consultants are sandburs

Friday, June 28, 2013

The drumbeat, that unceasing drumbeat, on the march to reawaken all we once were and with the right people making decisions, what we can be again.

This link:

Larry Klayman, a former Justice Department prosecutor and founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, today issued the following statement [...]

Now claiming that this massive violation of privacy and other constitutional rights is justified to combat terrorism, these Washington establishment rats are in full spin mode. On many of the Sunday talk shows, they were present in full force, trying to divert attention away from NSA-gate, lest it implicate them in the patently illegal criminal conduct.

But the American people are not fooled, no more than our Founding Fathers Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were fooled by King George III's wholesale violation of basic human rights in the years leading up to the Declaration of Independence and the start of the revolutionary war, when the British busted into our homes, stole our worldly possessions, taxed us into submission, perverted our legal system and, when we complained, seized and destroyed our weapons of self defense.

The potential number of class action plaintiffs in the two cases which I filed over NSA-gate potentially number over 300 million persons. The masses thus have the legal means to rise up and and hold the Washington establishment rats, which include but are not limited to defendants President Obama, Attorney General Holder, the Justice Department, the heads of the NSA and the cell and internet providers, the agencies and companies themselves, and federal judge Roger Vinson, responsible for their outrageous criminal acts. These cases can be the catalyst which sparks the new American revolution, peacefully and in the courts.

But if the federal judiciary does not hear the legitimate grievances of the American people and take corrective action, and instead seek to protect the Washington establishment rats who put them in power, then it could be 1776 all over again, as the people have been violated and raped, and they demand redress! Coupled with all of the other outrageous abuses of the government and its enablers, which have in the last decades been piling up, and gotten much worse during the Obama administration, the citizenry is more than angry; and it has had it! In the footsteps of our Founding Fathers, the American citizenry want a return to a free country and is prepared to take all just and appropriate measures to restore the nation to its foundational roots before it is destroyed by these arrogant, power hungry and lawless tyrants," pleaded Klayman.

Glory, glory, hallelujah.

Oops, wrong war ...

No single isolated situation or characterization wholly defines a person. And judges can write harshly, often, however, with cause. Society puts judges into situations where litigants can be unhappy with an outcome. But what should be a response? Consider all such dimensions, in reading earlier Larry Klayman litigation; Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Does reading that give an impression somebody was stepping beyond generally accepted bounds? If you think, "Yes," then would the overstepping individual be Larry Klayman, or the Judge who authored that memorandum opinion? And, is there a rule of law that a litigant in federal court gets to pick a judge appointed by a President that litigant liked better than some other President? If you think so, how would you handle possible added motions caseload in the courts?

Klayman v. KOLLAR-KOTELLY, 892 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D.C. Dist. 2012) is another Larry Klayman filing related to that cited in the above paragraph. If you read both cases, is there any surprise in the outcome of the more recent published opinion? And - what do you make of footnote 1, in the Kollar-Kotelly, case. Interesting links, here, here, here and here. On the birther front, Farah v. Esquire Magazine, Inc., 863 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.C. Dist 2012), shows another instance where Klayman ended up on the losing end of a dismissal motion. Let us hope he steers one in to dock, rather than lost at sea, dismissed, in the NSA Spying on You and Me litigation he's pursuing.

The Wikipedia page on Judicial Watch, notes:

Between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations – the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation, both managed by Richard Mellon Scaife, and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., which folded in 2005. As of 2010, Scaife remains the group's main contributor

View that, if you choose, as an endorsement. Scaife, Klayman, birther mythology. Hanging together. My hope is with the ACLU's suit against NSA. It is not based on any dislike toward Klayman. Future uncertainties always abound. Klayman may win one of the two suits he has filed against the NSA spying; and he is seeking bonanza damages, should he win. I wish him success.

FURTHER UPDATE: More success than here,

Perhaps the commentary here may strike one as hyperbole, but being fair to Klayman, some of the cases he files are not ones all objective viewers would consider rock-solid winners, so that Klayman's dismissals record needs reading in that light. The item WAS written before the whole ugly NSA spying on Americans situation arose, and before Klayman filed his two quite interesting related class action lawsuits.

Hyperbole aside, the bottom line has to be the specific cases Klayman filed and litigated, and his success ratio, stand together and speak for themselves. That is the objective truth. It is up to the reader to decide as a subjective thing whether the entirety Klayman's litigation track record is to be somehow viewed as a singular thing, or whether his cases and web commentary touching national public figures should be segregated from his marriage dissolution litigation and the defamation suits Klaymen has tirelessly filed related to it. Not as to successes or failures, but as to two separate things, one political and the other personal.

However, there is the other side of that coin. Are people made of parts that should stand separately, or are they judged in totality, (discounting the more distant past such as what Dick Cheney or various Presidents did during The War).

Some things are best in repose.

Post Updated: July 2, 2013. Happy 4th, to all readers, be they military veterans, or non-veterans. A good holiday to all.

Post Update, July 3, 2013. Awaiting the Friday deadline, see item 13, this docket.

No comments: