Main Menu

Archive | Larry Klayman

Hearing in Arpaio v. Obama slated for Monday

A hearing is scheduled for December 22, in an immigration lawsuit filed by Joe Arpaio and his birther attorney Larry Klayman. I’m waiting for the inevitable dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Yesterday Klayman filed a supplemental declaration by Arpaio, repeating pretty much what they filed before.

I continue to wonder exactly who is filing the lawsuit. It is Joe Arpaio (who is named) or is it the Sheriff of Maricopa County. This latest filing plays with the latter, saying:

The unconstitutional act of the President’s Executive Actions must be enjoined  by a court of law on behalf of not only just myself and my Office which represents the people of Maricopa County, Arizona, but all of the American people.

Klayman had previously requested that Arpaio be allowed to testify live at the hearing and I think I read that this request was denied.

Arpaio seeks a preliminary injunction against Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

List of documents:


Arpaio v. Obama, and other legal stuff

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has not been lucky with attorneys lately.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s office has been operating under a court-appointed monitor after it was determined that they were guilty of racial profiling. Judge Snow appointed Robert Warshaw as the monitor. According to the Greenfield Reporter,

Snow says he will have Robert Warshaw, who is monitoring the agency on the judge’s behalf, investigate any allegations that he feels the sheriff’s office isn’t examining in good faith.

Warshaw has said his team has never seen more unprofessional interviews than those conducted by Arpaio’s employees who are running the investigation.

Ouch! Judge Snow said in court yesterday (November 21) that Sheriff Joe could be held in contempt of court! Arpaio is appealing the decision by Snow, but he’s run into another snag: the attorney representing him wants out, citing ethics concerns, says the Associated Press:

A lawyer representing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a racial profiling case says legal ethics compel his firm to step aside.

As one might expect, no details of what the ethics concern is about were made public, although it was detailed in court filing earlier in the week.

The embattled sheriff is trying to take the offensive, by suing the President over his announced new immigration policy, reports Reuters:

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose force used racial profiling during a crackdown on illegal migrants last year according to a judge, said Obama has overstepped his powers by bypassing Congress and bringing in the changes himself.

I wonder who’s paying the legal bill, and who Arpaio could get to represent him in the case? The second question is easily answered from court filings: Larry E. Klayman. What is a little difficult for me as a layman to determine is whether Arpaio is suing as a private citizen, or as Sheriff of Maricopa County. Arpaio is described in the complaint caption as  “Elected SHERIFF of Maricopa County,” but the complaint does not use the phrase “in his official capacity,” nor does it suggest that the County is a party to the suit. It looks like Arpaio is suing as a private citizen, and that immediately raises the question of standing. In addressing the issue of standing, the complaint states:

27. Plaintiff Joe Arpaio is adversely affected and harmed in his office’s finances, workload, and interference with the conduct of his duties, but the failure of the executive branch to enforce existing immigration laws, but has been severely affected by increases in the influx of illegal aliens motivated by Defendant Obama’s policies of offering amnesty….

The other defendants are Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Leon Rodriquez, Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Eric Holder, Jr. Attorney General.

Read more:

KPHO Story on Klayman and the suit

Klayman’s Kopy Kat lawsuit

It seems that Larry Klayman exhibits a curious pattern of behavior, following Orly Taitz around and copying her lawsuits.

Taitz, as you know, was one of the early attorneys filing lawsuits over Barack Obama’s eligibility, starting with the Alan Keyes lawsuit in California. Taitz later became plaintiff in her own lawsuits over the issue. Larry Klayman followed suit (no pun intended) in 2012 representing Michael Voeltz in Florida, and most recently himself petitioning to have Barack Obama deported, probably as a prelude to filing a lawsuit on his own behalf.

Now it’s happened again. Orly Taitz broke new ground with her lawsuit against the government to stop immigration from countries with active Ebola outbreaks and to quarantine them. She certainly caught the leading edge of that one, before the first person became sick in the United States of the disease. Now Klayman, writing in his WorldNetDaily column, says he is preparing a similar suit in response to what he calls “Ebola-gate.” He writes:

In the interim, I am fashioning a lawsuit to force Obama to curtail travel and immigration from Liberia and the rest of West Africa until we know we can combat the deadly Ebola outbreak. And, immigration from all Muslim nations where terrorists have a beachhead must also be immediately stopped.

Oh, yes, he has a thing about Muslims too.

The Mighty Klayman has struck out

Not much to report except except the snappy title. The Supreme Court announced today that it has refused to hear an appeal by Larry Klayman of the decision from the Florida Supreme Court In re Michael Voeltz.

