An Open Letter to Orly Taitz, re: Defamatory Statements

ORYR ^ | 2/27/2012 | Captain Pamela Barnett and George Miller

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

Ms. Taitz:

As we previously stated, you have made multiple defamatory statements about Larry Klayman and some supporters, including us, causing severe harm. We supported you for years, because you were about the only game in town, after Apuzzo and Donofrio concluded that the federal courts would not hear any argument, no matter how logical, how grounded in fact and law.

Now, there are many ballot challenges granted instant “standing” and new attorneys are joining the fight. Obama State Ballot Challenge has helped to focus attention on the challenges and facilitate activity. We do not appreciate your non-productive infighting with other patriots in the movement. In fact, you are actively and maliciously attempting to hurt our efforts, in a manner nearly indistinguishable from that of the “Obama” forces. We know that they are enjoying sitting back and watching you do their work for them.

We had stayed quiet and counseled others not to get involved in the fray with you. George tried speaking to you twice earlier and again on 2/23/12, but, you would not even allow him to complete a sentence without interrupting. But, you have crossed into libelous action, so it has come to this and now we must reluctantly speak out. It’s bad enough that you routinely attack movement patriots, but now you are damaging the efforts of one of the finest attorneys in the nation. And that is unacceptable. Unlike others you have bulldozed, we will not be so passive, especially since you have ignored letters from our attorney.

[Brown Deer]

Then you don't have a problem giving a link to that, do you?

Already did.

When I get all of the necessary information from you I will. You're making the assertion so you need back it up.

I didn't make the assertion. The Cuyahoga County District Attorney did. What motive would he have to make this up?

The text of his letter you mentioned would be a good start.

Interesting, since I posted that comment after my original questions. Didn't think that you would bother answering. Makes us wonder what your agenda is.

"My ex wife is very vindictive. I divorced her in 2003 and has kept the children from me for 4 years after I had a steady girlfriend, beginning in 2007. There is case law that under these circumstances I do am absolved from child support. The case is Hartman v. Hartman in Fairfax County Family Court in Virginia where we were divorced. The children live in a house I paid for and I have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in real estate and other benefits to her since the divorce. It is a matter of principal for me not to pay child support when I cannot see my children. She is remarried and lives in a house in Cleveland I paid for. The case you mention is a low level crime, not punishable with jail. They want me to pay the support and I will not on principal. I would rather go to trial, because I have a good defense and still cannot see or even talk with my children. I will win this on principal. I do not roll over, as you don’t."

Some morons just don't realize that the child support is for the children and not their ex-spouse. He can afford places in Beverly Hills, Miami and Washington, D.C., but refuses to support his children?

Accordingly, we dismiss this action sua sponte. Relator to pay costs. Seems that the GAL does not want him around those children.

[philman_36]

Larry Klayman has already admitted in writing that he hasn't been paying his court ordered child support "as a matter of principle".
Then you don't have a problem giving a link to that, do you?
Already did.
No, you didn't. You gave a link with @two snippets from the same paragraph and a website about indictments for child support.

I didn't make the assertion.
The assertion you're making is that @he's a deadbeat dad.

The text of his letter you mentioned would be a good start.
Interesting, since I posted that comment after my original questions.
As seen by your reply sequence you didn't. None of your links go to any such text.

Ah, still no link as to where you got the text. I had to go looking @The case is Hartman v. Hartman in Fairfax County
Is this where you got the text from? @http://turningthescale.net/?p=666
So it's purported to be an e-mail from Klayman to Miller. Do you know if it actually is? I can't seem to find the actual e-mail anywhere. Got link?

Accordingly, we dismiss this action sua sponte. Relator to pay costs.
Geez, how pathetic!

He requests that this court issue a writ of mandamus “to require enforcement of the visitation provisions of the marital agreement and divorce decree ***.” Complaint, Ad Damnum Clause.
He was ordered to pay court costs! His case got thrown out under procedural matters. You've got to do better than that.

Seems that the GAL does not want him around those children.
Sounds like she doesn't want to follow the court order and allow him to see his children.

It sounds to me like you're straight out of turningthescale.net and are trying to besmirch the man.

If he is in his legal rights then I'm not going to hold it against him. If you don't like it get the laws changed.
There's the answer to your question.

[Elle Bee]

LOL ... I rest my case

He's a dirt bag ... he gives attorneys a bad name

It always about Larry and the money never about the case

I stand on my statement .... Klayman is what Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton would be if they had law degrees

and if that colors my perception whenever I see him involved ... call me a critical thinker

.

[philman_36]

You may find the whole paragraph at reply #52 to be of interest. The snippets provided give a jaded perspective.

[Elle Bee]

I've had personal experience with Mr. Klayman, in fact I've spoken from the same dais.

I have seen first hand what Mr. Klayman's brand of advocacy has done to several of his clients ... victims of some injustice themselves

Then Klayman "represents" them, solicits funds for his legal fees and then leaves his clients out in the rain

Mr. Klayman's practice of law is the equivalent of an ambulance chaser arriving on the scene then backing up over the victim

But all contributions collected in his client's name go to Mr. Klayman's fees

.

[Elle Bee]

Klayman's representation of in the Terri Schiavo case makes my point.

He grabs a poor client, shills and begs for contributions for his legal fees ..... always loses and then never looks back

.

