Main Menu

Birther files lawsuit against President Obama over Dallas police shootings

Larry Klayman is in court again, this time arguing that Obama is endangering his life. In a CNN interview (reported at RawStory), Klayman said:

When the leader of the United States and supposedly the Western world, who was born to a Muslim father, schooled in Muslim schools, and has close ties to black-Muslim leaders like Farrakhan seeks to incite violence by virtue of his running interference for Muslims and blacks who are not even representative of African-Americans generally, it’s no wonder Obama-inspired massacres like Dallas happen.

Further, Klayman blames Obama for the police shooting others, telling the press:

It is no wonder some cops, fearing for their lives in this anti-white, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian environment, sometimes are prone to literally pull the trigger too quickly.

In his lawsuit, Klayman accuses Obama of waging a “War on Police” and blames Obama for a 56% increase in murders in Baltimore (and other alleged murder increases in other major cities).

The case, number 3:cv-02010, Klayman v. Obama et al, was assigned to federal district judge Sam A. Lindsay. Also named in the Suit are Louis Farrakhan, Eric Holder, Rev. Al Sharpton, and 5 named leaders of Black Lives Matter.

I predict the lawsuit will be dismissed because the harm Klayman alleges is speculative. Klayman styles his action a “class action lawsuit,” but a class cannot have standing when no member of it does. Klayman is the only plaintiff.  In addition, stranding requires a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the alleged harm, something that is equally speculative.

Update: A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was docketed August 7.

Klayman v Obama – Dallas by Doctor Conspiracy on Scribd

,

33 Responses to Birther files lawsuit against President Obama over Dallas police shootings

  1. avatar
    Roald July 12, 2016 at 10:50 pm #

    Article about Larry Klayman suing President Obama and BLM over Dallas police murders.
    http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/obama-blm-inspired-dallas-massacre/#!

  2. avatar
    Bob July 13, 2016 at 8:16 am #

    Let me guess: Klayman is asking for money to continue working on this project.

  3. avatar
    Reality Check July 13, 2016 at 8:27 am #

    Someone needs to lay a Judge Land type sanction on Grossly Inappropriate Larry.

    GIL filed pro se but a class action has to be filed by an attorney permitted to practice in that district. He put “to be named later” in the attorney spot. This is nothing but a publicity stunt. It’s what GIL does for a living.

  4. avatar
    Curious George July 13, 2016 at 9:28 am #

    I agree with Doc. DOOMED!

  5. avatar
    Reality Check July 13, 2016 at 9:50 am #

    I’d love to see the Black Lives Matter named defendants file an anti-SLAPP motion against GIL Klayman. Texas has a pretty strong anti-SLAPP statute. This is exactly the kind of anti-free speech case that anti-SLAPP statutes intended to punish. I am not sure of the applicability of state law to a federal case. I believe the courts haven’t clearly decided that issue but I found a lower court ruling in the Southern District of Texas where the judge ruled the Texas anti-SLAPP statute passed in 2011 was applicable to a federal case.

  6. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 13, 2016 at 10:56 am #

    Oy vey. Klayman, leave the Jews out of your stupid shite!

  7. avatar
    Yoda July 13, 2016 at 11:14 am #

    This is ridiculous, even for Klayman.

  8. avatar
    Scientist July 13, 2016 at 11:29 am #

    The first President to hold Passover Seders in the White House is anti-Semitic? Now that takes some real chutzpah!

  9. avatar
    Steve July 13, 2016 at 2:22 pm #

    I’m guessing the threshold for what it takes to disbar someone is pretty high?

  10. avatar
    Rickey July 13, 2016 at 11:27 pm #

    Steve:
    I’m guessing the threshold for what it takes to disbar someone is pretty high?

    It varies some from state to state, but most disbarments involve unethical or criminal conduct. Unethical conduct is often limited to conduct which damages clients – failure to represent them properly, misuse of funds, etc. Here Klayman has no clients, so the best one could hope for is that the judge would declare him a vexatious litigator and bar him from filing more lawsuits without first getting permission from the court.

  11. avatar
    JD Reed July 13, 2016 at 11:35 pm #

    Steve:
    “I’m guessing the threshold for what it takes to disbar someone is pretty high?”

