Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judicial Watch Jumps On Record-Setting Bandwagon, Sues Barry Bonds and Major League Baseball
10/08/2001 | William Wallace

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/


TOPICS: Free Republic; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-212 last
To: karth
You don't know if ANYBODY threatened to destroy Dolly Kyle Browning. I wouldn't take her word for it;

That's your prerogative not to take her word for it, for whatever reason (because she's well-coiffed? or what?). I still don't see that as a reason to take the see-no-evil/hear-no-evil view that "I don't want to hear about such things in the first place". How exactly can you proudly display this honorable skepticism of yours if you never hear the stories you doubt in the first place?

As for myself: I'll admit, between the word of Clinton or a Clinton flunkie, and some randomly-chosen person, I'll take the word of the randomly-chosen person.

Of course, this might be moot. Did Clinton or his flunkies even deny the threat, or rather did they just challenge the court proceeding with a flurry of briefs and an army of wing-tips, without denying the actual story? It would be rather strange if you are here to say "I believe the word of Clinton over the word of that broad" if Clinton doesn't even deny the broad's story.

I mean, heck, that would be ridiculous.

In any event, had not JW brought the story to light, it seems that we wouldn't even know about this charge - true or not - to begin with.

And you would prefer it that way: to remain in ignorance. Is that what you're saying? Please, just say so if that's the case, so we can end this conversation.

201 posted on 10/11/2001 1:53:20 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
It looks like my reply to you should of been directed to karth. Attention deficit disorder lately.
202 posted on 10/11/2001 5:16:06 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: bjs1779
I'm unaware of anything Klayman has ever brought to light regarding Clinton.
203 posted on 10/11/2001 8:41:34 PM PDT by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Checkers
Posting at 10:05 pm 10/11/2001
204 posted on 10/11/2001 10:07:25 PM PDT by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Checkers
bump
205 posted on 10/12/2001 3:32:38 AM PDT by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
Whew! I've said a number of times that I don't consider Ms. Browning credible. So, knowing her story adds nothing to my knowledge because I don't credit it. If some self-promoting non-credible old acquaintance comes forward with oddball stories about Bush, I'm not going to feel more informed for knowing those stories. And I expect Bush would treat it the same way Clinton did: not respond publicly.
206 posted on 10/12/2001 4:53:33 AM PDT by karth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: karth
bump
207 posted on 10/12/2001 7:46:49 AM PDT by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: karth
Just out of curiosity, which part of Ms. Browning's statement do you find so "not credible" or do you "not credit"?

Which part do you think is false?

I am just wondering because the more I research her story the less I can understand why you are so vehemently against it, and why you are so insistent about how "not credible" she is.

I mean: she doesn't actually claim all that much to begin with. (As compared with Ms. Broaddrick, for example....) So I don't get it - what exactly is there to "doubt" about her?

Is it just because she's well-coiffed and went on TV, and therefore you dislike her? Is that it?

208 posted on 10/12/2001 8:09:54 AM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
What the heck was she suing him for? Is that in her statement at all? What was the gist of her confusing TV appearances? What was the legal rationale according to Klayman?

I don't care about her being well-coiffed; its just proof she wasn't destroyed. Its America; people can say anything especially about public figures but the rest of us have to sort the wheat from the chaff. In my opinion, Klayman's taking up this woman's issue - whatever it is or was - is a reason for me not to support his organization because he's wasting time, money, effort and the public's attention on silly complaints. Just because its a complaint with sex thrown into the mix doesn't make it worthy.

209 posted on 10/12/2001 10:07:09 AM PDT by karth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: karth
What the heck was she suing him for?

You tell me. You're the one who 1. "finds her not credible", and 2. is angry at Judicial Watch for representing her for whatever claims she had.

I assume this means you're familiar with the lawsuit. I mean: how on earth could you be angry at Judicial Watch for bringing legal action if you didn't know what that legal action was? That would just be nutty: "I don't know what this case was about but you should never have brought it up!"

So, I'll say it again: you tell me.

What was the gist of her confusing TV appearances?

That you apparently found her TV appearances "confusing" is an autobiographical fact and not relevant to this discussion of Judicial Watch.

What was the legal rationale according to Klayman?

You tell me. You're the one who seems to have a huge problem with it.

I don't care about her being well-coiffed; its just proof she wasn't destroyed.

Irrelevant to a claim of whether she was threatened. What it does prove, however, is that you pay no small amount of attention to how "coiffed" a woman is.

In my opinion, Klayman's taking up this woman's issue - whatever it is or was - is a reason for me not to support his organization because he's wasting time, money, effort and the public's attention on silly complaints.

But how do you know it's such a "silly complaint", given that you don't know what the suit was about, you don't know the legal rationale, and you even found her TV appearances "confusing"? Maybe the problem here is that you need to do a little research and not be so quick to judge.

Why don't you just come clean here: Are you a Clinton worshipper, who thinks that every legal action against him was just horrible, no matter what? If so, just admit it; it's ok with me. It's just that it would explain a lot of things for me, and I could stop bugging you :)

Just because its a complaint with sex thrown into the mix doesn't make it worthy.

And, just because it's a complaint with sex thrown into the mix doesn't make it not worthy.

Interesting that you couldn't answer my question (Which part [of her story] do you think is false?). Was this merely an oversight on your part? Let me know,

210 posted on 10/12/2001 10:29:48 AM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Checkers
I'm unaware of anything Klayman has ever brought to light regarding Clinton.

Did I say he did? Saying that, he did have a couple of White House and EPA cases concerning Email obstruction that should of went somewhere.

211 posted on 10/12/2001 5:22:40 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Checkers
bump
212 posted on 10/17/2001 2:34:18 AM PDT by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-212 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson