Judicial Watch Jumps On Record-Setting Bandwagon, Sues Barry Bonds and Major League Baseball

10/08/2001 | William Wallace

[Luis Gonzalez]

For Immediate Release

10/8/2001

Washington, D.C. Monday, October 8, 2001

Judicial Watch General Counsel, Mr. Larry Klayman, took a respite from his unceasing efforts to obliterate Osama bin Laden and the forces of world terrorism to announce the filing of Judicial Watch’s record-setting 2,000th frivolous lawsuit.

“Judicial Watch is the undisputed leader in the burgeoning field of frivolous litigation and we wanted to do something special for our 2,000th groundless action,” said Klayman. On behalf of the Babe Ruth and Roger Maris Estates, Litigious Larry is suing Major League Baseball for allowing San Francisco slugger Barry Bonds, St. Louis Cardinal first baseman Mark McGwire and Chicago Cubs outfielder Sammy Sosa to diminish the single season home run record.

The Judicial Watch suit alleges collusion among the various ball clubs to dilute the accomplishments of Ruth and Maris. “Ruth’s 60 home runs stood unequalled until 1961 when the addition of eight games to the schedule helped Roger Maris hit 61 home runs. Ruth’s record stood for 34 years and Maris’ mark stood for another 37 years before McGwire and Chicago Cubs outfielder Sammy Sosa shattered the record with 70 and 65 home runs respectively in 1998. Now, just three years later, Bonds comes along to top McGwire’s mark. This home run explosion is the result of uncontrolled expansion, smaller ball parks and a juiced-up baseball,” fumed Klayman.

“Barry Bond’s recent home run orgy underscores our commitment to restore integrity to America’s national pastime,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “With this unprecedented lawsuit, we hope to share in the limelight and teach all these overpaid athletes that no one is above the risk of a frivolous lawsuit.”

“The suit against Barry Bonds is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Klayman. Apparently, Judicial Watch is also going after U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist as well as the estates of several deceased justices who participated in the decision in the early 70s to grant major league baseball an exemption from the antitrust laws.

“We are determined to maximize publicity and media exposure from our first suit against Major League baseball,” said Fitton. “Our contributions from disgruntled conservatives have pretty much dried up since Al Gore’s defeat. We hoped that bringing frivolous lawsuits against John Ashcroft and the Bush administration would attract disgruntled liberals to help offset projected revenue losses. But we badly underestimated how stingy liberals are when it comes to parting with their money. Now we’re trying to identify new income sources to redress our serious cash flow problems. Disgruntled sports fans is an obvious and, for us, untapped revenue source,” Fitton said.

Klayman and Fitton scoff at conservative critics’ claims that, notwithstanding all the lawsuits and publicity-seeking stunts, Judicial Watch has yet to win an actual case. “Nonsense,” says Larry, “Judicial Watch has won a number of important victories. For instance, I recently peeled off a Pull ‘n Play sticker from a Burger King sandwich and won a BK Double Whopper Jr. That wasn’t just a fluke either: Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton won a large order of french fries the same day,” Klayman boasted.

Judicial Watch isn’t resting on its laurels following its triumphant victory against Burger King, Fitton declared. A few days later, Judicial Watch earned an unprecedented appellate victory against Macy’s Department Store, which initially refused to let Klayman return a men’s cotton dress shirt without a receipt. However, Klayman took the matter up with a store supervisor who agreed to give Larry a store credit for the shirt. “This was a fantastic victory for Judicial Watch,” said Fitton.

In another stunning victory, Judicial Watch recently received a personal letter from Ed McMahon, informing them that they may have already won $78 million in the Publisher’s Clearinghouse sweepstakes. “Some contestants overlook the extra prize sticker which gives several extra chances to win, but our diligent and capable staff successfully completed those tricky forms to maximize our chances,” said President Tom Fitton.

Meanwhile, Judicial Watch’s war against terrorism continues to strike back at America’s foes. “It’s no coincidence that President Bush ordered military strikes against Kabul, Kandahar and Jalalabad just a few days after Judical Watch’s threatened actions against the terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks,” said Klayman. “Clearly the United States government supports Judicial Watch’s war against bin Laden,” said Larry.

Bonds, who hit his 73rd home run last night, could not be reached for comment.