    Well, yes; Orly’s still licensed, isn’t she.

  12. avatar
    Rickey July 13, 2016 at 11:40 pm #

    Orly was sanctioned in Georgia and repeatedly claimed that judges who ruled against her were corrupt, but that wasn’t enough to get the California Bar to take action against her.

  13. avatar
    Joey July 14, 2016 at 12:53 pm #

    Disbarments for anything related to politics are extremely rare.

  14. avatar
    Daniel July 14, 2016 at 2:03 pm #

    I doubt even Klayman thinks this will fly.

    I suspect he just needs his name back in the news before the paypal donations dry up.

  15. avatar
    Voice of Reason July 14, 2016 at 2:19 pm #

    Disbarment is almost always related to harm to clients or opponents.

    Because of the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances, political filings against government entities or officials by attorneys (or anyone else) are given an extraordinary amount of leeway with regard to sanctions and penalties.

    If you think about it, you would realize why it has to be this way, but it can be frustrating to watch sometimes when an idiot like Klayman or Taitz abuses it.

  16. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 14, 2016 at 2:45 pm #

    Daniel: I doubt even Klayman thinks this will fly.


    I doubt any lawyer would think this could fly.

  17. avatar
    bob July 14, 2016 at 4:43 pm #

    Here Klayman has no clients, so the best one could hope for is that the judge would declare him a vexatious litigator and bar him from filing more lawsuits without first getting permission from the court.

    Exactly: Even if Klayman was disbarred, he could still file lawsuits under his own name.

  18. avatar
    Steve July 14, 2016 at 5:27 pm #

    Voice of Reason:
    Disbarment is almost always related to harm to clients or opponents.

    Because of the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances, political filings against government entities or officials by attorneys (or anyone else) are given an extraordinary amount of leeway with regard to sanctions and penalties.

    If you think about it, you would realize why it has to be this way, but it can be frustrating to watch sometimes when an idiot like Klayman or Taitz abuses it.

    Makes sense, sort of like how the Secret Service has to be concerned with free speech rights when investigating threats to the life of the President.
    It seems like a lot of what some people consider threats, like what Joe Walsh Tweeted last week, usually ends up being dismissed as somebody just blowing off steam and their language always seems to leave enough wiggle room for plausible deniability.

  19. avatar
    ScottRS July 14, 2016 at 5:45 pm #

    Voice of Reason:
    Because of the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances, political filings against government entities or officials by attorneys (or anyone else) are given an extraordinary amount of leeway with regard to sanctions and penalties.

    Perhaps, but Klayman, an attorney and ostensibly an officer of the Court, is expected to know better. His case is frivolous on its face. He knows, or should know, that his case is utterly without merit, has no supporting legal argument or factual basis for its claims, is a waste of time, money, and judicial resources, is almost certainly brought only for purposes of harassment or coercion. It even could be construed as slanderous.

    He may very well be sanctioned for it, possibly severely, and such sanctions would be completely appropriate.

  20. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 14, 2016 at 6:31 pm #

    ScottRS: Perhaps, but Klayman, an attorney and ostensibly an officer of the Court, is expected to know better. His case is frivolous on its face. He knows, or should know, that his case is utterly without merit, has no supporting legal argument or factual basis for its claims, is a waste of time, money, and judicial resources, is almost certainly brought only for purposes of harassment or coercion. It even could be construed as slanderous.

    Yes. His misconduct is maddening. Drove me to post a comment that was kicked into moderation.

  21. avatar
    RanTalbott July 14, 2016 at 9:22 pm #

    Scientist: The first President to hold Passover Seders in the White House is anti-Semitic?

    No doubt the gerbils will claim it was a “false matzo operation”…

  22. avatar
    bob July 16, 2016 at 2:40 pm #

    Another Klayman “success”: Dennis Montgomery’s suit against author Risen was dismissed.

  23. avatar
    Reality Check July 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm #

    Klayman and Montgomery got off fairly easily for the shenanigans they pulled including spoliation evidence. Montgomery supposedly gave his only copy of the software to the FBI. Klayman then continued to lie to the court that the FBI was trying to locate Montgomery’s phantom software among the 6.5 million files on hard drives he had dumped on the them.

