Late as usual
In a move that left Obots open-mouthed with incomprehension, birther attorney Larry Klayman (who has never been convicted of criminal failure to pay child support), started the process of appealing his loss in McInnish v. Chapman to the US Supreme Court on June 19, reports the Supreme Court docket. Klayman moved for more time to submit his appeal. Perhaps he is hoping to get some momentum by a favorable ruling.
The McInnish case dealt with an obscure provision of Alabama law, called the “jurisdiction stripping statute,” that prevents Alabama courts from getting involved in the conduct of elections. McInnish wanted to force the Alabama Secretary of State to investigate the eligibility of presidential candidates as a duty of office. Klayman lost the case before the Alabama Supreme Court last March on a 7-2 vote, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker dissenting.
Klayman’s timing of this request for an extension is odd. An appeal must be filed within 60 days of the judgment (28 U.S. Code § 2101) and Klayman’s motion for more time (which the statute permits) was filed precisely on the 60th day; however, the rules of the Supreme Court require that the request for an extension be filed 10 days before the deadline. Supreme Court Rule 13 (5) states:
For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days. An application to extend the time to file shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why an extension of time is justified. The application must be filed with the Clerk at least 10 days before the date the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstances. The application must clearly identify each party for whom an extension is being sought, as any extension that might be granted would apply solely to the party or parties named in the application. For the time and manner of presenting the application, see Rules 21, 22, 30, and 33.2. An application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not favored.
The request for an extension was not even docketed until June 25, long after the deadline. I don’t even know if it is possible for a Justice to grant an extension after the deadline has expired, and if that’s true then the extension must have been granted on the 19th, or not at all; the Supreme Court docket indicates no extension granted. It is hard to fathom a reason for this case to be considered having "extraordinary circumstances." Klayman could have filed the request for an extension any time he wanted to. There’s certainly no new evidence in the interpretation of the Alabama jurisdiction stripping statute. The election, which is the subject of the case, is long over, making anything to do with that particular election moot.
I think all Klayman filed was a request for a time extension to file a cert petition. If the request is granted, the actual petition won’t have to be filed until July 21.
Maybe they’ll get a chance to read the Zullo daffydavit. It may turn the tide. (Not really.)
In other news, KKKlayman was censured, Wonkette lawsplains:
I think his logic is similar to Orly’s “I can’t win a case to save my life, but if I can keep my name in the news, I’ll somehow come out on top of all of this!”
What I loved about McInnish v. Chapman was that it was an all-Republican affair. The two plaintiffs (McInnish & Goode) are Republicans, the defendant, Beth Chapman, the Secretary of State in Alabama was a Republican (she retired before the state Supreme Court ruled) and every one of the nine elected Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court is a Republican.
Our expert on the Supreme Court, Paul Lentz, says the motion for extra time to file the cert petition was filed on the last day the petition was due, but it should have been filed 10 days earlier, and will only be granted if there are “extraordinary circumstances”.
Since even a resounding win on KKKlayman’s part would mean that Barack Obama is not entitled to the Alabama electoral college votes that he didn’t even win, how can this moot case possibly have “extraordinary circumstances?”
I think you just answered you’re own question. Those are a pretty extraordinary set of circumstances. It’s just that they are extraordinary in pretty much the totally wrong direction.
IANAL, but what federal law or constitutional provision is implicated by the Alabama Supreme Court interpreting Alabama law?
This is a point that is utterly lost on Klayman.. The USSC has no substantive interest in interpreting Alabama State Law.
Propaganda value. The birther belief that “one honest judge” will cause the dominos to fall.
Or wait, did you mean “extraordinary circumstances to the sane world”? 😉
Could it be he’s trying to buy time so the universe-shattering Arpaio presser can happen before his SCOTUS petition is heard? That interpretation would mean KKKlayman is a true believer, not the scamming scumbag he seemed to be before.
I’m baffled that a perennial loser like KKKlayman (both professionally and it seems in his personal life) can still manage to remain a “celebrity” of sorts. It’s the famous Andy Warhol quote to the nth power.
Unfortunately, it seems to be what people want to see. They take a mass murderer over another Mother Theresa any time when it comes to watching TV.
28 U.S. Code § 2101 (c) states that the appeal must be filed within 60 days, and that a justice may extend the time period up to 60 days “with good cause.”
The McInnish decision was issued on March 21, so 90 days–the time allowed for an appeal–after that was June 19, the day Klayman filed his request for an extension.
However, Supreme Court Rule 13 (5) states:
But arguably a mass murderer is someone interesting. Orly, I get, but KKKlayman is just a pathetic loser, a nobody, the equivalent of the town drunk shouting to the kids to get off his lawn. If you were writing a TV episode of a law / crime series, he wouldn’t make a good guest character — too boring. No, unless he ups his game by doing something really outrageous, I just don’t see it.
Somehow I got the idea that Klayman was noted for late filings, but I have not been able to document this yet.
I don’t believe he is known for late filings, but he is definitely known for motions for time extensions. In his defamation lawsuit related to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, he just submitted his third motion for a time extension to respond to the defendants’ (who won the case on an anti-SLAPP motion in April) motion for attorney fees. https://ia801501.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.152830/gov.uscourts.dcd.152830.docket.html
In his recent Judicial Watch case, he filed 6 requests for time extensions, while the defendants filed none. http://ia801702.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.415547/gov.uscourts.flsd.415547.docket.html
In is City Pages case, he’s filed 7 thus far. None for the defendants.
Keeping cases alive as long as possible is one of the tools he uses to harass defendants.
Despite filing his request late, Klayman’s request for a time extension to file a cert petition was granted. He has until July 21.
Now that was a surprise.
It costs the court nothing to deny cert a month later… but it does embolden KKKlayman, who should not be encouraged in these sorts of pursuits.
OMG birthers win! Uh, or something.