Media contact: 1 (800) GO-LARRY
For further inquiries:
Larry Klayman (US): 1 (800) SUES-MOM

For more information please refer to
http://www.judicialwatch.org/

[Map Kernow]

Siempre salud, Luis! Great parody!

And what a difference two years make. When I posted an article around Thanksgiving 1999 about Larry's "funny finances" as revealed on a publicly available IRS form (huge amounts spent for publicity vs. trivial amounts for the litigation filed; suspicious expenditures on a "Judicial Watch of Florida" and a residential condo there, etc.), the JW stalwarts came out en masse for the attack. Now it doesn't seem like Larry has a single acolyte on this site.

[Victoria Delsoul]

FYI.

[Iwo Jima]

Did you come to any conclusions about "Judicial Watch of Florida?" That is the entity which brought the Donatao Dalrymple suit, among others. But it is Judicial Watch, Inc. which does the fund-raising and press releases, etc. What's up with that?

Who's condo is it? Is it one that Larry Klayman donated to JW? Klayman is a resident of Florida. Florida residents have to spend a certain number of days there each year to get favorable tax treatment.

[Map Kernow]

Did you come to any conclusions about "Judicial Watch of Florida?" That is the entity which brought the Donatao Dalrymple suit, among others. But it is Judicial Watch, Inc. which does the fund-raising and press releases, etc. What's up with that?

Who's condo is it? Is it one that Larry Klayman donated to JW? Klayman is a resident of Florida. Florida residents have to spend a certain number of days there each year to get favorable tax treatment.

It didn't look like JWF had much activity before Elian besides owning the condo. I had no idea LK claimed to be a resident of Florida, especially since he has a place in the DC area, or so I'm told, and works out of the DC JW office.

Frankly, I stopped taking LK seriously two years ago. Before then, I had been a supporter and a donor (I still get JW fundraising stuff regularly). Now I don't know or care what's going on with LK and JW.

[Mercuria]

I'm glad you identified the TRUE ENEMY of America as Larry Klayman...I just couldn't make up my mind WHO to despise these days!

I mean, Osama may have killed a few thousand people, but Larry Klayman is a REAL loser! Let's not EVER forget to concentrate on the HIGHER PRIORITIES of life!

(Hope you enjoyed MY little bit of "satire" there, gents...ahem! All's fair in luv 'n' laffs...smoochie-poos!!)

[Scholastic]

How true. They know where the bodys are. The arm chair 1/4er backs and keyboard warriors are out in full force!

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Judicial Watch has yet to win an actual case. “Nonsense,” says Larry, “Judicial Watch has won a number of important victories. For instance, I recently peeled off a Pull ‘n Play sticker from a Burger King sandwich and won a BK Double Whopper Jr. That wasn’t just a fluke either: Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton won a large order of french fries the same day,” Klayman boasted.

OUCH. LOL! It's a kindness you're doing for a once sincere man who has gone astray, WW. (^:

I held out hope for LK until the end....the Peter Paul pardon for Clinton bribe lawsuit. Here's a man evading tax charges in Brazil, angry because he tried to buy off the Clintons with a Spago dinner, etc., and wasn't given a pardon. The case made Larry and PP look foolish, and gave the Clintons a chance to preen and discount Judicial Watch's previous efforts.

Larry got caught up in his own ego trip, IMHO, and lost the humility that's essential for focus and wisdom when pursuing a noble cause. What Larry needs is a friend like you, someone willing to tell him the truth and set him back on course.

[bjs1779]

I agree with Larry on this one Victoria! The game is now bumper ball instead of billiards due to manipulations. If they make the ball as hard as a golf ball, there will be a 162 homerun season someday. That is the crime of it in MO.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I'm glad you identified the TRUE ENEMY of America as Larry Klayman...I mean, Osama may have killed a few thousand people, but Larry Klayman is a REAL loser!"

Merc, don't be ridiculous! Larry isn't the enemy!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The arm chair 1/4er backs and keyboard warriors are out in full force!"

I want to thank you for taking what precious little time you have in between bombing runs to post on this thread.

[William Wallace]

I mean, Osama may have killed a few thousand people, but Larry Klayman is a REAL loser! Let's not EVER forget to concentrate on the HIGHER PRIORITIES of life!

