Skip to Main Content
site logo
clock icon

24/7

phone icon
FL (904) 444-4444 GA (912) 444-4444
Free Consultation
<span>LARRY KLAYMAN V. WONKETTE:</span> CASE STATUS AND LOCKER ROOM

LARRY KLAYMAN V. WONKETTE: CASE STATUS AND LOCKER ROOM

  • experience
  • qualifications
  • results

phillips, hunt & walker Representing Wonkette & Rebecca Schoenkopf

We have the honor and pleasure of representing Wonkette and its editor in chief, Rebecca Schoenkopf. They have been sued by Larry Klayman, personally, and as his own attorney in what is contended to be a defamation lawsuit. As we work on the case, we plan to put items we find here for easy access to our firm and those interested in the case.

We have the honor and pleasure of representing Wonkette and its editor in chief, Rebecca Schoenkopf. They have been sued by Larry Klayman, personally, and as his own attorney in what is contended to be a defamation lawsuit. As we work on the case, we plan to put items we find here for easy access to our firm and those interested in the case.

PLEADINGS (ALL DOCUMENTS ARE DIRECTLY DOWNLOADED FROM THE CLERK’S WEBSITE):

Klayman v. Wonkette / Schoenkopf:

KLAYMAN, LARRY V COMMIE GIRL INDUSTRIES INC

Other Palm County, Florida Cases Filed involving Klayman as a Party:

KLAYMAN, LARRY V. TIMOTHY BURKE, THE NEWSWEEK / DAILY BEAST CORP.

KLAYMAN, LARRY V PETER SANTILLI, ROGER STONE & DEBORAH JORDAN

KLAYMAN, LARRY V JOSEPH BIDEN, HUNTER BIDEN, KATE BEDINGFIELD & BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT

JOHN LEOPOLDO FIORILLA V KLAYMAN & TOSKES, P.A, LARRY KLAYMAN AND STEVEN TOSKES (Legal Malpractice)

DEVERE, THOMAS E V JAHAN, MANASSEH, LAWRENCE KLAYMAN & KLAYMAN & TOSKES (Pro Se Legal Malpractice)

KLAYMAN SPEEDING TICKET

Other Florida Cases Filed by Klayman:

ZIMMERMAN GEORGE vs. FULTON SYBRINA, et al

Florida Bar Disciplinary History of Larry Klayman (Downloaded directly from the Florida Bar Website):

Washington Bar Disciplinary History of Larry Klayman (Downloaded directly from the DC Bar Website):

Courts which have limited Larry Klayman’s Ability to Practice Before Them (per Moore v. Cecil et al):

  • Robles v. In the Name of Humanity, We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist America, No. 17-cv-04864-CW, 2018 WL 2329728, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2018) (tentatively revoking Mr. Klayman’s pro hac vice admission and noting that “Klayman continues to demonstrate a lack of candor and respect for the orderly administration of justice”);
  • United States v. Bundy, No. 2:16-cr-046-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2016), ECF No. 215 (denying Mr. Klayman admission pro hac vice due to his “failure to fully disclose disciplinary actions and related documents”);
  • Klayman v. City Pages, No. 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL, 2015 WL 1546173, at *8 n.7 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2015) (noting that Mr. Klayman “has routinely shown a disregard for [the court’s] Local Rules” and that “the Court has become quite frustrated with Plaintiff’s various tactics to avoid Court rules throughout the course of this litigation”);
  • Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 137, 139 (D.D.C. 2011) (describing “[Mr.] Klayman’s consistent pattern of engaging in dilatory tactics, [] disobedience of Court-ordered deadlines, and [] disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court,” and noting that “the Court’s use of lesser sanctions in the past [had no] discernible effect on Klayman’s conduct in this litigation”);
  • Klayman v. Barmak, No. 08-1005 (JDB), 2009 WL 4722803, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 4, 2009) (noting that Mr. Klayman was previously sanctioned in the case for “failing to comply with even the most basic of discovery requirements,” and describing how Mr. Klayman had requested six different extensions to respond to a single motion to dismiss);
  • Dely v. Far E. Shipping Co., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1235, 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2003) (describing Mr. Klayman’s “baseless and offensive,” “bizarre,” and “beyond far-fetched” accusations of misconduct by the presiding judge);
  • Judicial Watch of Fla., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 159 F. Supp. 2d 763, 764 (D.D.C. 2001) (describing as “sanctionable” Mr. Klayman’s “forked tongue” response to an inquiry from the court, which Mr. Klayman misleadingly provided with “malicious glee”);
  • Alexander v. F.B.I., 186 F.R.D. 197, 198, 199 (D.D.C. 1999) (describing Mr. Klayman’s repeated “disregard of the local rules of this court,” noting that the court had to remind Mr. Klayman of the court’s local rule “at least three times before”);
  • Material Supply Int’l, Inc. v. Sunmatch Indus., Co., No. Civ. A. 94-1184 (RMU), 1997 WL 243223, at *8 n.7 (D.D.C. May 7, 1997) (“[F]rom pretrial through post trial proceedings, Mr. Klayman’s performance was episodically blighted by rude and unprofessional behavior which was directed towards the presiding judge and opposing counsel.”);
  • Wire Rope Importers’ Ass’n v. United States, 18 C.I.T. 478, 485 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994) (sanctioning Mr. Klayman because his “frivolous filings have wasted time and resources of defendant as well as of the court”).
 

CASES FROM PACER:

PAUL ROLF JENSEN V. LARRY KLAYMAN, a/k/a Larry E. Klayman, A candidate for the United States Senate from Florida (Appeal)

LARRY KLAYMAN; DEMETRICK PENNIE v. PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.; LOUIS FARRAKHAN; REV. AL SHARPTON; RASHAD TURNER; PATRISSE CULLORS; ALICIA GARZA; DERAY MCKESSON; OPAL TOMETI; NATION OF ISLAM; NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK; BLACK LIVES MATTER; JOHNETTA ELZIE; NEW BLACK PANTHERS PARTY; MALIK ZULU SHABAZZ; GEORGE SOROS; HILLARY CLINTON; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. (Appeal)

Universal Coop v. Tribal Co-op and Larry Klayman (Appeal)

  • Case Number: 0:1993cv02304
  •  Date Filed: 5/21/1993
  • Court: U.S. Court Of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
  • Status: Closed
  • Docket: 93-2304 Docket

Ragazzo, et al v. Maccaferri Gabions, et al

Roy S Moore v. Guy Cecil, Priorities USA, Senate Majority PAC “SMP”, Bully Pulpit Interactive LLC & Waterfront Strategies

  • Case Number: 4:2019cv01855
  • Date Filed: 11/15/2019
  • Court: Alabama Northern District Court
  • Status: Open
  • Complaint
  • Motion to Dismiss
  • Defendants Reply PHV
  • Exhibits PHV Opp
  • Memo in Opposition to PHV
    • Stating, “Two different judges who had permitted Mr. Klayman to appear pro hac vice have since permanently barred him from appearing before them ever again. A judge sitting on the Southern District of New York sanctioned Mr. Klayman and permanently revoked his pro hac vice admission after Mr. Klayman questioned the judge’s impartiality due to the judge’s race and the political affiliation of the president who appointed him. Macdraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 994 F. Supp. 447, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d 138 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1998) (describing Mr. Klayman’s conduct towards the judge as “insulting and smack[ing] of intimidation”). And after sanctioning Mr. Klayman for “fail[ing] to comply with local rules and for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings,” a judge in the Central District of California “permanently and prospectively barr[ed] Mr. Klayman from appearing before him” in the future. Baldwin Hardware Corp. v. FrankSu Enter. Corp., 78 F.3d 550, 555, 561 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (affirming district court’s actions).”
  • Motion to File Opposition to PHV
    • Stating: “Defendants object to the pro hac vice admission of Klayman and request an opportunity to file a more complete objection to Plaintiff’s motion setting forth in detail the factual and legal basis for that objection. Defendants understand that pro hac vice admission is generally routine and that objections are rare. Defendants’ objection to Klayman’s admission in this case, however, is based on Klayman’s long and sordid ethical history, including numerous instances of ethical and professional misconduct resulting in the denial or revocation of his pro hac vice status. See, e.g., Robles v. In the Name of Humanity, We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist America, No. 17-cv-04864-CW, 2018 WL 2329728, at *1 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2018) (“Over the years, numerous courts have sanctioned Klayman, called his behavior into question, or revoked his pro hac vice admission. Two courts have banned Klayman from their courts for life.”). In fact, Klayman is currently the subject of formal disciplinary proceedings in the District of Columbia for additional instances of unethical behavior. See “Ethics panel, citing ‘egregious’ violations, recommends 33-month suspension for Larry Klayman” ABA Journal (July 29, 2019) (https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/ethics-committee-recommends- suspension-larry-klayman).”

ROY S. MOORE v. TIANA LOWE, JERRY DUNLEAVY,  TIMOTHY CARNEY, PHILLIP KLEIN, BRAD POLUMBO, THE WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, MEDIA D.C., CLARITY MEDIA GROUP, PHILIP ANSCHUTZ, AND COMPLAINT A, B, AND/OR C DEFENDANTS WHO OTHERWISE EXERCISED CONTROL OR DECISION MAKING OVER PUBLICATIONS WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THIS LAWSUIT.

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al v. Maricopa County, Joseph M Arpaio, in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ, et al and Intervenor Dennis Montgomery.

  • Case Number: 2:2007cv02513
  • Date Filed: 12/12/2007
  • Court: Arizona District Court
  • Status: Open
  • Complaint
  • Oppo to PHV
    • States, “The conflict-related reasons that the Court has previously cited for denying the pro hac vice application of Jonathan A. Moseley based on his representation of Sheriff Arpaio, see Docs. 1093 and 1167, apply equally to Mr. Klayman, who also represents the Sheriff in litigation outside this case, but who in this case would be adverse to the Sheriff, both as an attorney and possibly as a witness.”
    • And, “Mr. Klayman’s behavior when admitted pro hac vice in other courts also indicates that his admission in this case would impede the orderly administration of justice. Mr. Klayman’s application mentions two currently pending disciplinary proceedings against him, in the bars of the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania.”
    • And, “The application also mentions two District Court judges, in California and New York, who separately prohibited him from practicing before them again. However, Mr. Klayman’s application fails to mention the fact that two federal Courts of Appeals unanimously affirmed the orders of those District Court judges, in published decisions that explain in some detail how Mr. Klayman abused his pro hac vice admissions in those cases. Baldwin Hardware Corporation v. Franksu Enterprise Corporation, 78 F.3d 550 (Fed. Cir. 1996); MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Group Equipment Financing, Inc., 138 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1998). The Second Circuit expressly found that Mr. Klayman’s challenge to a judge’s impartiality based on the judge’s ethnicity and the identity of the administration that appointed him was “insulting and smacked of intimidation.” MacDraw, 138 F.3d at 38. The Federal Circuit affirmed a sanction against Mr. Klayman’s firm for “unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings.” Baldwin Hardware, 78 F.3d at 554.”
    • Oppo to PHV Ex 1
    • Oppo to PHV Ex 2
  • Klayman’s Reply to Oppo PHV
  • 2nd Oppo to PHV
    • States, “Moreover, Movant Mr. Klayman’s client, Confidential Informant Dennis Montgomery, cannot establish the cognizable legal interest that is essential to his intervention in this matter.”

The United States of America v. The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants. Jesse Hernandez, and the Arizona Latino Republican Association (ALRA), Applicants For Intervention As Defendants.

Jepson Inc, et al v. Makita Electric Work, et al

Bobby Kouretchian v. Stan Lee, et al

Jacqueline Williams v. Edward M. Liddy et al

  • Case Number:2:2009cv02108
  • Date Filed: 03/26/2009
  • Court: California Central District Court
  • Status: Closed
  • Docket: CM_ECF – California Central District 3
  • Complaint
    • Disclosed, “In the case of Baldwin Hardware v. Frank Su Enterprises (93-cv-1185), Judge William D. Keller instructed me to attach a copy of his order, which I no longer have in my possession, concerning sanctions which I maintain were unfairly meted out. A review of this order by Bar Associations confirms that I did nothing wrong. According to my recollection, this order was issued over 15 years ago.”
    • Klayman indicated, ‘I recently moved to California and am scheduled to take the California bar exam in July, 2009.” However, no known California license exists.
    • PHV Exhibit 1Klayman Motion PHV
    • PHV Exhibit 2
  • PHV Rejected (flied wrong)