Michael Voeltz filed a 2012 lawsuit in Florida against the Florida Secretary of State to require Obama to prove his eligibility or else not be on the ballot in Florida. Klayman joined the effort resulting in an amended complaint that some (Orly Taitz) say fouled it up. All told, there were 3 Klayman/Voeltz lawsuits filed in Florida state courts, none successful.

This blog has several articles about these lawsuits:

H/t to Rickey.

Taitz takes the stand

Larry Klayman sued Judicial Watch over something Orly Taitz wrote on her blog. In the trial, Orly Taitz (not a party to the defamation suit) was called as a witness. The transcript from May 30, 2014, makes interesting reading in a twisted sort of way.

The big picture is that Orly Taitz, quoting Freedom Watch staffer Constance Ruffley, wrote that Larry Klayman had been “convicted just recently of not paying a large amount in child support.” This statement was put in the context of raising doubts over whether people should donate money to support Klayman in filing Obama eligibility lawsuits. More details can be found in this article from Courthouse News Service and my articles tagged Klayman v. Judicial Watch. Taitz repeated a number of other negatives about Klayman, focusing on the fact that at the time Taitz was writing, Klayman had not filed some lawsuits that he was supposed to have filed. It was the child support issue, however, that was at the center, because what Taitz wrote was not true: Klayman was indicted, but not convicted.

Shortly after the Taitz article appeared, Klayman contacted Taitz to demand a retraction of her story because it wasn’t true. Taitz didn’t retract the entire story, but issued a correction, saying that Klayman “has not been convicted yet.”

The testimony establishes from Taitz what Ruffley told her. It attempts to establish (unsuccessfully from my vantage point) how long it took for Taitz to correct the article after Klayman contacted her. Klayman appears to assign great significance to the word “yet” in “not convicted yet” while Taitz seems to think it means nothing. This difference may be one of bias, or Taitz may not understand the connotation the word has in English.

Klayman (as Taitz has done in other cases) interrupts the judge—in this case drawing repeated warnings from Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. After the jury was excused, the judge chastised Klayman about interruptions, in the strongest terms. By my count, Klayman interrupted the judge twice during this final admonition. Nowhere does Orly Taitz speak her signature “let me finish” because Judge Altonaga was bound and determined that Taitz not be interrupted. Klayman did, however, use the phrase.

Taitz demonstrates her questionable legal skills in trying to define a “crime,” asserting that one can be convicted of something that wasn’t a crime. She also seems to think a class 5 felony in Ohio is a misdemeanor.

It has been often said in comments on this blog that Orly Taitz is jealous of her donations and defensive about her place as the only birther attorney actually doing anything. Klayman asked her point blank:

Q. So you were resentful that money donated to me for eligibility lawsuits wasn’t going to go to you, right?

and Taitz replied:

A. Absolutely not.

Who knew? Here’s the transcript courtesy of the Jack Ryan collection.

SD FL DOC 145 – Klayman v Judicial Watch – Testimony of Orly Taitz – S.D.fla._1-13-Cv-20610_145 by Jack Ryan

The jury found that Larry Klayman was defamed and that he should receive compensatory damages in the amount of $156,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $25,000.

Lax birth registration in Hawaii?

Where’s the evidence?

Despite Mike Zullo’s representations, citing Verna K. Lee, of a highly precise and error free operation of the Hawaii Health Bureau’s Vital Statistics division in 1961, when it suited his purposes in interpreting a race code on the President’s long form birth certificate, Zullo at the same time asserted that registration procedures were lax and that persons got birth certificates that shouldn’t have.

Larry Klayman in his recent petition to have Obama deported makes similar statements asserting the lax version of Hawaii Health Bureau operations, following in the footsteps of Mike Zullo, who stated in his “Alabama affidavit”:

…due to a loop holes in the state of Hawaii’s vital statistics reporting laws, there was the distinct evidence suggesting that Hawaii’s statutes appeared to be in conflict with federal immigration law and posed an independent threat to the national security of the United States.

Zullo later specifies what this loop hole is, citing HRS § 338-17.8 “Certificates for children born out of State” of which Zullo writes:

By statutory provision Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil.

Zullo is lying. Nothing in HRS § 338-17.8 confers citizenship, and indeed no birth certificate of any kind by any state “confers” citizenship. A birth certificate is proof of the facts of birth, where, when and to whom. One need but look at any Hawaiian birth certificate to see that (1) it states where the birth occurred and (2) it says nothing about citizenship. Zullo also fails to disclose that HRS § 338-17.8 didn’t even exist when Barack Obama was born (it was passed in 1982).

