"Conservative activist Larry Klayman sues BakerHostetler, alleges racketeering in handling child custody case."

The headline is from here, and in terms of nutshell sufficiency, do you really want to read more?

Oh, sure you do:

Larry Klayman, the founder of activist groups Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, claims attorneys at BakerHostetler violated federal racketeering laws and intruded into his private affairs when they issued subpoenas to PayPal and obtained information about his personal finances.

He also claims the attorneys and his wife, Stephanie DeLuca of University Heights, falsely accused him of criminal conduct that was never substantiated.

photo credit

The lawsuit was filed March 6 in federal court in West Palm Beach, Florida. It is at least the fifth that Klayman has pursued following Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Magistrate Judge Lawrence Loeb's decision five years ago to deny him custody of his children, now 15 and 17 years old.

BakerHostetler has been named in two other suits, and both were dismissed.

In the 2010 decision, the magistrate judge also ordered Klayman to pay $325,000 for his ex's attorney's fees, which records indicate he has not paid. Klayman is also arguing that those fees are excessive and inappropriate.

This is the private sector litigator claiming a right to force the State Department to produce all Clinton emails. And it was racketeering for a firm representing a spouse in a marriage dissolution to subpoena financial documents of the other spouse? Larry, you're only allowed one standard - for you, for others. You are not special.