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:
20 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
oranje
July 13, 2012 at 11:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Calling Rachel Maddow an “avowed” lesbian? I thought they didn’t want homosexuals taking vows.
I see this kind of logic every year teaching rhetoric and composition, where the thinking is “I think it, therefore it is correct.”
richardelguru
July 13, 2012 at 11:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
At least they didn’t claim that the judge was ‘uppity’.
slc1
July 13, 2012 at 11:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Given Klayman’s demonstrated incompetence and misconduct, the question arises as to why he has not been disbarred.
Dr X
July 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@orange:
I like that as an alternative to “absence of critical thinking.”
Trebuchet
July 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’d have a problem being a judge — I’m naturally prejudiced against morons.
Ben P
July 13, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Taking a WAG at the rates Davis Wright would charge for work like this, $24,000 in attorneys fees isn’t that unreasonable.
That’s probably somewhere between 40 and 50 man-hours. At a firm like Davis Wright having 3 or 4 attorneys work on a file is par for the course and does raise costs, but then you also have 3-4 sets of eyes looking at everything, which is very important at times.
DaveL
July 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In his accompanying memorandum of law, Klayman quotes the following:
He then proceeds to utterly fail to show good cause for waiting until after the ruling came down. This is the stuff sanctions are made of.
Pinky
July 13, 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
After reading the excerpts from Klayman’s lengthy whine I wondered if US judges had an underground humor magazine filled with this type of hilarity. Judicial Lampoon would be a good name for it or perhaps Idiot Counsel Monthly.
Such a magazine, besides providing comic relief to court room personnel who must listen with a straight face to amazingly imbecilic drivel, could also provide the figures on cost to taxpayers when incompetent lawyers waste court time.
baal
July 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Even otherwise sexist judges do not like sexist screeds like what Dean / Klayman filed. They will lose their appeal. The only question is whether or not Klayman will get further sanctions.
baal
July 13, 2012 at 12:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oops missed the second half of my post. Lest anyone be confused about how gays are treated under muslim countries (at least most of them) cf a UN’s human rights commission report for Homosexuals in Egypt. The oversimplified short version is witch hunts, torture, disappearances and jail time.
baal
July 13, 2012 at 12:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
nm, now I’m on the wrong thread. I’ll go home and give up for the day. Ed, please feel free to delete my comments.
gshevlin
July 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s a bit late to wait until after the judge has ruled against you on a motion for sanctions, and then complain about bias and demand recusal. If Klayman thought that the judge was not going to be fair, he should have asked for recusal up front. But then I’m being kind of logical aren’t I?
D. C. Sessions
July 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If I understand correctly, this is a motion to recuse based on the manifest postjudice shown by the Court. The postjudice is proven by the fact that the Court found against the movants.
If this doesn’t draw a Rule 11 clue-by-twelve, we might as well drop that rule from the FRCP (not that it’s in great shape anyway.)
d cwilson
July 13, 2012 at 2:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, at least he didn’t call the judge a ball-busting c_nt.
What in the name of FSM were they even trying to achieve with this motion? After the judge has issued her ruling, it’s too late to ask for a recusal. And she certainly isn’t going to do it after reading a bunch of personal attacks against her.
Seriously, how did Klayman ever pass the bar exam?
Captain Mike
July 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“If Plaintiffs now wish to pursue their claim in a forum they believe is likely to give them a more favorable outcome than what they believe they may obtain from this court, they may do so.”
YOU FUCKING BITCH. Why not just castrate them with your fingernails while you’re at it?
D. C. Sessions
July 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Somehow this case recalled to me the one where the Defendant, on the way out after the jury left to deliberate, took a pipe to the cars of the judge and jury — and then moved for a retrial since the Court was irreparably biased against the Defendant.
tacitus
July 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I have a strong suspicion that Klayman knows he’s wasting his time. This is likely more about playing to his audience than trying actually to salvage the case at this point.
By claiming the judge is biased and prejudiced against him and the plaintiff *and* the cause they are fighting for, he absolves himself from any of the blame for his abject failure, and casts himself as a brave, selfless, and tireless crusader against the forces of darkness. Getting slapped down time and again merely feeds the perception.
Possessing a planet-sized martyr complex is good for business, these days.
John Pieret
July 13, 2012 at 4:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dollars to donuts that reference to “distinguished counsel” was directed at a complaint by Dean and Klayman that the defendants’ lawyers were charging something like $500 an hour. In short, just because Dean is represented by a fly-by-night shyster doesn’t mean MSNBC can’t hire a white shoe firm like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Wright_Tremaine
Midnight Rambler
July 14, 2012 at 5:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s more about lawyerly abuse than laughs, but check out popehat.com. Especially here (beware, a long series).
dingojack
July 14, 2012 at 6:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Dean, Klayman Demand Recusal of Judge”
‘And I wanna shag Brit Eckland, but what are you going to do?’
:) Dingo
» Bradlee Dean Complains of Judge’s “Prejudice” against “Conservative Christian Advocacy” Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion
July 16, 2012 at 5:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] best way to deal with this is to impugn the judge as a “woman scorned”. As Ed Brayton observes: Yeah, that’s the way to be taken seriously by a judge, insulting her with sexist stereotypes. [...]