Zullo goes on to assert lax procedures by citing statutes, which does not contain detailed procedures. What he does not show is the administrative procedures, regulations and policies in effect.

Klayman puts the story together in his petition, saying:

One of the main reasons that this entire topic is controversial and difficult is that Hawaii became a State on August 21, 1959, and as a very new State in the 1960’s was extremely lax in creating birth certificates for those not born in Hawaii or anywhere else in the United States of America. Hawaii not only had to work out procedure to operate as a new State but also had a culture of openness and relationship to nations throughout the Pacific Rim – recall that Kenya is a coastal nation along the Pacific Ocean / Indian Ocean – which allowed very loose concepts of Hawaii citizenship and immigration.

As a result, Hawaii routinely and by standard legal procedure issued birth certificates for children who were not born in Hawaii or anywhere in the United States. Furthermore, Hawaii allowed birth certificate to be issued based on the unverified claims of one or both parents – anyone signing for them (such as a grandparent).

People assume that the existence of a birth certificate from Hawaii proves a  birth in Hawaii, when Hawaii law at the time is explicit that a parent could lawfully request a birth certificate from Hawaii for a child born in a foreign country.

Searching over a several year period, various researchers have found repeated listings of birth to Japanese parents as being reported in the newspapers as Hawaiian births, even though the child was found to be born in Japan. In 1961, Hawaii Department of Health appears to have used local area offices outside Honolulu as reporting centers in which parents and other family members could present children born to the family as Hawaiian births, without submitting any proof that the child was actually born in Hawaii.

The problem is a so exacerbated by the more limited scope of medical care and government at the time. As a result, births outside of a hospital were not rare.

For the most part, Klayman is lying. The first lie is the suggestion that Hawaii had to scramble to put together vital records procedures when it became a state in 1959. In fact, Hawaii had been a US Territory since 1898, and the statutes for vital records in effect when President Obama was born in 1961 dated to 1955 (revised in 1959).

Klayman descends to the silly when he cites Kenya as a country of the “Pacific Rim” (see Pacific Rim map below). It may be that Klayman does not know where the Pacific Ocean is.

NotPacific Rim

Next, Klayman says: “Hawaii law at the time is explicit that a parent could lawfully request a birth certificate from Hawaii for a child born in a foreign country.” The statute for issuing out of state births was passed in 1982, not “at the time” when Barack Obama was born.

Klayman rambles on about registration procedures when a child is born, not attended by a doctor, while dishonestly failing to mention that Barack Obama was born in a Honolulu hospital with a birth certificate signed by a doctor. Klayman fails to provide any regulations or administrative procedure documentation whatever to back up his claim of lax requirements. He doesn’t know what the requirements were and just assumes there weren’t any.

Klayman mentions alleged Japanese children listed among births in Hawaiian newspapers. He cites “various researchers” studying “a several year period.” He doesn’t name the researchers, he doesn’t specify the period, and he doesn’t cite a single birth. In fact, to my knowledge, no birther has ever provided a specific instance, and no reason has been given to believe any of it. Klayman got it from Zullo, and Zullo, as we know, gets his facts from birther web sites.

One almost gets the impression that Klayman thinks Hawaii in 1961 was some kind of third world country with “limited scope of medical care,” and goes on to suggest that births outside of a hospital “were not rare.” Where did he get that notion? If Klayman had actually bothered to do minimal research he could have found that, according to the Vital Statistics of the Unites States for 1961, in the United States as a whole, 97 out of every 100 births were delivered in Hospitals (p. 1-13) and according to 1961 VSUS statistics for Hawaii, there were 17,578 births, of which 17,516 were in a hospital and attended by a physician, or more than 99 out of 100! Hawaii had a higher percentage of hospital births than the rest of the country. Indeed only 0.35% of Hawaiian births were not in a hospital attended by a physician! And this is what Klayman says is “not rare.” The guy is a first-class idiot.

If indeed vital records procedures in Hawaii were so lax, and all manner of abuses were prevalent, why is it that Klayman and his entire birther tribe have not been able to cite one single instance of vital records fraud in the history of the State of Hawaii, and only one example from the Territory of Hawaii, 110 years ago!

It’s a vicious circle. Zullo cribs from birther web sites. Klayman cribs from Zullo. The birthers then cite Zullo and Klayman as authorities.