Larry Klayman v. United States of America et al

Franksu Ent Corp, et al v. Baldwin Hardware, et al

Jepson Inc v. Watkins Motor Lines

Martin Kempe v. Larry Klayman et al

Larry Klayman v. Judicial Watch (Klayman essentially sought California Court Enforce Discovery in Florida Case)

LARRY KLAYMAN v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

  • Case Number: 2:2017cv00836
  • Date Filed: 02/02/2017
  • Court: California Central District Court
  • Status: Closed
  • Docket
  • Complaint
    • States, “This is a civil action for damages against Defendant Barack Obama (“Defendant Obama”) for Assault and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress based on Defendant Obama’s and his surrogates, agents and co-conspirators overt actions to incite violence and/or serious bodily harm stemming from President Donald Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order titled Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (the “Executive Order”). The actions and/or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff Larry Klayman’s causes of action occurred within this judicial district, as set forth below, and were made by Defendant Obama as a private citizen. He thus has no possible claim of immunity from suit.”
    • Calls himself:
      • “prominent public-interest attorney”
      • “vocal about his pro-Israel and Zionist beliefs,”
      • “brought several high profile and widely publicized lawsuits against Muslim terrorists and terrorist interests and nations”
      • “Plaintiff has also brought suit against domestic as well as international terrorist groups2 and Black Lives Matter, Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam, Al Sharpton, and other radical Black leftist organizations, who have advocated and systematically practiced anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bigotry, and who have also advocated severely harming or killing law enforcement, and in fact have done so.”
      • “a public figure”
      • “was previously threatened by radical Islamic Imams and others, such as terrorist connected Imam Rauf, previously of the Ground Zero Mosque who issued what in effect is a Fatwa against him.”
      • “Obama has engaged in a pattern and practice of “cleverly” inciting deadly violence and/or seriously bodily harm and injury through his actions, in concert with his surrogates, agents, and co-conspirators as set forth herein, with the intent to destabilize American society and reconstruct it according to their agendas.”
      • “Obama—working in concert with Black Lives Matter, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, George Soros, and others—has “cleverly” incited death and/or serious bodily harm against law enforcement officers, Caucasians, and Jews in support of the radical Black leftist, separatist, and black supremacy movements.”
      • “Al Sharpton, a degenerate and hate filled radical Black agitator, ironically not unlike his professed nemesis the bigoted Klu Klux Klan, who extorts money through race bating and hatred of law enforcement, whites and others,”
      • “Plaintiff Klayman, as a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor, founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch—both of which seek to enforce law and order throughout the nation and who legally represent law enforcement officers—and as an officer of the judicial system and courts himself, is part of the law enforcement community.”
      • “Plaintiff himself has been the victim of Defendant Obama’s incitement, acting in concert with his surrogates, agents and co-conspirators to cause violence and/or death when he was threatened by a “protestor” in the vulnerable off limits baggage claim area at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).”
      • “The “protestor”, who had an Arabic accent and appeared to be of Islamic descent, was in effect wilfully and maliciously acting at the wilful and malicious direction of Defendant Obama, the former President of the United States, his surrogates’, agents’ and co-conspirators’ mission to incite serious violence and/or death against those who oppose his mission to destabilize American Society and reconstruct it in his own image contrary to the professed agenda of the new Trump administration.”
      • “The “protestor,” a female, violently lunged and charged at Plaintiff and others around him while carrying a large and physically and otherwise threatening sign, as Plaintiff and others in his vicinity were waiting for their baggage, while uncontrollably yelling and screaming over and over again in an extremely hostile and hugely frightening manner, at a high decibel pitch, “You are racists!”
      • “prominent public interest lawyer and a public figure,”
      • “It is no coincidence that Defendant Obama is in part of Black and Muslim heritage, while misleadingly claiming in order to be elected as president to be a died in the wool Christian. Indeed, Plaintiff Klayman has tongue in cheek parodied Obama’s claim of being a Christian, asking in a widely publicized speech at the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., that he get up off his knees, put the Quran down and figuratively come out (of the White House) with his hands up, given his latent anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli policies and refusal to call Islamic terrorism other than “workplace violence” and other deceptive subterfuges, among a myriad of other indicia that at heart Defendant Obama sees himself as primarily Muslim.”
      • Sought: “an award in excess of $3,450,000 million USD, punitive damages based at least on 5% of Defendant Obama’s considerable net worth which is reported and predicted soon to be in the hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars, to prevent his “clever and opportune” malicious incitement to violence and illegal actions from reoccurring , and such other relief the Court may deem just and proper.”
  • Dismissal (3/2/17) – One month later.

Larry Klayman v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al

  • Case Number: 2:2017cv01703
  • Date Filed: 03/02/2017
  • Court: California Central District Court
  • Status: Closed 2 months later
  • Complaint
  • Dismissal – Two months later.

Western Center v. Cederquist, et al

In the Matter of Deposition Subpoena to Non-Party Witness Melinda Yee

Robles v. The Regents of the University of California, Berkeley et al

  • Case Number: 4:2017cv03235
  • Date Filed: 06/05/2017
  • Court: California Northern District Court
  • Status: Closed
  • Docket
  • Complaint
  • Klayman’s Motion to Recuse Judge (because she was appointed by Clinton)
  • Motion to Revoke PHV
    • “For more than two decades, Mr. Klayman has repeatedly drawn the ire of courts across the country, resulting in sanctions, denials or revocations of pro hac vice admissions, and vehement criticism of his behavior by multiple judges.”
    • “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an October 2016 decision, upheld a decision by the District Court for the District of Nevada to deny Mr. Klayman’s pro hac vice application. In a detailed opinion reviewing Mr. Klayman’s professional history, the Ninth Circuit found that Mr. Klayman had, for more than twenty years, demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate and unprofessional behavior which justified denying his pro hac vice admission. In fact, on no fewer than fourteen occasions, courts have sanctioned Mr. Klayman, denied or revoked his pro hac vice status, and/or admonished him for his behavior. Two district courts have taken the remarkable step of banning Mr. Klayman from their courtrooms for life.”
    • “The District Court for the District of Nevada recently rejected Mr. Klayman’s application to appear pro hac vice and the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision, finding that “[j]udges have sanctioned, chastised, and rebuked Klayman repeatedly over the past twenty years: in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2009, 2011, and twice in 2015…‘[T]his approach to litigation is the norm and not the exception for [Klayman].’”
    • “In at least fourteen cases, courts have sanctioned Mr. Klayman, criticized his behavior, and/or revoked his pro hac vice admission. Among those cases are two courts which have banned Mr. Klayman for life. See MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 157 F.3d 956, 963 (2d Cir. 1998) (affirming Southern District of New York court’s ruling that barred Mr. Klayman from appearing pro hac vice in perpetuity and sanctioned him for “undignified [and] discourteous conduct that is degrading to [the district court]” by, among other things, making accusations of racial and political bias); Baldwin Hardware Corp. v. FrankSu Enter. Corp., 78 F.3d 550, 555 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (affirming Central District of California court’s ruling that revoked Mr. Klayman’s ability to appear pro hac vice in perpetuity and sanctioned him for accusing the trial judge of anti-Asian bias and “unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings”).”
    • “A court denied Mr. Klayman’s pro hac vice application because his “record demonstrates more than an occasional lapse of judgment, it evinces a total disregard for the judicial process.” Stern v. Burkle, No. 0103916/2007, 2007 WL 2815139 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 6, 2007).”
    • “Mr. Klayman was sanctioned for filing an untimely complaint and opposing the government’s motion with “frivolous filings” that “wasted time and resources of defendant as well as of the court.” Wire Rope Importers’ Ass’n v. United States, Nos. 93-04-00221, 93-04-00236, 1994 WL 235620, at *7 (Ct. Int’l. Trade May 26, 1994).”
    • “A court criticized Mr. Klayman’s behavior as “often highly inappropriate” and his argument was “blighted by rude and unprofessional behavior which was directed toward the presiding judge and opposing counsel.” Material Supply Int’l, Inc. v. Sunmatch Indus., Co., No. Civ. A. 94-1184, 1997 WL 243223, at *8, *10, n.7 (D.D.C. May 7, 1997).”
    • “Mr. Klayman “apparently misread (or never read) [the local rule]” and the court threatened sanctions for any future failures to comply with the local rules. Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 197, 199 (D.D.C. 1999).”
    • “Mr. Klayman responded to the district court’s orders with a “forked tongue” and made arguments with “malicious glee.” Judicial Watch of Fla., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 159 F. Supp. 2d 763, 764 (D.D.C. 2001).”
    • “Mr. Klayman’s arguments regarding the conduct of the district court were criticized by the court as “bizarre” and “beyond far-fetched.” Daly v. Far E. Shipping Co., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1241 (W.D. Wash. 2003).”
    • “Mr. Klayman was sanctioned for failure “to comply with even the most basic of discovery requirements” and the court noted that Mr. Klayman’s behavior was “not simply an unexplained hiccup in an otherwise diligently prosecuted case.” Klayman v. Barmack, No. 08-1005 (JDB), 2009 WL 4722803, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 4, 2009).”
    • “Mr. Klayman was sanctioned on multiple occasions because “[h]is failures to comply with [the] Court’s orders have been repeated, flagrant, and unrepentant” and his “conduct rises to a level and pattern of intransigence and disrespect for the Court’s authority that is not often witnessed.” Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 137, 150 (D.D.C. 2011).”
    • “A court noted it had “become quite frustrated with [Mr. Klayman’s] various tactics to avoid Court rules throughout the course of [the] litigation” and that Mr. Klayman had “routinely shown a disregard for this Court’s Local Rules.” Klayman v. City Pages, No. 5:13-cv-143-Oc-22PRL, 2015 WL 1546173, at *8 n.7 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2015).”
    • “A court threatened sanctions after Mr. Klayman repeatedly did not “attempt to comply” with local rules. Montgomery v. Risen, No. 15-cv-02035-AJB-JLB, 2015 WL 12672703, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015).”
    • “The Ninth Circuit stated that “[Mr.] Klayman has shown such a casual acquaintance with the facts that he is guilty of at least gross negligence in his representations to this court.” In re Bundy, 852 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir. 2017).”
    • “Judge Sam Lindsay of the Northern District of Texas stated that Mr. Klayman’s “shenanigans are degrading to the legal profession” and threatened him with sanctions. Klayman v. Obama, 3:16-CV-02010-L (N.D. Tex.) at ECF 54, 133. That most recent admonishment – the latest in a long-running history of reprimands from the courts – did not stop Mr. Klayman from filing yet another frivolous case in the Central District of California and then twice voluntarily dismissing it when it was assigned to a judge that Mr. Klayman did not like. Klayman v. Obama, No. 2:17-cv-00836-JAK-JEM, at ECF 10; Klayman v. ACLU, No. 2:17-cv-01703-JAK-JEM, ECF 74.”
    • Evidence to Revoke PHV 2
    • Evidence to Revoke PHV
    •  
  • Order denying recusal
  • Dismissal by Klayman

Robles v. ANTIFA, et al

  • Case Number: 4:2017cv04864
  • Date Filed: 08/22/2017
  • Court: California Northern District Court
  • Status: Closed
  • Docket
  • Plaintiff’s Complaint
  • Motion to Revoke PHV
    • Argument, “For more than two decades, Mr. Klayman has repeatedly drawn the ire of courts across the country, resulting in sanctions, denials or revocations of pro hac vice admissions, and vehement criticism of his behavior by multiple judges. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an October 2016 decision, upheld a decision by the District Court for the District of Nevada to deny Mr. Klayman’s pro hac vice application. In a detailed opinion reviewing Mr. Klayman’s professional history, the Ninth Circuit found that Mr. Klayman had, for more than twenty years, demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate and unprofessional behavior that justified denying his pro hac vice admission. In fact, on no fewer than fourteen occasions, courts have sanctioned Mr. Klayman, denied or revoked his pro hac vice status, and/or admonished him for his behavior. Two district courts have taken the remarkable step of banning Mr. Klayman from their courtrooms for life.”
    • Robles I and II issue: “Mr. Klayman filed a prior nearly identical action on June 5 of this year, but dismissed it without prejudice when the assigned judge, the Honorable Claudia Wilken, declined his request that she recuse herself based on alleged bias consisting of her allegedly having attended UC Berkeley and having been appointed by President Bill Clinton.”
    • Argument, “For two decades, Mr. Klayman has used the federal courts to file frivolous, politically-motivated lawsuits and has been abusive and unprofessional toward the federal judiciary. That has not changed.”
    • Exhibits in Support of Revoking PHV 2
    • Exhibits in Support of Revoking PHV 1
    • Exhibit in Support of Revoking PHV
    • Declaration in support of Revoke PHV
  • Plaintiff’s Oppo to Revoke PHV
  • Defendant’s Response to Oppo to Revoke PHV
  • Def Response to Supplement to Oppo to Revoke PHV
    • Notes: “Mr. Klayman did not appeal the 90-day suspension recommendation. Thus, contrary to what Mr. Klayman argued to this Court at the hearing on this matter on July 17, 2018, and what he argues in supplemental briefing, Mr. Klayman’s 90-day suspension is not on appeal before the D.C. Circuit. See ECF Doc. # 71 (Ex. 2) (RT at 8:23-25; 11:3-5). The only issues on appeal in the D.C. Circuit are whether Mr. Klayman provided false testimony, and whether he will be required to show “fitness” before being readmitted after his 90-day suspension. Id. at p. 4, ¶ 2.”
  • Plaintiff’s Supplement to Oppo to Revoke PHV
    • “Mr. Klayman, due to an inadvertent mark-up, missed a deadline to file an opposition to Berkeley’s motion to dismiss by a few days. Mr. Klayman did not intend to show any disrespect for the Court or its local rules.”
    •  
  • Hearing Transcript re Revoke PHV
    • Klayman: “And let me say this: I’m a strong advocate. I’m non- partisan. Yes, I’m of a conservative background, but I’ve brought cases with regard to a lot of different persons, entities, and politicians, even the Bush Administration, for illegal wiretapping and the NSA.”
    • Klayman: “With regard to another statement they made about a late filing of five days, we mismarked it. It was an in advertent error, when a response to a motion to dismiss would be due. We discovered that two days after the fact. We asked Your Honor for leave. There was no harm to anybody. There was no prejudice.”
    • Klayman: “There is no one else that will represent her except me in practice.”
    • Klayman: “Well, here’s — here’s the reality of it, is that because ANTIFA’s a violent organization, because they have attacked not just my client but many other people, you probably won’t be able to find another lawyer to represent her because of the risk factor involved. People don’t want to do it. And that’s one of the things that I’ve done in my 40 years, is that I take hard cases, including Bundy. That was a good example. People weren’t volunteering for that case.”
  • Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Revoke PHV and to Disqualify Judge
  • Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Reconsideration Revoke PHV and DQ Judge
  • Defendants Oppo to File Reconsideration of Order to Revoke PHV
  • Opposition to Reconsideration of Revoke PHV
  • Order denying leave to file motion to reconsider Revoke PHV and Recusal
  • Notice of Tentative Ruling on Motion to Revoke PHV
    • Order: “For example, the Second Circuit affirmed a Southern District of New York court’s revocation of Klayman’s pro hac vice status, denial of any future application to appear before the district court on a pro hac vice basis, and order to provide a copy of the district court’s opinion imposing sanctions when applying for pro hac vice admission before any other judge in the Southern District of New York. MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 157 F.3d 956, 960 n.3 (2d Cir. 1998). The Second Circuit noted that Klayman made “claims of partisan and racial basis with no factual basis,” which were “discourteous, degrading to the court, and prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Id. at 960.”
    • Order: “Similarly, the Federal Circuit upheld a Central District of California court’s decision permanently barring Klayman from appearing before it pro hac vice and requiring him to attach a copy of the order to any pro hac vice applications filed in the same district. Baldwin Hardware Corp. v. FrankSu Enter. Corp., 78 F.3d 550, 561-62 (Fed. Cir. 1996), as modified on reh’g (May 22, 1996). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Klayman had acted in bad faith and had made several misrepresentations to the court, including that he had never been sanctioned or denied pro hac vice privileges. Id. at 562.”
    • Order: “It is clear that Klayman has engaged in a pattern of flouting local and federal rules, making misrepresentations and omissions, and accusing judges of bias without adequate factual basis.”
  • Order to Revoke PHV
  • Plaintiff’s Reply to Oppo to Revoke PHV
  • Order granting MTDs
  • Dismissal Order
X