    The court noted all this but still dismissed the defendants’ motion for sanctions since monetary sanctions were probably not on the table. Klayman lives to file more junk lawsuits another day. (He already has in the case mentioned in this article.)

    bob:
    Another Klayman “success”: Dennis Montgomery’s suit against author Risen was dismissed.

  24. avatar
    Lupin July 17, 2016 at 6:25 am #

    Dave B.:
    Speaking of doomed, Pam Geller just filed a doozy, too.
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160713/11462034964/pam-geller-sues-us-govt-because-facebook-blocked-her-page-says-cda-230-violates-first-amendment.shtml

    Pan Geller consorts with all kinds of very far right extremists, unaware of the fact that, to them, she is a short step away from becoming a lampshade if they ever gained power.

    Ben Shapiro, for a long-time an odious right wing mouthpiece from The National Review, just discovered that many of the Trump Supporters from the side of the aisle he normally supports, are horribly antisemitic and would gaz him in a minute if given the chance.

    These people are worse than fools.

  25. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 17, 2016 at 10:45 am #

    Lupin: These people are worse than fools.


    In my book, they are collaborators.

  26. avatar
    Steve July 17, 2016 at 3:46 pm #

    Is it a valid complaint about President Obama that he takes sides after these incidents before all the facts are known?

    Would it be better if he had a stock response of “I cannot comment until all the facts are known.”?

  27. avatar
    Keith July 18, 2016 at 12:21 am #

    No.

    President Obama invariably “takes the side” of promoting calm, unity, and not rushing to judgment. Furthermore he never speculates about stuff before “the facts are known”. Ever.

    You would, perhaps, prefer that he remain altogether silent while people run around like chickens with their heads cut off (or more to the point, like people with badly coiffed orange hair)?

  28. avatar
    Steve July 18, 2016 at 12:52 am #

    Keith:
    No.

    President Obama invariably “takes the side” of promoting calm, unity, and not rushing to judgment. Furthermore he never speculates about stuff before “the facts are known”. Ever.

    You would, perhaps, prefer that he remain altogether silent while people run around like chickens with their heads cut off (or more to the point, like people with badly coiffed orange hair)?

    Good answer.

  29. avatar
    Rickey July 18, 2016 at 2:08 am #

    Steve:
    Is it a valid complaint about President Obama that he takes sides after these incidents before all the facts are known?

    Would it be better if he had a stock response of “I cannot comment until all the facts are known.”?

    You don’t have to wait for all of the facts are in to condemn the shooting of unarmed people by the police or condemn the shooting of police officers.

    You should wait for all the facts to be known before assigning blame for those events.

    Case in point: the Nice tragedy. Certain people were quick to blame it on Islamic terrorism, but reports have been coming out the the killer had no known connection to any terrorist groups, and in fact he apparently was not eve a practicing Muslim, People who knew him say that he never attended a mosque, he ate port, drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes during Ramadan, etc.

    So the jury is still out on what motivated him.

  30. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 21, 2016 at 6:11 am #

    Do I get a nickel for every time he writes “police officers and other law enforcement persons of all races and ethnicities, Jews, and Caucasians“?
    Endless repetition of the same complicated clauses is one tell-tale sign of a querulatory disorder.

    Clearly, the accusation that shootings “are not an isolated incident” is an incitement claiming that there is a knowing, intentional related and connected
    conspiracy — “not isolated incidents” — to intentionally murder Black people

    So his logic is when I say “something is not exceptionally rare”, I allege a deliberate conspiracy?

    And KKKlayman styles himself as “law enforcement”? Delusional much?

  31. avatar
    bob July 22, 2016 at 1:22 pm #

    Klayman considers himself law enforcement because 30 years ago he worked for the U.S. Department of Justice. 🙄

  32. avatar
    Northland10 July 22, 2016 at 7:54 pm #

    bob:
    Klayman considers himself law enforcement because 30 years ago he worked for the U.S. Department of Justice.

    International trade is hardly a “law enforcement” position, but when has the truth stood in Klayman’s way.