Skip to comments.Conservative sues pro-Bush group (Larry Klayman sues Freedom's Watch)
Posted on 09/17/2007 9:14:39 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Larry Klayman, once a hero of conservatives for persistently taking Bill Clinton to court, sued former aides and financial backers of President Bush on Monday for using the name "Freedom's Watch" to mount a multimillion-dollar campaign in support of the war in Iraq.
In the federal lawsuit, Klayman accuses the group of appropriating a name he has used to promote his own public interest legal work. Klayman, who lives in Miami, said he first used the name Freedom Watch in 2004 on behalf of his nonprofit legal and educational activities and later registered it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
What's more, Klayman said, he opposes the ongoing war in Iraq. He said he supported toppling Saddam Hussein, but he said he believes the United States should now "let the Iraqis sort everything out."
"The Iraq war does not promote freedom, it promotes chaos and anarchy and instability," he said in an interview.
Freedom's Watch is a new organization formed last month and financed by former Bush aides and Republican fundraisers. It is mounting a $15 million advertising campaign across the country to pressure Democrats and wavering Republicans not to interfere with Bush's Iraq strategy.
Klayman emerged in the 1990s after founding a Washington watchdog group called Judicial Watch, which he used to file a number of lawsuits against Bill and Hillary Clinton and Clinton's administration. But Klayman, a libertarian by nature, has built a reputation as a prolific litigant. Targets of his complaints have included Vice President Dick Cheney, former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay, Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro.
"It shouldn't surprise anyone that Larry Klayman is filing another lawsuit with absolutely no validity," said Freedom's Watch spokesman Matt David.
Though Klayman did file to register the name Freedom Watch with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2004, the federal agency last year listed its status as abandoned. Agency records show that Klayman filed for registration again on Aug. 23 of this year, a day after Freedom's Watch announced its advertising campaign. The corporate registration for Freedom Watch also was revoked a year ago, but Klayman reactivated it since Aug. 24, records show.
"It's clear this is a shakedown for money," David said.
Klayman ran a full-page ad in The Washington Times in July promoting Freedom Watch, evidence he says of his continuing use of the name.
listening to Klayman is a lot like reading Bill Gertz.
LOL. Larry could give 'Whiplash' Willy Gingrich a run for his money
Judicial Watch ever win their cases against the Clintons? Or was it just a lot of interference against others who might have gotten the job accomplished?
Somewhere along the way, Larry got his testicles caught in Hillary’s lockbox.
If Klayman opposes the War against Al Qaeda, couldn’t Americans file a class action lawsuit against him for false advertising by using the name Freedom Watch?
In what way??
Good news for Freedoms Watch, Klayman is the Washington Generals of the legal world.
Does he oppose the war (which is much more than just a war with a single organization) or does he oppose the nation-building the President stated he was against when he was running for office?
big blows that never amount to much of anything
What are you talking about?!? Gingrich is neither a lawyer or a litigant?!?
You’ll probably have to ask him.
Larry Klayman sued his Mom. He is the skidmarks on the shorts
I wonder if he registered before or after his lawsuit.
I knew that ‘Whiplash Willy’ had to refer to a trial lawyer scum, didn’t remember that it was Matthau’s character in that brilliant Billy Wilder movie. Still see no connection whatsoever to Gingrich, who is neither a lawyer nor a litigant.
Hey larry, bring newt and barr on to your board and just get lost. You’re all relics of the past.
It doesn’t matter which of the two Klayman opposes. He’s no good.
Further, “Nation Building” was the idea of sending American troops around the world usually as part of the UN to try to stabilize unstable govts. and prop them up, without clear military missions and goals. That was what candidate Bush said he opposed. If other nations wanted to do that it was their business but Bush didn’t want the US military used in that manner...as a kind of world policeman on every block and street corner, especially if no strategic US interest was involved.
Iraq in the heart of the Middle East and after what happened on 9-ll and the threat from al-qaeda and Iran...these don’t remotely resemble what he opposed as a candidate in 2000.
We have to help stabliize that country. We went in there and overthrew a regime that had an iron grip on the population and had practically ruined the country and people through years of despotism and savagery. To think that Bush’s stated position in 2000 somehow means we would be justified in walking away from Iraq after toppling Saddam, pretending it didn’t matter what arose in Saddam’s wake, is ludicrous and not grounded in reality.
Boy you are tough to get through to. The attorney’s name in the movie was ‘Whiplash’ Willy Gingrich.
I see. Didn’t remember that either. So if his name was ‘Whiplash’ Ronny Paul (or whoever you are backing) that would supposed to have some political signifigance?
I guess looking at your post you didn’t have a presidential axe to grind. Sorry. I think the reference is a little obscure though.
What is the actual mission in Iraq? The overriding strategic goal? We ARE trying to stabilize unstable governments without clear military goals. You don’t define “victory” as an “acceptable level of violence”. You don’t have victory when your enemies (like Sadr) are still living and dangerous.
“We have to help stabliize that country. “
We’re kind of stuck doing that now, but the country we’ve created in Iraq is a time bomb for one very important reason:
we allowed them to write a constitution that made ISLAM the highest law. That was fine with the State Department, as they’re morons, but it’s obviously a problem. Islam is the root of the problems both in the Middle East and elsewhere. IT is the enemy in this war.
” To think that Bushs stated position in 2000 somehow means we would be justified in walking away from Iraq after toppling Saddam, pretending it didnt matter what arose in Saddams wake, is ludicrous and not grounded in reality.”
It does matter what follows Saddam. Unfortunately, that’s a sharia state. Read the Iraqi Constitution and stop viewing this whole thing through some sort of unrealistic egalitarian lens.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
For old times sake maybe Klayman can become Keyes’ Campaign Legal advisor for the upcoming fleecing.
Wonder if Klayman will pony up the $5,000 that the owner of the website “www.freedomwatch.org” is asking?
It’s been my direct experience that...
...the one thing The LOVE Itself needs more of in this world,
for GOD is LOVE,
...is more LOVE.
And that only comes when...
...people are FREE..!!!
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.