Posted on 10/08/2001 8:28:01 PM PDT by 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/
See, the problem here is, I doubt that you examine and read every single press release from every single nonprofit group which exists. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) What this means is that if one such group tries to issue a "press release", a letter to its followers, or suchlike, with the basic message "Waa! We ain't getting covered enough!", you won't see it-- unless it is JW, since people here happen to pay attention to JW and subscribe to their newsletter (I gather) and then post it up on the board. Therefore you think that nobody does this except for JW. But, I'd bet you anything that that's wrong.
Can you point me to another news release that complains that no one is listening to its news releases?
I reckon I could if I tried. But the cold hard truth is that I don't feel like going hunting on the net for random press releases from nonprofit groups. I really don't. (I mean, are you trying to punish me? ;) So let's leave it this way: you can continue to believe that JW is the only group which has ever done this if you want, and I won't try to convince you otherwise.
At the same time it was a political decision. I am sick and tired of every whining ninny going to the courts to try to force their way on everyone else. I strongly disagree with our politicians getting sued every time they make a decision.
Like you said, it was a political decision. And JW's release merely claimed as much - and pointed out the contradiction with his campaign promise. Besides, I'm not even sure that Bush is "getting sued" over his stem cell decision. I got more of an impression that JW would try to find out who Bush met with, etc., prior to making the decision. And I've still got no problem with that. But, was I wrong? Is Judicial Watch "suing" President Bush and trying to collect punitive damages for his decision, or something? Let me know.
Political decisions should be resolved at the ballot box, not in the courts where the liberals rule, and always will.
I guess I agree with that but again, I don't think JW was/is trying to "resolve" the stem-cell decision in the courts. I really, truly honestly got the impression that what they were/are intending to do is to, say, try to subpoena Bush's schedule from such-and-such day, and things like that, to see if there is a pattern of him meeting with pharmaceutical execs, or whatever (just to name a possibility off the top of my head).
Now okay, I may be way off here. But if my impression is correct - would any of that action bother you?
[reports of administration receiving warnings about airports, bother you?] It did, till it became clear it was more hot air.
When did this "become clear"? I must have missed that. Oh well.
And it is blaming the administration.
Correct, they seem to be blaming the 8 year Clinton administration, as well as the current one.
Does the fact that JW has blamed the current administration for something automatically make them bad, in your book? Let me know. That's kind of what I've been wondering in this thread.
What is there to investigate? Bush said, well this will get me more votes so I’ll do this on stem cells.
I posited one possible answer to this. Playing Devil's Advocate: given that his decision seems to have contradicted a prior campaign promise, perhaps Bush was under some kind of undue influence which prompted his decision. What could that influence have been? Maybe he met with certain people - pharmaceutical execs, biotech bigshots, academic researchers, whatever - and they somehow persuaded him to shift his position somewhat.
Well, did this happen? I have no idea. I wonder how we would ever find out?
Wait for the press to do it?
Two administrations said, well, the political will isn’t there to lock down our airports and strip search everyone.
No, but what about the political will to (say) buttress the cockpit doors, or even to remove the doors and seal off the cockpit completely? Hmm. The problem is, not only did these two administrations not do this, but (allegedly) they didn't even consider the problem at all to any realistic extent. At least, according to JW. We will find out how much truth there is in the charge. I'd like to find out, I dunno 'bout you.
AT worst, these things are crass political decisions, and to investigate each and every thing a president does, regardless of wrong doing or illegality, is insane.
No: At worst, such decisions could have been unduly influenced, by anything from blackmail to campaign donations. Remember the Clinton administration?
Well: how do we find out whether some administration or another has been bought out? Wait for the press to care about the issue?
The Justice Department? (Ha.)
That is my problem, Klayman goes off on these things for no good reason with no hope of any success other than getting in the news.
I guess I don't necessarily measure "success" in terms of whether these cases are won. I can envision that in some cases it would be enough if they just got more information to the public. But what do I know.
That is what he is good at. Just not my style.
Fair enough.