[philman_36]

Then Klayman "represents" them, solicits funds for his legal fees and then leaves his clients out in the rain
As I see it in this instance you're convicting him beforehand.

I have no knowledge of the past instances of which you speak, and you apparently choose not to speak directly of them so that it may be viewed in a full manner, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until his actions prove otherwise.

[philman_36]

He grabs a poor client, shills and begs for contributions for his legal fees ..... always loses and then never looks back
So one instance is wherein your whole angst lies?

[Elle Bee]

I know four of his client/victims

the Schiavo case seems to fit that pattern

... here's an easy one ... remember FReepers Don & Teri Adams?

Klayman pandered and solicited FReepers for cash on behalf of their legal fees

do a little search and see how Larry treats our own

.

[Brown Deer]

I have no knowledge of the past instances of which you speak...

...so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until his actions prove otherwise.

[philman_36]

...remember FReepers Don & Teri Adams?
Yes, I do remember them. What I don't know is their money situation regarding Klayman. I was working a lot back then and couldn't stay on top of things. Just too much information to stay on top of at the time.
So if you want me to make an informed judgement then I need additional information. Can you do that?

Klayman pandered and solicited FReepers for cash on behalf of their legal fees
And?! Did they get no service whatsoever or what?! Half statements don't get me any closer to resolution.

@DON ADAMS UPDATE: Urgent Help Needed on Appeal
Much had been written on Free Republic's web site about the problems we encountered in dealing with Larry Klayman, Esq., particularly the year long battle we fought to gain possession of our case file from his firm.
Who did what?

Reply #101 @Larry Klayman sues Judicial Watch
The dispute went public when the Adamses' new lawyers--Samuel C. Stretton of Philadelphia and Joseph M. Adams of Doylestown--complained in court papers that the Judicial Watch lawyers had refused to turn over their files unless they were paid. They asked Yohn to terminate Judicial Watch's attorney retaining lien.
In response, Judicial Watch attorneys Paul J. Orfanedes and Larry Klayman told Yohn they had a valid claim for more than $208,000 in fees and expenses "for the tremendous time, effort and resources it expended," including 30 depositions, hundreds of interrogatories and successfully defeating several motions for dismissal."
In their agreement with the Adamses, they said, any termination by the Adamses "entitles Judicial Watch to be compensated immediately on a quantum meruit basis."

do a little search and see how Larry treats our own
Any other suggestions on what I should look for in particular?
@Lots of links there.

And they won in the end! CLINTON PROTESTORS WIN TEN YEAR LEGAL BATTLE WITH TEAMSTERS

But let's cut right to the chase...Hey, Teri...what gives? Did Klayman rip ya'll off?

[philman_36]

Thanks for the inspiration to go look things up.

Lawsuits also have been filed against Fitton in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by a Judicial Watch donor, Louise Benson, and a former director of the group's Miami district office, Sandy Cobas, who also names Judicial Watch in her suit.

Things are much clearer now.

[Elle Bee]

see your post on the "win" @ 10

Klayman is a dirtbag ........ he took their money and when it ran out so did Klayman

.

[philman_36]

Klayman is a dirtbag ........ he took their money and when it ran out so did Klayman
I'll wait for TAdams8591's response, Louise, if that's all right with you.

[Elle Bee]

that's not me

.

[philman_36]

see your post on the "win" @ 10
What does a @humorous reply have to do with anything?
Or did you not see the "(just kidding)"?

[philman_36]

that's not me
.
It sure fits. Whatever.

[philman_36]

I've had personal experience with Mr. Klayman, in fact I've spoken from the same dais.

@Klayman v. Judicial Watch
Plaintiffs, Larry Klayman and Louise Benson, brought this action against Defendants -- Judicial Watch, Inc. (hereinafter "Judicial Watch"), a non-profit public interest government watchdog organization; Thomas J. Fitton, President of Judicial Watchof Judicial Watch; and Christopher J. Farrell, a Director of Judicial Watch -- alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) and (B), violation of Florida Statute § 540.08, and defamation.

And yet you say "that's not me". Like I said, it sure fits.

[philman_36]

I guess I would be a little miffed as well if I were Louise...

@Tragic irony or poetic justice?

Benson’s claims centered on a $50,000 pledge she’d made to support Judicial Watch’s purchase of its building, $15,000 of which she’d actually donated before things broke down. She was promised some naming recognition in the building for the pledge, but allegedly the post-Klayman Judicial Watch abandoned plans to buy the building even as it continued to solicit donations by pretending that it still intended to do so. Though the court held that Benson had adequately pled the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, those claims only covered the $15,000 she’d already donated and thus did not meet the federal jurisdictional minimum. Because her claims were not related to the same nucleus of operative fact as Klayman’s federal claim, the court dismissed them.

Bless her heart, out $15,000 by the "post-Klayman Judicial Watch" with no recognition.

[philman_36]

@Witness: Tear gas had no long-term effect on Elian supportersSandra Maria Cobas, one of the plaintiffs, started sobbing loudly on the witness stand as she watched a video of the raid. The court took a short recess to allow her time to calm down.
"It reminds me of everything that happened," Cobas said.
Outside court, Cobas said she was gassed at a distance of two feet at the start of the raid. Most of the agents that have testified have said gas was sprayed at a range of at least 15 to 20 feet.
Cobas suffers from depression, anxiety and hyperventilation, said her attorney Larry Klayman outside the court.
"That is all damage they are going to pay for," Klayman said.