[Elle Bee]

that's not me

.

[philman_36]

that's not me
.
It sure fits. Whatever.

[philman_36]

I've had personal experience with Mr. Klayman, in fact I've spoken from the same dais.

@Klayman v. Judicial Watch
Plaintiffs, Larry Klayman and Louise Benson, brought this action against Defendants -- Judicial Watch, Inc. (hereinafter "Judicial Watch"), a non-profit public interest government watchdog organization; Thomas J. Fitton, President of Judicial Watchof Judicial Watch; and Christopher J. Farrell, a Director of Judicial Watch -- alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) and (B), violation of Florida Statute § 540.08, and defamation.

And yet you say "that's not me". Like I said, it sure fits.

[philman_36]

I guess I would be a little miffed as well if I were Louise...

@Tragic irony or poetic justice?

Benson’s claims centered on a $50,000 pledge she’d made to support Judicial Watch’s purchase of its building, $15,000 of which she’d actually donated before things broke down. She was promised some naming recognition in the building for the pledge, but allegedly the post-Klayman Judicial Watch abandoned plans to buy the building even as it continued to solicit donations by pretending that it still intended to do so. Though the court held that Benson had adequately pled the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, those claims only covered the $15,000 she’d already donated and thus did not meet the federal jurisdictional minimum. Because her claims were not related to the same nucleus of operative fact as Klayman’s federal claim, the court dismissed them.

Bless her heart, out $15,000 by the "post-Klayman Judicial Watch" with no recognition.