The Peter Paul case looks like a good example of the classic Clintonian bait-and-switch defense strategy. Whenever credible evidence of a Clinton crime surfaces, invariably an even bigger scandal along similar lines shows up to bump the original scandal off the radar screen. Then we discover that the brave new accuser was lying all along. Once that scandal is discredited, the Clinton spin machine treats that as "proof" that all other similar accusations were refuted as well.
Government watchdogs exist to keep the government honest and accountable to We the People. But the system works as long as the watchdogs themselves are honest and effective. The legal doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents others from relitigating the same issues the "watchdogs" handled. An "inept" watchdog is a crooked politician's best friend.
What do we make of a supposed watchdog organization that brings hundreds of suits that somehow never pan out against a manifestly corrupt administration?
Who investigates the investigators?
You have NO IDEA about what I meant by linking you there, and yet, not only are you ready to assume that you understand, but above and beyond that, that you understand my reasons even better than I do.
Don't bother answering me unless you can provide me with the six-number winning Florida Lotto combination for this coming drawing, that shouldn't be difficult for you, should it?
Is that a "yes", as in "yes, I wish the story had never been publicized"? I am honestly curious. The position you seem to be taking is, "I don't like Judicial Watch because they caused me and others to be aware of Ms. Browning, and I wish that we were all ignorant of her story instead and that none of us knew that Clinton has a propensity to bite womens' lips, which buttresses a part of Ms. Broaddrick's story. I wish nobody knew any of that and that it was kept in the dark!"
The fact that there exist people who are able to "argue" via self-serving specious disingenuous sophisms such as "It's all about sex" is not enough for me to seek widespread ignorance and to resent bringers of information. Maybe that's just me though. Best,
Regards,
TS
I read them all from the groups I follow. I haven’t ever seen one like this.[Pretty standard cry for attention, you expect to see it from any organization, really. ] No, actually I wouldn’t. I haven’t ever seen one like it. [...]See, the problem here is, I doubt that you examine and read every single press release from every single nonprofit group which exists. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Therefore you think that nobody does this except for JW. But, I'd bet you anything that that's wrong.I’m sure Jessie Jackson did this once, though he would have added the racism angle. Otherwise I’d bet that press releases like this are few and far between. Like I said, I do pay attention, but I’ve never seen one like this.
Without evidence to back you up, that is probably wise, and I am fine leaving it that way.Can you point me to another news release that complains that no one is listening to its news releases?I reckon I could if I tried. But the cold hard truth is that I don't feel like going hunting on the net for random press releases from nonprofit groups. I really don't. (I mean, are you trying to punish me? ;) So let's leave it this way: you can continue to believe that JW is the only group which has ever done this if you want, and I won't try to convince you otherwise.
If you want to know who he met with you have to have a vehicle to force him to tell you. A FOIA lawsuit is JW’s common approach, as it is for other organizations.At the same time it was a political decision. I am sick and tired of every whining ninny going to the courts to try to force their way on everyone else. I strongly disagree with our politicians getting sued every time they make a decision.Like you said, it was a political decision. And JW's release merely claimed as much - and pointed out the contradiction with his campaign promise. Besides, I'm not even sure that Bush is "getting sued" over his stem cell decision. I got more of an impression that JW would try to find out who Bush met with, etc., prior to making the decision. And I've still got no problem with that. But, was I wrong? Is Judicial Watch "suing" President Bush and trying to collect punitive damages for his decision, or something? Let me know.
Now okay, I may be way off here. But if my impression is correct - would any of that action bother you?If JW had some shred of evidence that he was doing something then no, it wouldn’t necessarily bother me. But they don’t, they are charging ahead completely without evidence. As a lawyer, that bothers me.
Does the fact that JW has blamed the current administration for something automatically make them bad, in your book? Let me know. That's kind of what I've been wondering in this thread.Straw man, and I hope you know it. I blame the administration for lots of things. From there I think you can tell that my reaction and JW’s differs a bit, it’s that difference that is at issue here.
patent +AMDG
No, you're not, you are still hanging on to the premise that last year everyone loved Larry, and that this changed on January 21st. That is simply not true, if anyone made any changes on 1/21/2001, it was Larry.
