attorney participant in defender and legal services programs pursuant to Pa.B.A.R. 311, or a military attorney.

Most likely causes are #1 and #2.

But regardless of the reasons for the administrative suspension, he is required to give notice to his clients and stop practicing law in Pennsylvania. See Pa. Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 217. Failure to comply with Rule 217 is grounds for further discipline, including disbarment. See Pa. Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 203(b)(3), and Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. John Francis Licari.

It may even be a crime to continue to hold oneself out as a lawyer while under administrative suspension. See items 4 and 6 of this "standard guidance" from the Disciplinary Board.

[wserra]

US v. Williams (1992) 504 US 36, 112 S.Ct 1735, 118 L.Ed.2d 352, said NOTHING about the so-called "Citizens Grand Juries". It dealt with whether prosecutors were obliged to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, which might result in the defendant not being indicted and put through the wringer. The Supreme Court held that this was not obligatory.

Right. As usual, on the rare occasions when these guys cite any law at all, they miscite it.

I did find a site (called "Renew America") where some constitutional scholar named Mark McGrew attempts to use Williams to sanction "common law grand juries". It's just what you would expect. He quotes Scalia (who wrote the majority in the 5-4 decision) in differentiating the grand jury from the courts, the only point of which is to permit the holding that court rules and practices don't apply to grand juries. (Although some do - privilege, for example - and Scalia's rubric doesn't supply any means to determine which do and which don't. But I digress.) From Scalia's fairly generic language, McGrew takes a breathtaking leap to:

the Grand Jury is a tool for the citizens to use against a criminal government or our government acting against the designs of our Constitution. And it was specifically designed to prosecute the criminal actions of government employees and their lawyers.

Any judge who tells a jury to "disregard that remark or disregard that evidence" is violating the U.S. Constitution and can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury.

None of that, of course, is supported by anything.

[notorial dissent]

I keep running in to Klayman in regard to things birther, and largely FL. Is he mainly licensed out of FL, or is that just where he is finding his current crop of whack jobs?

What is his story? It sounds like he is practicing law from an unregistered reality from what I have seen.

[wserra]

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

[Kestrel]

I found these choice tidbits in Larry Klayman's bio:

In 2004, Larry ran for the U.S. Senate as a Republican in Florida's primary.

In that election Larry got 1.14% of the votes, coming in 7th in a field of eight. Why would anyone believe that was an accomplishment?

The author of two books, Fatal Neglect and Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment, Larry has a third book in the works dealing with the breakdown of our political and legal systems. His current book, Whores, is on now sale at WND.com, Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, Borders.com, and all major stores and booksellers.

Larry is a frequent commentator on television and radio, as well as a weekly columnist, on Friday, for WND.com.

World Nut Daily. I think that pretty well establishes his credentials.

His sales ranks at Amazon and Barnes & Noble are so low that he'd have to use a weather balloon to get onto the radar screen. And Borders.com no longer exists, of course. But why update a good fantasy?