pageok
pageok
pageok
Klayman v. Judicial Watch:

The former scourge of the Clinton Administration, Judicial Watch, is sued by its founder. Details here.

zuch (mail) (www):
IIRC, Klayman once sued his own mother, so there's nothing unusual about suing his progeny....

Cheers,
2.12.2009 2:16pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Here's a press release by Klayman on a suit against Judicial Watch back in 2006. I'm sure it doesn't tell the whole story, but it's some information about the issue for those who don't want to register to read the law.com story.
2.12.2009 2:28pm
bornyesterday (mail) (www):
The link in the OP is subscription only, can someone summarize?
2.12.2009 2:56pm
Snaphappy:
bornyesterday: I read this yesterday in Legal Times so take my memory for what it's worth.

Klayman left Judicial Watch to run for office and lost badly. Now he wants back and accuses his former protoge of ruining Judicial Watch and conspiring against him, natch. Judicial Watch counters that Klayman has violated a non-compete clause in the contract he signed and owes back $400K or so in severance payments. Klayman started out with real attorneys but now just files bitter, foaming-at-the-mouth briefs.
2.12.2009 3:30pm
Snaphappy:
... pro se. He's now representing himself.
2.12.2009 3:31pm
Snaphappy:
Oh yeah, and there was something about Klayman having an affair and getting divorced, so take that, family values guy.
2.12.2009 3:33pm
Oren:
bornyesterday, check here. tphillip worked for me.
2.12.2009 3:44pm
bornyesterday (mail) (www):
@Oren - Thanks. Interesting read. I'm amused by Klayman's failed analogy to Caesar and Brutus. Nice bit of ego thinking he's Caesar, but alas, Caesar is the one who got stabbed 30+ times. Dude definitely comes off a bit less than impressive.
2.12.2009 4:12pm
Pendulum (mail):
Additionally, he's requested 12 extensions, and the article seems to indicate that the judge suspects him of faking injuries from a car crash to support his most recent extension.
2.12.2009 10:35pm
David Matthews (mail):
So, a guy who founded an organization dedicated to filing suits without regard to merit, after falling out with his former confreres, is suing the organization he founded.

I'm still looking in puzzlement for the surprise. I won't bother looking for the merits of the claims or counter-claims. I'm sure they're up to customary standards for Klayman and Judicial Watch.

It's more than sort of a shame. We really could use a cadre of lawyers, willing to rip into government agencies, without regard to ideology, in pursuit of obedience to the laws, and transparency in implementation.

Klayman long ago proved himself not up to the task, although his lawsuits against Bush 43 often surprised and usually encouraged me -- but none of them has followed through; his organization's meetings too often decompose into a whacking big, big-tent conspiracy-fest.
2.13.2009 1:50am
Curious Passerby (mail):
I was hoping he'd start filing a bunch of suits against the new administration. A pity they're having these internal disputes.
2.13.2009 5:05pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.