Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Open Letter to Orly Taitz, re: Defamatory Statements
ORYR ^ | 2/27/2012 | Captain Pamela Barnett and George Miller

Posted on 02/27/2012 5:39:54 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-90 last
To: bitt
If all the Sheriff has IS the Corsi info, well at least it will be coming from an ‘official’ outlet, and not from a book written by someone that the MSM despises and denigrates...they MSM will be hard put to ignore the Sheriff ..

I have little doubt that they will manage to do so nonetheless.

51 posted on 02/29/2012 4:29:55 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
On February 3, 2012, the prosecutor of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, announced that Klayman was indicted for failure to pay child support.
Was Klayman convicted for failure to pay child support?

Family values...the whole paragraph...your snippets in italics.

Our legal system is bad joke enough, with judges and lawyers slivering about to feather their own nests and compromise client and citizen interests. But the family law system, where judges, divorce lawyers, child psychologists, guardians ad litem, and other so called professionals churn and milk fees, all at the expense of children, is literally an abortion. Larry Klayman is committed to bringing about radical reform of our family law system—the same system which callously killed Terri Schiavo when her parents wanted to care for her. Klayman represented the Schindler family at the end of Terri's life and thereafter. The way she was put to death without any real evidence that she wanted to die was an American tragedy. Family members should also have the right to try to legally protect their loved ones, even if they are not next of kin. Freedom Watch will work tirelessly to protect family rights and prevent abuse by corrupt family judges, lawyers and others who put their own greedy interests first.

So what's your point?

52 posted on 02/29/2012 4:35:09 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Orly Larry Klayman would rather be in the headlines than win.

There. Fixed it. Klayman sued his own mother for publicity, so let's not be too tough on Taitz. And I think she's a ditz. He's worse. Piss be upon him.

53 posted on 02/29/2012 4:55:06 PM PST by Cyber Liberty ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." --Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
Take me off your ping list.
54 posted on 02/29/2012 5:14:30 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Was Klayman convicted for failure to pay child support?

Do you have reason to believe he is innocent?

Do you actually believe that this deadbeat dad has good family values?

So what's your point?

The point that you tried to make was that Larry Klayman was drug into this discussion, yet the article was more about Larry Klayman than Orly Taitz. So my point, is that this deadbeat dad was NOT drug into this discussion because he was very much a part of it to begin with.
55 posted on 02/29/2012 7:40:41 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
Do you have reason to believe he is innocent?
An indictment isn't proof of guilt, is it?

Why don't you simply answer my question...
Was Klayman convicted for failure to pay child support?

Do you actually believe that this deadbeat dad has good family values?
You're doing the same thing Taitz is doing.

So why did you cut out part of the paragraph and only use the parts that cast a negative light upon Klayman?
Are you that worried about the man's ability to correctly and competently bring a case before the court that you have to resort to such petty antics?

56 posted on 02/29/2012 8:14:57 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
An indictment isn't proof of guilt, is it?

The Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Unit states that they have a 100% conviction rate and btw, Larry Klayman has already admitted in writing that he hasn't been paying his court ordered child support "as a matter of principle".

So, why would you be so intent on defending a scumbag "deadbeat dad" who is depriving his poor children of a good life?
57 posted on 02/29/2012 8:54:55 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Why don't you simply answer my question...

Good question! Why haven't you answered any of my questions?
58 posted on 02/29/2012 8:56:31 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Can’t disagree with you on that


59 posted on 02/29/2012 9:51:14 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
The Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Unit states that they have a 100% conviction rate and btw, 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?

So, why would you be so intent on defending a scumbag "deadbeat dad" who is depriving his poor children of a good life?
I'm still waiting for you to prove he's what you claim he is.

Why haven't you answered any of my questions?
When I get all of the necessary information from you I will. You're making the assertion so you need back it up.
The text of his letter you mentioned would be a good start.

60 posted on 02/29/2012 10:27:32 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
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.
61 posted on 03/01/2012 12:29:14 AM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
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.

62 posted on 03/01/2012 7:44:30 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
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

.

63 posted on 03/01/2012 8:22:03 AM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee

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


64 posted on 03/01/2012 9:38:59 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
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

.

65 posted on 03/01/2012 10:01:00 AM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
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

.

66 posted on 03/01/2012 10:05:39 AM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
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.

67 posted on 03/01/2012 10:07:09 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
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?
68 posted on 03/01/2012 10:08:39 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
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

.

69 posted on 03/01/2012 12:02:41 PM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...


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.



70 posted on 03/01/2012 12:24:45 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee; Brown Deer; TAdams8591
...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?

71 posted on 03/02/2012 8:16:11 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee; Brown Deer
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.

72 posted on 03/02/2012 8:37:16 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
see your post on the "win" @ 10

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

.

73 posted on 03/02/2012 8:39:03 AM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee; TAdams8591
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.
74 posted on 03/02/2012 8:50:12 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
that's not me

.

75 posted on 03/02/2012 8:50:44 AM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
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)"?
76 posted on 03/02/2012 8:57:13 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
that's not me
.
It sure fits. Whatever.
77 posted on 03/02/2012 9:00:00 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
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.

78 posted on 03/02/2012 9:11:32 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
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.

79 posted on 03/02/2012 9:21:38 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
@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.

80 posted on 03/02/2012 9:28:09 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator

What’s your agenda? Are you attempting to out a fellow FReeper?


81 posted on 03/02/2012 9:30:19 AM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
What’s your agenda? Are you attempting to out a fellow FReeper?
I don't have an agenda. I was told to go look up some information and I've done so!
82 posted on 03/02/2012 9:33:50 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator
I'll ping ya'll myself as well.

I was told to go look up some information and I've done so!

83 posted on 03/02/2012 9:37:21 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Delete as you see fit.


84 posted on 03/02/2012 9:40:04 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

That is more or less my call on the briefing. Arpaio seemed to be deliberately steering away from any link of the birth certificate to any connection as to Obama’s eligibility for POTUSA. Why?


85 posted on 03/02/2012 10:54:04 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
It's not his call. He is a "law enforcement officer" and can only point out that a crime has been committed. It is up to congress to look at this and realize that he is not eligible and that is why the crime was committed!"
86 posted on 03/02/2012 11:04:37 AM PST by GregNH (>>>>>I am SO ready to join a brigade of pickup trucks to surround DC<<<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I still ask why a county sheriff in Arizona would be interested in a forged document taken from the internet. If Arpaio had said something to the extent that by Arizona law requirements for eligibility for POTUSA to be on the ballot a proof of citizenship birth had to be given the dots to Obaba’s eligibility would have been connected. Nothing to do with Federal action just that Obama was not eligible for POTUSA. perhaps this is where/when Fed action could come into play.


87 posted on 03/02/2012 12:22:43 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

If you look at the bigger picture, and I am sure he has, you have a point but, he was asked by 250 signers of a petition to look into the “fact” that what was shown to the public on 4/27 was not genuine. He was handed preliminary evidence that convinced him to look into it further. And as he stated his initial thought was to be able to clear this issue up. That didn’t happen.


88 posted on 03/02/2012 12:29:31 PM PST by GregNH (>>>>>I am SO ready to join a brigade of pickup trucks to surround DC<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
He was handed preliminary evidence that convinced him to look into it further. And as he stated his initial thought was to be able to clear this issue up. That didn’t happen.
That sounds oddly reminiscent.
89 posted on 03/02/2012 1:18:30 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

He was trying to placate his political base without committing to actually doing anything in the legal arena. Hence a “posse” of non-LEO volunteers. Since it was not an official investigation by professional LEOs, I doubt he could take it to a grand jury if he wanted to.

So he has the best of both worlds - firing up potential voters while never having to prove anything in court.


90 posted on 03/02/2012 3:15:10 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-90 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson