Klayman Finds Another Biased Judge

Larry Klayman, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver (or Orly Taitz), has filed an appeal on behalf of the Worldnutdaily in their attempt to sue Esquire magazine for making fun of them. And wouldn’t you know it, he found another biased judge.

A federal appeals court filing that seeks reinstatement of a $250 million defamation lawsuit against Esquire magazine contends the judge’s decision to kill the claim not only was wrong but biased.

The brief filed by attorney Larry Klayman asks for a new judge after Judge Rosemary Collyer “mocked” WND’s website and published materials, including articles “questioning the birthplace and birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama.”…

The judge’s bias was evident, Klayman says, because “without even a shred of evidence before her, improperly found that the thesis of appellants’ book in question is ‘inaccurate,’ thus siding with the appellees and herself discrediting appellants’ book.

“She then goes to disparage and mock the plaintiffs, characterizing them as the leaders of the ‘so-called Birther Movement,’” Klayman says.

Apparently, every single judge that has ever ruled against Klayman in any of the massive number of lawsuits he has filed was biased against him. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that he’s a shitty lawyer who has been reprimanded and sanctioned by several courts for failing to follow court orders and, at least once, for essentially stealing from a client.

16 comments on this post.
  1. Mr Ed:

    All those biased judges are giving Roy Moore a bad name.

  2. ArtK:

    My understanding is that there are many judges out there who are biased against stupid people. Especially against stupid people appearing in their courtroom with stupid cases and badly written filings. Biased against lawyers with no apparent understanding of the law.

    Yeah, sucks to be Larry — everybody’s biased against him.

  3. Moggie:

    Poor persecuted Larry: even reality is biased against him!

  4. Mattir:

    Well Klayman did do the Cheney Energy Task Force litigation – his case got consolidated with the Sierra Cub’s case, causing no small amount of weirdness and strange bedfellows observations. But other than that one case, yeah, Klayman’s a buffoon.

  5. Mattir:

    Club, not Cub.

  6. d.c.wilson:

    The judge’s bias was evident, Klayman says, because “without even a shred of evidence before her, improperly found that the thesis of appellants’ book in question is ‘inaccurate,’ thus siding with the appellees and herself discrediting appellants’ book.

    I can see how Klayman was confused here. He doesn’t understand that just the fact they he book was published by WorldNut is proof that it’s bunk.

  7. John Pieret:

    Here is a copy of Judge Collyer’s decision:

    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2011cv01179/148940/20

    I gave it a quick read and did not see where she “mocked” WND (unless accurately stating that it is a leader in the Birther movement is mocking). Nor did I see where she stated that the book was inaccurate.

    But we’ve seen before where Klayman can’t help mistaking the voices in his head for what’s in the record.

  8. schism:

    …without even a shred of evidence before [the judge]…

    Assuming Klayman was the one presenting evidence, I have no trouble believing this statement.

  9. baal:

    If Klayman ever goes to CLEs or bar association events, he might be well advised to pay attention. Were he to do so, he’d see that attorneys who actually try cases (and win at least some of the time) are all deferential to the judges. This is true even for the attorneys who are otherwise total jackasses. In other words, he’s dealing with bias (were it something other than a figment of his imagination) backasswards.

  10. Zeno:

    In general, I dislike childish name-calling or distortions like “Rethuglican” or “Democrat Party,” which smack too much of playground arguments. Despite this, I must admit that “WorldNutDaily” is almost completely irresistible. It’s a perfect description!

  11. eric:

    The judge’s bias was evident, Klayman says, because “without even a shred of evidence before her, improperly found that the thesis of appellants’ book in question is ‘inaccurate,’ thus siding with the appellees and herself discrediting appellants’ book.

    Evidently he can’t distinguish between “siding with the right to criticise” and “siding with the criticism.”

  12. algerine:

    You should just call them Mat, Larry, and Orly, the Three Stooges of Law.

  13. Subtract Hominem:

    You should just call them Mat, Larry, and Orly, the Three Stooges of Law.

    Perfect!

  14. chilidog99:

    Speaking of Orly Taitz, sign the petition to make the birthers pay their court costs

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/mandate-ag-seek-sanctions-costs-and-attorneys-fees-recover-taxpayer-funds-used-defend-birther/qB6gkrBv

  15. dingojack:

    “…without even a shred of evidence before her, improperly found that the thesis of appellants’ book in question is ‘inaccurate’…”

    Hmmm…. I smell a Bryan Fischer Award in the offing.

    Dingo
    ——–
    Zeno – I prefer ‘WhirledNutsDaily’ :)

  16. bradleybetts:

    It’s perfectly obvious that the neo-Liberal Communist Feminazi behind the bench is judging the case on Sharia law rather than the law of these here United States, and that therefore she should be impeached and imprisoned for treason and deported… or something.

Leave a comment

You must be