Man, you gotta love Bradlee Dean and Larry Klayman; they run head first into a wall, then back up and do it all over again. After being ordered to pay the legal fees of Rachel Maddow and the American Independent News Network (my former employer), they’re now demanding that the judge be removed from the base for being biased against them. And as usual, Klayman’s legal complaint is full of little more than political rhetoric, not legal arguments.
Here’s a perfect example:
Uh, okay. Evidence for that assertion? Nope. Here’s a weak attempt to make an argument, claiming that the judge “mocked” Klayman because of his health problems but quoting the judge’s statements that show no mocking whatsoever:
There’s no mocking there whatsoever, it’s a simple statement of fact in explaining the procedural history of the case. There’s nothing remotely unusual about it. The second attempt to prove bias is even more amusing:
The judge is biased because she disagrees with us and said we were wrong! Well, you were wrong. And then it gets really interesting. The judge, you see, is a “woman scorned.”
Yeah, that’s the way to be taken seriously by a judge, insulting her with sexist stereotypes. I’m sure that will work out well for you.
But wait, it gets funnier. Klayman is so incompetent that he can’t even get the name of the organization he’s representing correct in his legal filings:
It is, of course, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International. Gosh, I can’t imagine why the judge might have considered defense counsel more credible than Klayman. After all, he’s only been sanctioned by multiple courts for incompetence and corruption in the past, turned in legal complaints that are little more than incoherent screeds and is incapable of making a filing that even includes the correct name of his client.
Here’s the full filing: