Superlawyer Larry Klayman Can't Represent Armed Bundy Gang, Probably Because Judge Is On Rag

Anybody wanna see Bill Clinton's dick?

A bitch judge who is probably totally on the rag won't let Larry Klayman represent Cliven Bundy and his misshapen sons, because she says Larry Klayman is bad at law and lied to her and misrepresents everything and did she mention he is bad at law? OUR LARRY? HOW CAN THIS BE.

If you don't have an encyclopedic memory of Clinton White House antagonists and all the silly things they've been doing since then, Klayman was an attorney for Paula Jones who sued to see Bill Clinton's dick. Then, to his credit, he sued the Bush White House, forcing them to turn over secret records from Dick Cheney's energy task force. Then he sued Obama's NSA and won in the Supreme Court, and -- trust us! -- NOBODY saw that coming. (It is Larry Klayman; he is bad at law.) Then he sued about every newspaper in the world for writing accounts of his child custody case that relied on a magistrate's ruling that he had inappropriately touched his children, WHICH IS SUPER PROTECTED FOR A NEWSPAPER TO DO, and he also promised to maybe sue your Wonkette later if he could find the time, but he did not sue your Wonkette because we were careful not to say he molested his children because honestly if anyone would invoke the Fifth and refuse to answer "hey why did you touch your kids there" with "I was cleaning her bottom or whatever," it would be Larry Klayman who would invoke the Fifth and refuse to answer even if he were totally innocent, because of how he is crazy.

Oh, also, when he sued Rachel Maddow for quoting Bradlee Dean verbatim, he totally lost and then called the judge "a woman scorned" andcalled another judge a Jew, and why are all these Jew bitch judges out to get poor Larry Klayman?

Oh we forgot again: Larry Klayman wrote (many times) that Obama wants to LITERALLY ENSLAVE AND KILL ALL WHITE PEOPLE, like, LITERALLY.

You know what, fuck it. Just go into the Larry Klayman archives, and we'll meet you back here in 12 hours or so.

So we are all caught up now, and we are here in Nevada (I mean, we're not, but they are). Let's see what this newest unfair judge has to say about Larry Klayman and how she won't let him represent the armed criminal Bundy Gang because he has so many disciplinary proceedings and lies all the time:

In a three-page order, Gloria Navarro questioned Klayman’s candidness with her about the outcome of professional disciplinary proceedings against him in Washington, D.C.

She said his disclosure in court papers that no disciplinary action has been taken and the proceedings were likely to be resolved in his favor was “misleading and incomplete.”

Klayman can reapply to represent Bundy if he submits documents related to those proceedings, as well as disciplinary proceedings against him in Florida and clashes he had years ago with two federal judges who banned him from their courtrooms, Navarro said.

So Klayman, as is his wont*, explainered the judge that

[...] there has been no final resolution to the case.

“There’s no imposed discipline in D.C.,” he said. “The proceedings are ongoing, and I said that in the application.”

I Am Not A Lawyer, but if I am reading correctly, that is a lie? 

Snipy wrote about it when it happened -- and she IS a lawyer! -- and basically, Klayman was suing his old Law Store ("Judicial Watch") on behalf of people who wanted to sue his old Law Store, and this was a big old conflict of interest, and he SAID HE WAS SORRY, which is very un-Klayman!

Klayman agreed to accept the public censure and, in doing so, had to sign off on an agreement that does not make Larry Klayman look like a nice guy, even for Larry Klayman.

According to Klayman’s agreement with bar counsel, Judicial Watch witnesses would have testified in the ethics case that Klayman’s decision to represent the clients suing the group was “vindictive” and “a product of ongoing acrimony in connection with his separation from Judicial Watch.”

Each of the three cases Klayman handled against Judicial Watch involved a conflict of interest, bar counsel alleged. He represented a former Judicial Watch employee, a Judicial Watch donor and a former Judicial Watch client, according to bar documents.

Now, you’re probably wondering why Larry Klayman would acquiesce to such a thing when Larry Klayman’s entire raison d’etre is to never ever back down. He did it so he can keep saving the world, duh.

“I wanted to put [the ethics case] behind me because I have a lot of important things to do to also protect the American people,” Klayman said on Tuesday.

Cool, thanks Snipy.

So, as you can see, this case WAS settled, and it was settled by Larry Klayman saying "Yes I am a vindictive vengeful asshat who is bad at the law." (He did not say the part about being bad at law, because he is not self-aware.) If you ever feel like reading judges make fun of Larry Klayman, spend some quality time with the court docs linked herein.

Meanwhile, does Judge Navarro know about his disciplinary proceedings in Florida? She is probably not allowed to mention them, because he sues people when they mention them, for some reason, we don't know, it's Larry Klayman.

UPDATE! Sorry, my mistake, Judge Navarro DID know about the Florida proceedings and mentioned them too, guess she will get sued now, sorry Judge.

*One of the things Larry Klayman is always suing people for is not saying "he won" when he lost but then appealed (and still lost). Also, he sues people when they don't point out that That Judge Was A Jew. Like we said, dude's ... well, he's just dude.

[ ReviewJournal ]