You mean like posting shrill xenophobic rants about illegal *Mexican* immigrants just hours after the September 11th attacks? Exploiting the WTC/Pentagon attacks to advance a political agenda against people who had nothing to do with terrorism?

Those "HIGHER PRIORITIES"?

[lds23]

Is there a hall of fame where all these lawyers are hanging?

[lds23]

Is there a hall of fame where all these lawyers are hanging?

[lds23]

Is there a hall of fame where all these lawyers are hanging?

[Poohbah]

Luis, kudos to you and William Wallace for conspiring to provide us this gem.

Uh-oh! Did I say "conspiring?" LOOK OUT! LARRY THE K'S GUNNING FOR YOU AND WILLIAM WALLACE!

[Dr. Frank fan]

Sorry I didn't see your reply(ies) till now.

You are not really interested in WHY I am critical of JW, you couldn't be,

Actually, I am! And you already gave me one good specific answer (i.e. you didn't like the "Bush Sr. business ties to bin Ladens" press release), and one more general answer (we "hated" x42, but now "a decent man got into the Oval Office"). So, I was satisfied.

What you wanted was for me to answer for all the people whop are critical of JW, impossible for me to do,

Here you are complaining that I had the gall to interpret your statement as answering "for all the people who are critical of JW". But then I go back and look at your post #106, and you sure do seem to be using the pronoun "we" rather than "I". Who is "we", then?

Am I to understand that you now pull back from your statements of post #106?

but once I made a statement closely resembling the statement that you have been fishing for, you smuggly proclaimed understanding, and huffed off.

I didn't "proclaim understanding" at all: I sighed. That doesn't mean I "understand".

Neither did I "huff off". It's just that I felt that by that point in the thread, there wasn't much of anything left to discuss. (Till this most recent post of yours, of course.)

You are damned near as intellectually dishonest as JW.

Wow, that's pretty intellectually dishonest, all right. I assume.

Do you truly want to know why EVERYONE who is critical of Larry and JW think that way?

Maybe not EVERYONE, just most of the people here who are now critical of him all of a sudden. You, for example. And, you already answered me, like you said, so I've got no more big questions for you, really. Ok?

Then you will have to each and everyone of them Doc.

Understood. I've been responding to others on this thread too, in case you haven't noticed. It's just that you're the one who's been the best at getting back to me and conversing with me openly and so on. In fact: I appreciate that. (Really!)

I only need to justify my actions, and choices, to myself and my maker, certainly not to you.

Couldn't agree more.

So what have we learned here? That at least on this issue, I am being far more honest than you.

Ok, I'll take your word for it ;)

When Larry and JW do things that I approve of, I praise them, when they don't, I condemn them.

Sounds good and fair and reasonable. And what about when you post parodies of their entire operation which imply that everything they do is frivolous, which of these two categories would that fall into? Just wondering :)

[Dr. Frank fan]

Another response to the same post of mine? Must be my lucky day :)

Good Lord! You ARE Larry!

Yes, that's correct. I am Larry Klayman. (Sigh.)

You spin better and faster than a loose hubcap on the beltway, there was another half to that answer.

Which answer? You mean the half of post #106 which is all about how "a decent man got into the Oval Office" and "things are better"? Yeah, sorry about that, I didn't quote that or respond to it, because I had no real response to it.

I am not required to quote and respond to every single sentence that someone writes, am I?

Thanks for demonstrating my point so well.

Anytime, man. You're welcome. Anytime.

(And what your "point" was, exactly? Oh never mind... :)

[roughrider]

I came home from work this past Friday only to find a one-hump camel parked in my car port. The saddle had the name "Osama" on it. Think Klayman will take the case?

[Victoria Delsoul]

Okey-doke, okey-pokey :-)

[Woodkirk]

You are not missing anything , Dr Frank, you are right. These tappers have convenient memories. Yesterday's hero in their minds has become today's goat. When no one could or would do anything else but talk, atleast JW tried to hold the Clintonistas accountable -- and that is often done by compelling a public official to answer in a deposition questions that he/she refuses to answer in a press conference. You are dealing here with rookies and scoffers who don't comprehend the role played by a public interest law firm in the political/legal process. The Clintonistas did and that is why they feared JW.