If the general attitude about LK and JW has changed in FR over the past year, perhaps Larry needs to find out what HE has done to cause that, instead of having his spin doctors in here parsing words, making it seem that we are doing something wrong by expressing our displeasure. Larry needs us, not the other way around.
Don't take my answer apart, I am not interested, and thank you for keeping the thread alive.
I read them all from the groups I follow.
Which leaves: All the groups you don't follow. Unless you "follow" every single nonprofit group in existence, I think the point is made.
Otherwise I’d bet that press releases like this are few and far between.
Oh. Well, as a percentage of overall press releases, I actually agree with you.
If you want to know who he met with you have to have a vehicle to force him to tell you. A FOIA lawsuit is JW’s common approach, as it is for other organizations.
As has been my understanding. And you have a problem with this, when done by JW, because...?
[stem cell decision]
If JW had some shred of evidence that he was doing something then no, it wouldn’t necessarily bother me. But they don’t, they are charging ahead completely without evidence.
"Charging ahead"? You mean, charging ahead with FOIA requests. Right? After all, if you break it down to its bare bones, this is all that the JW press release says they will be doing:
"“Judicial Watch will be filing Freedom of Information Act requests today..."
They will be filing Freedom of Information Act requests. That's it! Oh, horror of horrors! And this really sticks in your craw for some reason? This is "charging ahead without evidence"?
Charging ahead... to make some measly FOIA requests? (Uh, how...irresponsible?) Sheesh. Either you have really really high standards for what is required to make a FOIA request (it is the "freedom of information act" after all - one would think that the whole point is to allow people to, well, get information), or you might be nit-picking here, just a tad.
[Does the fact that JW has blamed the current administration for something automatically make them bad, in your book?] Straw man, and I hope you know it.
How the heck can it be a "straw man" if I made no claim whatsoever regarding you or your motives? I only asked you a question. And, here's your answer:
I blame the administration for lots of things. From there I think you can tell that my reaction and JW’s differs a bit, it’s that difference that is at issue here.
Fair enough. And thanks for answering my question even though (somehow) it was a "straw man"....
No, the point is not made. Your original point was that this was a “Pretty standard cry for attention” and that thus other groups have done the same. I have no evidence of any other group doing this. Therefore the point is unproven.I read them all from the groups I follow.Which leaves: All the groups you don't follow. Unless you "follow" every single nonprofit group in existence, I think the point is made.
Specifically there is no evidence in support of the point. On the other hand I have lots of evidence of groups that don’t do that, the other groups I follow. So the point is more disproven than proven, though not conclusively of course, since you don’t want to take the challenge of trying to prove it. Were you to claim that some other group you have followed has done this we would at least have a start down the road of proving your point.
when done by JW, because...?Asked and answered.
They will be filing Freedom of Information Act requests. That's it! Oh, horror of horrors! And this really sticks in your craw for some reason? This is "charging ahead without evidence"?Likely they will have to sue to get the answered. So that isn’t it. And even if it was it is likely a huge waste of time and money unless there is some proof of something first.
or you might be nit-picking here, just a tad.Funny phrase to use when defending an organization that files lawsuits and FOIA requests every time someone sneezes.
patent +AMDG
At first, I really thought that Klayman and JW was just what the country needed -- a private entity independent of the government investigating government corruption. With Clinton/Gore in office, there certainly seemed to be no lack of corruption to investigate.
But at some point in the last couple of years, my opinion started to shift. JW kept releasing press release after press release that were really nothing more than fund-raiser pleas. Making little to no progress in their current actions, they resorted to doing what got them the most contributions -- opening new "investigations". And many of these were over very silly things, making JW look silly in turn.
In the last year or so, it's just gotten worse. No matter what the news of the day is, JW is issuing an "urgent" press release saying that they are "investigating" possible government corruption in whatever happened (or allegedly happened). It's all about headlines, and has little, if anything, to do with JW's stated mission.
JW should go back to working on just a couple of cases and putting real investigative and legal work into them instead of issuing badwagon press releases on every topic under the sun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.