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/
It appears to me that what Larry and JW are real good at is fund raising, so why not a direct fund raiser, and a hefty contribution from the firm to get it going?
But let's just agree to disagree for now, shall we? Perhaps if I look a little closer into what JW is trying to do, and who they are helping, I'll have a change of heart.
Maybe you could direct me to any pending litigation that JW has on the situation at the Klamath Basin.
Thanks,
Luis
LOL!!!! Great writing William, I love it! And it sounds real too. Good job.
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.
After a long hot summer of lawsuits I wonder if Larry has anyone left to sue. What do you think? ;-)
Pretty standard cry for attention, you expect to see it from any organization, really.
Bush Stem Cell decision breaks campaign pledge; Judicial Watch to probe politics of decision
From the announcement --
"...expressed grave disappointment in President Bush?s decision to break his September 22, 2000 campaign pledge to oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. [....] President Bush?s decision to spend American tax payers money to promote research of... [...] ...provides an incentive for researchers to expand their experiments and justify the ?need? for more embryos to be destroyed. "
In other words, 1. he broke a pledge and they cited which pledge they're talking about, including the date. 2. A part of their concern has to do with how taxpayers' money (hey, that's us!) will be spent, and 3. one unintended consequence of this decision could be that the research becomes self-justifying, and balloons to unforeseen extent, eventually creating an outcry for the "need" to allow all embronic stem cell research, after all.
You know, I essentially agreed with Bush's decision, but I've got NO problem with Judicial Watch investigating this stuff.
JUDICIAL WATCH BLAMES PRESIDENT BUSH FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS --Promises Investigation (mine)
Of course, this was a Freeper's headline - not JW's.
From the article:
" the U.S. government has not been forthright with the American people."
Gee, how controversial. :)
"During the last eight years of scandal during the Clinton administration, and the first eight months of the Bush Administration, reports this morning confirm that little to nothing was done to secure our nation?s airports and transportation systems as a whole - despite warnings."
Nothing done - despite warnings. Isn't that bad? Doesn't that make ya the least bit curious? Is your main problem with LK's complaint that it includes eight months of an administration you like?
"Instead, cosmetic reform of education, social security, taxes, and other less important issues were given precedence."
Tell me about it Larry. Just think how surreal that whole stupid "putting Social Security in a lock box" debate seems right about now. Geez, Gore voters should be forced to view excerpts from the TV debates. They should be hit over the head with "lockbox" and "affirmative action" and "what about Dingle-Norwood?" until they realize how inward-looking and self centered US politics has been for the past 8 years.
Just like Larry says.
"Judicial Watch will use its investigative powers to look into the obvious breach of the people?s trust by a government which should not only have been candid, but also have taken steps to defend them."
Uh, ok I admit this part is a little vague and platitudinous. (What exactly are they going to "investigate"? :) Still, kind of hard to argue against isn't it?
You really, honestly don't want this stuff investigated by other people, and it would bother you if it were? I still just don't get it...
Larry certainly has some fascinating items in that catalog of his.
Great cartoon! LOL!
My ignorance is showing here, since I hadn't heard about this. Suing for Osama's assets sounds like a fine idea to me, but you're making it sound like there's some obvious legal reason why this is obviously embarrassing for LK to suggest. So I dunno. It's the thought that counts? :)
It appears to me that what Larry and JW are real good at is fund raising,
Ok, I do understand that part of the complaint about the group is their fund-raising and self-promotion.
I don't know how else a group like this would exist however. And I do want groups like this to exist. You don't?
But let's just agree to disagree for now, shall we?
Fine w/me, I don't even really "disagree" - that much. I mean I'm not a huge fan of JW or anything. I just wonder why the criticism.
Part of what I'm gathering is that the people here who dislike JW, usually they can point to a few things that JW is doing with which they disagree. Or a few things which JW is not doing, which they wish it would.
But to complain about this is to expect JW to be a perfect, infallible group of immortal, un-beatable lawyers whose every opinion is precisely equal to your opinion on every single issue.
And that's just kinda, well, unrealistic. (As is expecting a nonprofit organization to function, without raising funds or promoting itself.)
So to argue against them, to me, sounds exactly like saying, "I don't think groups like JW ought to exist." In which case we have a government run amok with no one making any attempts whatsoever to keep them within the boundaries of the law, ever. Is that what you want? That's not what I want. Even if I don't agree with what JW does or the cases they bring 100% of the time - and I'm sure I don't, I'm sure I could find some things they're doing which I disagree with if I really looked.
After all, it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise, right?
Maybe you could direct me to any pending litigation that JW has on the situation at the Klamath Basin.
I did a search on their website for "Klamath" but all I got was one reference to a discussion about the suckerfish situation on their radio show. So, I guess they're not bringing any litigation on that situation, you're right.
This means they're bad? evil? horrible? ought not to exist?
Again, no group of people will or could ever do everything you want on every single issue. It's just unrealistic to expect in the first place. Which is why I still don't get the criticism.
Oh well....no big deal...to each his own. Best,
Easy -- Sammy Sosa (or Sammy Sooser, as Ted Kennedy once referred to him.)
You cling to the false premise that everyone loved Judicial Watch when they were suing Clinton and started hating them when they started attacking the Bush administration.
That may be true of some people, but a lot of us have been questioning their antics for some time now.
No, of course not! Quite the contrary.
What I'm saying is the fact that they're not infallible and not always right is not a good enough reason to completely and totally turn against them, because it's unrealistic to expect that of any group of human beings in the first place.
Or are you telling me that if I don't agree with someone's actions, I need to be quiet about it?
No, of course not. By all means speak up against some particular action of anyone you disagree with. You listed a good particular example, their press release regarding the WSJ piece on the bin Laden family connection. You and I may not have agreed on our interpretations of that release, but at least it was a specific complaint about a particular action of JW.
Is that how you would describe the article which began this thread? As a complaint about some particular JW action or another?
Because from what I can sense it's more than that. It is an attempt to complain about JW in general, with the implication that everything they do is frivolous etc. And the only reason I responded is: I hardly ever used to see that point of view expressed on FR during the Clinton administration.
Which kinda made me wonder, is all.
I'm glad to hear it's a false premise. I was around on FR back then and it sure appeared otherwise. Not that "everyone" loved Judicial Watch, but certainly - say - the majority. Do you really claim my impression was inaccurate?
That may be true of some people, but a lot of us have been questioning their antics for some time now.
I see. I'll have to take your word for it. Best,
Mind-boggling, isn't it? The mailing list of people who bought that item has to be worth a goldmine!
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.