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/
First of all I'd like you to note that I didn't take your answer apart, as per your request. Unfortunately this makes it more difficult to respond to your points. I would humbly ask you to reconsider this obsession you appear to have with making sure that anyone who replies to you quotes every single sentence you write. But in the meantime I shall do my best. Anyhow, proceeding backwards,
1. I'm happy to keep the thread alive.
2. I am not a "Larry Klyman spin doctor", whatever that would mean. Just a guy. I don't even "support" Judicial Watch in the first place. Haven't I made that clear? I'm just curious.
3. If Larry needs to find out what HE has done, then why exactly do you object so much to me coming to this thread and asking precisely that: "what has Larry done?" I have asked honestly and sincerely. I have even gotten some decent answers ("he issued a press release about Bush Sr.'s connection to the bin Laden family"...). But along the way I get called all sorts of names, and have my motives questioned, for some reason.
4. I am not hanging on to the premise that "last year everyone loved Larry". I never had that premise to begin with. I recall last year quite vividly and I know full well that not "everyone" loved Larry. Left-wingers didn't "love" him, for one thing. Furthermore, I do remember some Freepers back then chiming in and saying that he's a publicity hound, etc. My only observation is that last year, such criticism was in the minority on FR. Whereas this year, it appears to be in the majority. And I wonder why the change. (Really, I do! That has been my question since my first post on this thread!)
5. And finally, don't tell me that "No, you're not" honestly curious. I'll be the judge of my feelings and motivations, thank you very much. And I am honestly curious, I swear. If you perceive my questions as some sort of subterfuge, or an intent at knee-jerk criticism, then I have no choice but to wonder why you are so defensive about this topic.
Best,
Sorry, my mistake for being too vague; the "point" I was referring to was the point that you are not privy to every single press release in existence. So as you can see the logical discussion you then put forth subsequently is irrelevant.
And even if it was it is likely a huge waste of time and money unless there is some proof of something first.
So your problem with them is that you do not feel they spend their contributors' money wisely or efficiently as compared with the results obtained. Got it. (Of course this is still not the same complaint as to say that Every case they take on is frivolous. But I do understand why you don't support them, let's leave it at that.)
Funny phrase to use when defending an organization that files lawsuits and FOIA requests every time someone sneezes.
Is this technically true, Mr. Logic? ;) Shall I now go on a discourse on how, if I sneeze just once right now without JW filing a suit, your point is disproven?
Anyway, I still don't understand why some people get so riled up about other people filing FOIA requests. I mean, geez, no skin off your nose. Is it?
FOIA requests never bothered me. Or hurt anyone (except for the inconvenience they might cause people in power - oh noooooo!!!! :). Anyway, the more, the better, I say. Oh well, to each his own....
Yes, and Larry should have known about Peter Paul's credibility problems and had some contingency plan for the inevitable press attacks. Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, dang.
I see Klayman's decline here I think. It started in earnest when he filed a lawsuite against Mayor Rudy ...., just a few days after he announced he had prostate cancer. That was a low blow to most here and started much rancor...., of course it was before W.
Thats just my opinion. I could not understand Ms. Browning's animus against Clinton; it looked to me like self-aggrandizement on her part.
Of course since you "do not find Ms. Browning credible" I could have described her completely correctly ("she got up this morning, had breakfast...") and you'd still have your doubts, I suppose. Oh well.
I could not understand Ms. Browning's animus against Clinton
So?
Who cares whether you "understand" someone's "animus against Clinton"?
What we were discussing was the following: Why does representing her/ taking legal action on her behalf make JW bad in some way? I have been trying to discover your answer, and it's hard. It seems like you're saying "I would rather not know these things".
But at the same time it sure seems very important for you to "understand" someone's personal motivations for doing what they do - someone whom you claim to not even want to hear from in the first place.
So in summary it appears that you want to know/"understand" Personal Motivations but you don't want to hear any actual information. If JW had just issued a press release from Ms. Browning detailing all her personal motivations, and dispensed with any legal action, would that have made you like JW better?
P.S. By the way, here is a random sampling of Ms. Browning's story that I got from the google search I did to discover my mistake:
After she informed Clinton in January 1992 that she planned to write a novel about their affair, she received a call from her brother, Walter Kyle, a campaign worker warning, "If you cooperate with media, we will destroy you."
Hmmm. So far, sounds nice. Yeah, why the "animus"? Clinton and his horde, they're just a bunch of teddy bears!
[Clinton] said "You can live on the hill. I can help you find a job," [for not writing her book]
Gee, that doesn't sound like Clinton's MO at all! Yup, her story sure lacks credibility.
She has admitted that she had the same problem as "Billy," that she was a sex addict.
And so the main result of her actions appears to be the discovery/verification that Bill Clinton was (or is?) a "sex addict". Now maybe (1) you don't believe her. (And why not, exactly?) OR: (2) we have just discovered that our President was a "sex addict", and might be prone to doing things like, oh I don't know, conducting sexual activity while discussing war plans on the telephone.
Again, just because it's not quite clear yet: Are you really saying you would rather not know any of this? And you blame Judicial Watch for bringing it to light?
Ignorance is bliss, I guess, eh?
I don't know, but doesn't it raise your curiousosity on Clinton's part when he solicits false affidavits and presents them to the court? It seems the only one caught lying so far is Clinton, and his perjury prevented proper testimony in all of these "affairs".
Also, a very similar pattern of personal sleaze attracts of his is in progress. As he has operated in the past with anyone that was ever a threat, he is now pushing to get a "head count" of those on the Supreme Court who barred him from practicing in front of them. Once he gets the names, he will try to smear and destroy every one of them, albeit with now limited power to do so. It just shows you his warped little mind hasn't changed a bit though.
My gosh, you are right. He "only" threatened to destroy her (for publishing a book), through his minions.
And that's just nifty! I don't mind if our public servants act that way at all. In fact, I don't even want to hear about it. Shame on Judicial Watch for telling me about that. Shame!
(Do I really need to add a close-sarcasm tag to this, or do you get the idea? ;)
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.