Halliburton Responds to Larry Klayman's Supersillyous Suit(My Title)

CBS Market Watch "Big Charts" Web Site ^ | 7/10/2002 | MarketWatch.com

[SierraWasp]

12:57PM Halliburton responds to Judicial Watch lawsuit (HAL) by Michael Baron Halliburton (HAL) is off 30 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $13.82, in midday action. The company is out with a press release responding to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based legal watchdog group. The suit alleges fraudulent accounting practices at Halliburton took place during the period when current vice president Dick Cheney served as its chairman and CEO. Halliburton called the claims in the suit, "untrue, unsupported, and unfounded." The company continued: "We are working diligently with the SEC to resolve its questions regarding the company's accounting procedures. Halliburton has always followed and will continue to follow guidelines established by the SEC and GAAP, General Accepted Accounting Principles."

[Torie]

Not to get off topic, but I learned two things about Klayman I did not know before from the Micheal Medved radio show: 1) Klayman sued his own mother over something; 2) Klayman was touting the theory that Ron Brown survived the plane crash (or wasn't on the plane), and then Clinton arranged his assasination and Brown died from a bullet in his head. As to the second, I don't know if Klayman sued Clinton for wrongful death or not. It does seem that under current law standing is not longer particularly relevent for initiating lawsuits that relate to claims that allegedly are held by the government which aren't being pursued.

[Darlin']

The part about suing his mother is certainly true. He acknowledged it one night a couple of years ago on Fox.

[Howlin]

Klayman's claim that Clinton himself might have been directly involved in Brown's death is well documented. I'll look for it for you.

Here's something else I found out today:

To: All

Rush’s guest host today said Carville was connected with Judicial Watch and helped organize it through some union contributions.

Can anyone confirm this, have a link?

63 posted on 7/10/02 4:37 PM Eastern by Clint N. Suhks

As to the mother sue, it's true: Here is the article that was in The Washington Post

They settled on $15,000. I don't know who paid who.

[LisaFab]

Jane, I'm no fan of frivolous suits and surely question the practice of investors suing companies for losses before charges of fraud are investigated. So do I agree with your charges that JW is jumping the gun here? Yes.

Conversely, I support anyone's right to sue anyone at any level at any time provided that a judge agrees that the suit has merit.

Jane, are you sure that the suit only involves Cheney? I believe they are suing the entire Halliburton board, plus officers as well as Arthur Anderson.

As far as his attacks on Laura Bush, I've not read them but will accept, on your words alone, that they are wrong and I therefore condemn them sight unseen.

Still I feel there is great use in DC for organizations like JW, who, instead of being used by the media to further their not so hidden agenda, are indeed using the media to promote JW's agenda. And that agenda is to represent the private citizen against the powerful in government.

Now we may disagree over whether Klayman has changed his mission statement to accommodate an ever-burgeoning ego, or that he truly believes Halliburton misrepresented its earnings to defraud the public (I believe the VP innocent of all personal involvement). That is what we ([sigh] used to) do here at FR.

Sorry to disagree with you...

I pray to God that all here at FR would disagree with me in the gracious, intelligent spirit of debate displayed by the ever-lady-like Miss Marple.

[Freee-dame]

liberal media is running with this one...

Tonight Mara Liasson on Fox said "We have Cheney who IS doing some of these same things." Brit Hume reminded her that it was only an allegation. Her use of the present tense was curious. She also referred to the current occupant of the White House as "President Clinton." No bias here.

[Iwo Jima]

"They settled on $15,000. I don't know who paid who."

Even assuming that Klayman was paid $15,000 by his mother, not many people would think that it was worth it to sue their mother over $15,000. He and his mother (and aunt and step father and who knows who else) have not spoken since, as I udnerstand it. Tells you something about the man.

On the other hand, maybe his mother was delighted to pay $15,000 not to ever speak to him again.

[SeaChell]

I couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks!!

[Miss Marple]

Oh, I agree that there is a need for a watchdog group. I just don't think we need this particular watchdog.

He obviously has an ax to grind, considering he is making comments on foreign policy and hinting that Bush could have prevented 9/11.

I encourage you to really look at all the press releases he has issued. I think you may have missed some things that changed a lot of opinion here.

[LisaFab]

I'll go with Fred Barnes, who just called Klayman "a crank."

Yes, Klayman is a bit 'cranky', and didn't we all love it when he was twisting Clinton's crank! That said, do I believe he sometimes thinks of himself as a modern-day Don Quixote? Yes. However, I also find myself agreeing with the Don that just because others see windmills as windmills, that doesn't mean that they might not be giants indeed. Where most in this country saw a 'private sexual matter' we here saw the ghastly spectre behind that particular windmill and so did Klayman.

As far as JW's suits being never-ending, I applaud that fact most loudly. He told me that he is through with neither John Huang or various other bad actors from the eight year reign of terror of the i42.

Please let me preface my last line with this: I do not equate Larry Klayman or his actions with President George W. Bush. But many on this thread have had to defend some of W's actions in spite of the fact that we have not liked them all. IMHO, we need tilters at government windmills just as much as we need honest, decent, patriotic men like GWB.

[nutmeg]

When I was scanning the wires, I noticed something interesting. When Judicial Watch went after the Clinton, they were called a "right-wing group". Now that JW is going after Cheney, they are now listed as a "public interest group". Sometimes, the media can't help but show its bias.

Very interesting... good catch. Of course the sheeple won't notice the bias.

[SierraWasp]

"Cheney is a crook and always has been."

And just how in the world would you know that? You can't begin to prove any part of that statement in any way shape or form!

[LisaFab]

Jane, I perused his website a little while ago and thought his comments on how the Bush FBI is holding back their judgement on whether the 7/4/02 LAX attack was terrorism or not was right on the money. The fact that he uses the phrase "Bush FBI" gave me cause for consternation, but let's face it - unfortunately this is true.

The rest of the piece is typical JW 'us against them' rebel-rousing which I totally dismiss as such and therefore ignore. He uses the same rhetoric no matter who the target. Remember?

The windup is that while I think most of the posts on this thread are dead-on and I especially love the pics of the badges and umbrellas (how come I didn't get one?) I would ask you to contemplate the awful but inevitable fact that the libs will someday retake the White House. I hope JW will still be in business by then and I would hope that you would too. I say this in the spirit of "but he's our (fill in the blank) Shah, Northern Alliance, Sadaam Hussein, etc." :-)

[linton59]

Re your reference to post 63: I did not hear Sullivan the same way. I believe he said Carville et al were behind this new bogus crappola 501C4 phantom group (Voices of America)(??) that is about to launch vile anti Republican ads. I think he connected some of the mysterious members of Klayman's suit to that new group. Anyone subscribe to Rush 24/7 out there?

[ImpBill]

Great come back. /;-)

[Miss Marple]

I do not ever intend to support JW again, regardless of who is in the White House. Another (hopefully more ethical and successful) group will form. That is whom I will support.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Larry Klayman, 0 - 3,756 and counting

You got it!!

Larry Klayman has won nothing!! AT one time, I respected him. But before Clinton ever left office I was extremely disappointed in him. I'd love to check HIS books!!

There is no "is" in this lawsuit. He is an ambulance chaser. (Ok.. my tinfoil hat is on.. but I'm telling you he rode the backs of FreeRepublic to become rich!)

He is neurotic as far as suing people goes. Just MHO

[SierraWasp]

"I blame myself for being suckered in by JW during the Clinton scandals."

I understand. I was too, although I never sent him any money. The connection above by PhiKappaMom, I think it was, to Perot and possibly even the Clintons is brilliant. The rascally big-eared Ross made his fortune off the biggest government teat ever invented... Medicare!!!

Now his latest firm has been teaching LA Power & Water how to rip-off the State of CA during the energy crisis while the Demonicrats pointed at ENRON! What a con artist!!!

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

It seems that those of us who have been around forever, have finally figured out ole' Larry.

I'll place my bets on our VP!!

[Catspaw]

Klayman's going to be on Aaron Brown tonight, according to an e-mail a friend just forwarded to me.

Watch him preen.

[Miss Marple]

Ugh. Someone else will have to report, as I can't take both of those memn together.