Main Menu

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.

8

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.

15

Light fuse and run away: Paul Irey finds another “anomaly”

Paul Irey once more proffers a bogus argument that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, and then leaves the country.

In what he calls an “incomplete study,” Paul Irey, amateur birther image sleuth,  professional typewriter user, and newly minted American expatriate1, has pointed out yet another “anomaly” in Obama’s long form birth certificate that he thinks may be the “best yet.” Irey says:

… I feel that this particular evidence is impossible to refute.

Irey’s argument, in a nutshell, is that comparing Obama’s birth certificate to another example seems to indicate that the security paper pattern on one is a different size than the security paper pattern on the other. For your reference, here is the image Irey made to show his observation (click to enlarge):

The Hawaii Department of Health does not routinely issue birth certificates like the long form supplied to President Obama any more. It requires a special waiver. The “Alan” certificate was reportedly printed in 1998, and it was almost certainly made prior to the Department of Health adopting its 2001 policy to stop issuing photocopied certificates. That means 13 years elapsed between the creation of the two certificates, which hardly qualifies as “from the same period” as Irey describes it. I am not suggesting that the security paper changed in those 13 years because while possible, it is to my mind unlikely; however, the method of photocopying the book onto the paper, the copy machine and its settings are very likely to have changed.

Irey doesn’t actually explain his reasons, why he thinks the security paper in the two images should be the same. It looks like Irey did what I would have done for a first pass, “calibrate” by resizing the images to match up the printed text. If one does that (and I tested it myself), the Obama security paper basket weave pattern does appear smaller than that on the Alan certificate, and I get a result just like what Irey presents. That calibration method is valid if and only if the text used for calibration is the same size on both certificates. It turns out that it isn’t.

Doug Vogt states in Point 5 of his Washington State lawsuit affidavit, that the Obama certificate was reduced to 87.5% size before printing onto the security paper. The Alan certificate was also reduced before printing. I discovered this by taking a sheet of Simpson Design Secure™ paper, the paper that I believe is used by Hawaii to print birth certificates, and simply typing on it. I then scanned that text and adjusted the Alan certificate’s text to the same size. The pattern on the security paper in the Alan certificate appeared much larger than the real typewritten example, showing that the Alan certificate printing was reduced. How much? To get a number, I took the size of the clip of the Alan certificate I was using to match text. The width of the clip was 2774 pixels. Next, I reduced the size of the clip so that its security paper background matched that of the real typewriting on security paper scan, and the clip width became 1926. That is, the Alan image by my calculation was reduced to roughly 70% size before it was printed on security paper.

So naturally when you shrink Obama’s certificate down to match the smaller text of the Alan certificate. the pattern on the security paper background gets shrunk too—what we see in the Irey figure.

Irey doesn’t say how he calibrated his images, but it is clear that the text size ended up being the same for both. Since the Alan certificate was printed smaller than the Obama certificate, we should not expect the background security paper to match when shrunk to make the text the same size.

I haven’t done all the work there is to do on this, specifically trying to use the difference in printing size to see if the security paper background enlargement exactly matches what it should be based on my calculations. I only showed that it changed in the right direction. A thorough job would also verify Vogt’s number for Obama’s certificate.


1For more on Irey leaving the country, see my article: “Disgusted birther leaves country.”

76

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.

16

Liberty Legal loses

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the decision of a Tennessee district court that attorney Van R. Irion and the Liberty Legal Foundation must pay sanctions to the Tennessee Democratic Party in the amount of $10,563.25. The original lawsuit was almost identical to another suit Irion filed in Arizona District Court. After dismissing the case, US District Court Judge S. Thomas Anderson ruled that the lawsuit was frivolous and ordered sanctions to be paid to the Defense. He wrote:

…Plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the claims in this case had no basis in law. Specifically, counsel for Plaintiffs reasonably should have known that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims…

The Circuit Court affirmed, saying:

…the district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the case…

“Obama Times” added to the Bad list

H/t to Orly Taitz for a link to the “Obama Times,” a blog with a massive number of anti-Obama articles started in 2009. Its articles appear primarily to consist of links to stories at other web sites. While not a pure birther play, it has birther linked content, for example:

The site is operated by “Don the Kook” who describes himself as a “Patriotic American” from Dallas, Texas.