If you developed some original work which was quite revealing and the current Attorney General refused to look at it, what would you do? When the new Attorney General came along and refused to look at it as well, what would you do?
Would you continue to try to develop that same type of documentation? I doubt it.
As for any of his suits in the last two to three years, I haven't been particularly impressed. The fact that Clinton was winding down and Bush was coming in with a clean slate may have contributed towards this. That seems reasonable.
You state that Larry issues false data in his press releases and takes advantage of the lack of knowledge of most people. You state that he is still asking for donations for those closed cases. And perhaps you are right on both counts. I do find it interesting that 09/11 funds are still soliciting moneys for the families of the victims when they could each have been given something like $1 to $2 million dollars in compensation with funds already collected, despite the fact that private insurance and other compensation packages have undoubtedly been extended to them by now. The firemen's families must have been taken care of by their union or city compensation packages. I am also told that the government is going to provide large sums to the families through a victims of terrorism fund. Who's to say when enough is enough on certain issues?
I may be off base on the following issue, but I'm going to mention it anyway. On this forum almost no criticism of corporations is appreciated by the majority of participants. Excluding the outright criminality of Enron and a few others, people hate comments that are negative to corporations. When corporations act in their own best interests even if it is detrimental to our nation, there are those who support them. I have had people even deny that Enron Executives did anything wrong. When Loral gave away our missile technology it wasn't wrong, according to some people. Another words, it's okay for them to act in self-interest. It doesn't count if there was something akin to what most of use would consider fraud or espionage.
What I am leading up to is this. Klayman is acting in the best interest of his little fiefdom. Okay, perhaps that is wrong. But how can we go after Klayman with savagery then give corporations a pass for doing almost anything? Klayman is smart enough to know that he is about half the way to a trust fund that will see Judicial Watch become a permanent fixture in the American landscape. He's obviously pursuing that eventuality. I don't agree with lying to the public, but then there's been quite a bit of that of late.
I'm willing to go after Klayman's ethics if the rest of you are willing to go after corporations ethics that deal with a nation like China, transferring our technology to them, and gifting them with patents, military secrets and creating a much more dangerous adversary than would every have been realized if we hadn't. How can those corporations gift all these positive aspects to a nation that still promotes the slaughter of female babies, enforces abortions without consent, imprisons religious leaders, makes it known that it plans to take Taiwan by any mean possible and does other problematic things? Who's willing to support my stand on ethics if I support theirs on Klayman?