Larry Klayman Goes to Court

Remember when the Worldnetdaily filed a $250 million lawsuit against Esquire magazine for a satirical post about Jerome Corsi’s birther book being pulled from store shelves? A federal judge quickly dismissed the case but WND appealed and their crack attorney, Larry Klayman, will give the oral argument on Thursday.

Klayman told WND it’s “a landmark case that could makes it all the way to the Supreme Court.”

“At issue is whether or not the media and public figures get special protection from defamation laws in this country,” he said. “The answer should be no, as no one should be above the law.

“I urge all of our supporters to come to the court room to politely watch and show the judges how important this case is — not just to WND and Jerome Corsi, but to the country,” Klayman said.

I’m sure Klayman will do his usual bangup job of representing his client. You know, like he did with Bradlee Dean, who now has to pay more than $20,000 in legal fees to NBC over the absurd lawsuit he filed against Rachel Maddow and the organization I used to work for, the American Independent News Network. And like when he took a $25,000 retainer from a woman and then didn’t do anything to defend her, resulting in the Florida Bar Association reprimanding him (his license is also under administrative suspension in Pennsylvania, apparently). And when he sued his ex-wife’s divorce attorney.

And when he was sanctioned by a court in DC for failure to comply with multiple court orders in the suit he filed against Judicial Watch, the organization he founded but that apparently found him so useless that they booted him out. Or when a judge in New York in 2007 got so fed up with his “total disregard for the judicial process” and banned him from his courtroom. That judge cited 7 instances of other judges sanctioning Klayman for his conduct. Good choice on the lawyer, WND. I’m sure it’ll work out great for you.

Paid for by the descendants of the idiots who started it! Sound business solution...

Robert E. Lee Opposed Confederate Statues
They would have had to bring along at least one lefty liberal so someone could read the titles.

White Supremacists Cancel Book Burning in ...
Aaaaand, he's already on it...sort of...

Republicans Refuse to Defend Trump on ...
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    And his oral argument is sure to suck.

  • colnago80

    The fact that this fuckken asshole still has a license to practice law is disgrace to the many state bar associations.

  • ragingapathy

    Guaranteed to keep the Victim Strategy of Fundraising running like a well-oiled machine. Stupid Liberal Judges keeping conservative mouths shut, with the complicity of the Liberal Media and Publishing Industry!

  • Chiroptera

    Good choice on the lawyer, WND.

    Well, it does make sense. Klayman is to the law what WND is to journalism. (That one was on the GRE analogy section if I recall correctly.)

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Larry Klayman Goes to Court ”

    Why? If Ol’ Lar’ is lookin’ to be punished and humiliated there are already a number of women in the D.C. area (or men, from what I hear) who can accommodate his fetish. He could always give Dave Vitter a call, I’m sure that the Jr. Senaturd from Looz’anna has a few numbers for him.

  • kantalope

    I read as much of the WND article as I could…but the gist of their argument seems to be that the kind of people that would buy Corsi’s book are too stupid to realize that the Esquire article was satire and that Esquire should be responsible for other people’s stoopid.

    nice

  • loren

    “At issue is whether or not the media and public figures get special protection from defamation laws in this country,” [Klayman] said. “The answer should be no, as no one should be above the law.”

    I expect that WND has not thought this line of reasoning through. Because imagine what kind of legal trouble WND could find *itself* in, under the standard it’s proposing. Remember back during the 2008 election when Corsi published obviously-fake emails between Obama and Odinga? Remember when he published a story claiming Odinga had signed a contract to turn Kenya into a Muslim state? Remember when WND extensively published claims last year that Obama’s mother posed nude for magazines?

  • longstreet63

    So, he thinks that media and public figures should NOT get special protection from defamation laws?

    Aren’t they suing Esquire for defaming an author and public figure? Am I misunderstanding something or are they?

    Because if they argue that to a judge, won’t he just say “Ok, case dismissed, then. You lose.”?

    Of course, the judge would have to listen to Klayman foam for awhile first. SO maybe it will be followed by sanctions.

  • loren

    Of course, the judge would have to listen to Klayman foam for awhile first. SO maybe it will be followed by sanctions.

    There *should* be sanctions. And not for general ineptitude, either. A few months back, Klayman filed some pleadings claiming that Esquire had faked their screenshots of the webpage (adding the ‘satire’ tag at the bottom), and attached purported screenshots of his own.

    Which weren’t screenshots. He was using the ‘Print’ version of the story, and *claiming* they were screenshots. And he attached an affidavit from Farah where Farah lied about what the page showed. Archived Twitter posts *show* they’re lying, and Esquire produced web reports that further prove they’re lying (because the reports show that people clicked on the ‘satire’ tag).

    The Court threw that evidence out as untimely filed. But Klayman not only filed this with the court, but he was using it in an effort to have Esquire’s pleadings THROWN OUT. It was *astonishingly* dishonest, even for him.

  • jnorris

    I just going to wait for Mr Klayman ‘s book explaining how he didn’t really lose the law suit but it was stolen from him by whatever. I am sure the WND will have a review/advertisement for it within weeks of the end of the trial.

  • mjmiller

    @#9 loren,

    I’m not throwing flames, and I appreciate the information in your message, but what does the (*) mean when used as a punctuation mark?

    Respectfully,

    MJM

  • MyPetSlug

    This ties in nicely with the Lively article. They both have an exactly equal chance of winning. And I could easily imagine Larry Klayman saying “I expect to often be asked by reporters what I think my prospects are for winning this case. To this I reply that it would take a miracle from God — and I wouldn’t want it any other way. God should get the glory for any good thing that comes from this case. So don’t expect me to argue like a lawyer. I will do nothing more than offer political boilerplate — and leave the rest to Almighty God.”

  • loren

    @mjmiller #11:

    It’s just for emphasis. Something to substitute for bolding, italicizing, or underlining, when I don’t want to mess with typing the HTML code.

  • rabbitscribe

    I wonder what Klayman’s metric is for deciding when to file in federal court and when to just convene his own make-believe one?

  • loren

    “I wonder what Klayman’s metric is for deciding when to file in federal court and when to just convene his own make-believe one?”

    Does he want to win? Make-believe.

    Does he want to get paid? Federal.

  • cry4turtles

    Sounds like a pot…kettle…black case.

  • mjmiller

    Loren,

    thanks, I guess that was too obvious.

    MJM

  • Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :)

    their crack attorney, Larry Klayman

    Are we sure it’s crack, specifically?

  • dan4

    @2: Yeah, not on-topic, I know, but there’s something awfully peculiar about a person who has qualms about using the correct spelling for an obscenity, but doesn’t have them about nuking an entire country, including innocent men, women, and children (either that, or s/he, for some reason, thinks it’s actually funny to spell “fucking” in that way).

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    @19:

    Pro-tip:

    If you’re going to go off on somebody for a personal quirk, because you have a bone to pick with over some other issue AND that issue is in numerous other comment threads, it might be best to wait and go off on them in one of those FUKKEN threads.

  • dingojack

    Demo – wouldn’t the correct response be ‘so sue me already‘?

    Dingo

  • colnago80

    Re dan4 @ #19

    Hey, if it’s okay for Physioproffe, It’s okay for me.