consultants are sandburs

Monday, July 27, 2015

Larry Klayman - meritless litigation? How can anyone say that? It would be similar to attacking Michelle MacDonald's litigation history.

Politico, here, stating in part:

U.S. District Court Judge Donald Middlebrooks issued an order barring legal gadfly Larry Klayman from proceeding with his plans to conduct videotaped depositions of the Clintons in Washington next week. Middlebrooks's order, signed Monday and made public Tuesday (posted here), does not offer a reason for the ruling.

Lawyers for the Clintons and for the foundation have asked Middlebrooks to toss out the case and to halt discovery while he considers whether the lawsuit should be dismissed. The Clinton lawyers contend Klayman has a history of filing meritless lawsuits and that he should not be allowed to demand evidence in connection with a case that is likely to be dismissed.

Klayman's lawsuit alleges that Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state interfered with responses to Freedom of Information Act requests he filed and that the Clintons used the system to obscure a scheme to demand to trade official favors for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

In a filing last month, Clinton Foundation attorneys Jamie Gorelick and Jeannie Rhee called Klayman's allegations "fatuous" and legally defective.

[links in original] Meritless? Fatuous? Legally defective? Legal gadfly?

How can they say that about Larry?

No comments: