Remember that suit that Larry Klayman filed against the City Pages and the Phoenix New Times because they published stories based on court documents that alleged he had inappropriately touched his children? It’s been dismissed, as I predicted 6 months ago. I don’t know why he doesn’t learn that legal complaints full of political boilerplate about how liberal and pro-gay the defendants are in his many lawsuits are almost guaranteed to get a case dismissed. As the dismissal order notes:
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s “shotgun” style pleading is an insufficient form of pleading. The Court had great difficulty ascertaining which Count of the Complaint stated a cause of action for the various articles because each subsequent Count “realleges and reavers” each of the allegations contained within the preceding Counts. This form of pleading is insufficient. Even though this is a pro se pleading, Plaintiff readily declares that he has been practicing law for approximately 36 years. The Court will allow Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint after meeting the requirements set forth in Florida Statute 770.01. Failure to correct the legal deficiencies in the Complaint and to comply with pleading standards may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.
In other words, even though he’s been practicing law for nearly four decades, Klayman still doesn’t know how to write a legal complaint. That’s why his complaints are full of statements like this:
“The defendants in this lawsuit are ultra leftist publications who are maliciously using my children to harm me in retaliation for my legal representation of conservative clients fighting radical homosexual and pro illegal immigrant agendas.”
That’s not a legal argument, it’s a political one. And it’s the kind of thing that annoys the hell out of judges, and rightly so. I’ve read a lot of Klayman’s complaints and this is the way they nearly all read. He doesn’t seem capable of learning from experience. His legal complaints seem to be aimed at a popular audience to convince them of how unfairly persecuted he is rather than at a judge who has to assess the legal merits of his case.