Posted on 12/05/2001 11:37:52 AM PST by Silly
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, 5 Dec (SP) - An American lawyer fed up with the planet of Earth and everyone on it, and who has failed to achieve a single tangible goal that has any practical value in the course of his entire legal career, has filed a unprecedented lawsuit suit today against Earth and its immediate planetary system entitled, "Stop The World, I Want To Get Off."
Larry Klayman, president, founder and perpetuator extraordinaire of one of the longest running jokes in the history of law -- Judicial Watch -- has decided to end his career in comedy, throw in the towel, and storm out of the universe as soon as he can think of a witty exiting line.
The complaint, broadcast to the world over the Internet -- and to the known universe via satellite -- took the form of a videotaped rant in which Klayman stomped his feet, waved his arms about and cried, "Nobody likes me," on the steps of the Supreme Court.
At attempt was made to locate Klayman's attorney, a Hugh Foole, Esq., for comment, but apparently Klayman is representing himself in this matter.
Mel Brooks and Susan Stroman expressed an interest in the rights to the Broadway musical version of the lawsuit, under the working title, "Autumn for Klayman: A Nasty Romp with Larry on Pennsylvania Avenue." For purposes of historical accuracy, however, the show would have to go ahead as a tragic play, not a musical comedy, as Mr. Klayman was never known to have a sense of humor and couldn't carry a tune. The show was to have been a sequel to an off-off-Broadway show about Larry Klayman's lawsuit against his mother, entitled, "Throw Momma From The Hospital Bed."
In an unrelated lawsuit, evildoer Osama bin Laden has filed a countersuit against Larry Klayman, for "acts of passive hostility and derision" which occurred in another legal brief Klayman filed recently. Bin Laden accuses Klayman of "butchering" the spelling of his name as "Oussama Ben Laden," inappropriate capitalization of his middle name in the middle of a sentence, failure to capitalize "Taliban" and "Islamist," excessive use of vowels, and use of an umlaut in "Al-Qaïda." Klayman refuses to take the counter claim seriously, on the grounds that it is "nitpicking."
Klayman's wife has filed a lawsuit of her own, one that is contingent on Klayman's departure from the World (either by a legal victory in his own case or by other means), entitled, "Stop The World, I Want To Get On." Mrs. Klayman has previously denied that she is merely a convenient beard for Mr. Klayman's alleged flamboyant homosexual lifestyle.
Former President Bill Clinton filed a mildly funny "what-about-me" brief called, "Start The Foreplay, I Want To Get Off." It was dismissed in court as a nuisance vanity suit.
Journalist Barbara Walters has filed an unrelated suit entitled, "Stop The World And Wait While I Run Into Bergdorf Goodman To Return Shoes -- It Won't Take More Than Two Minutes, I Promise." An unnamed associate of Ms. Walters is whispering that the shoes are a pair of never-worn Ferragamo mules two seasons old (but with a receipt) in periwinkle blue calfskin and loden trim in the original box. Ms. Walters is a size 7.
In a recent interview with Ms. Walters on ABC's 20/20, Klayman was asked whether he wouldn't find it more practical to simply put a bullet into his own head. He replied, "I hadn't thought of that." He called ABC again just before the segment was broadcast to say that he had been unsuccessful in obtaining a gun permit. The lawsuit stands.
Of course. I also know that these were FORENSIC pathologists who were sufficiently qualified to know what gunshot wounds look like. They ALL said Brown should have been autopsied. Some of the people actually called for an autopsy during the examination. The one in charge of the examination, who refused to do the autopsy, has since admitted that the order not to do one came from the WHITEHOUSE and the JCS. He has also admitted that he was "mistaken" when he publically said he didn't do an autopsy because he saw no brain matter in the hole (i.e., there was no penetration) and the x-rays should no evidence of gunshot. He now admits that not only was there brain tissue visible but the photo of the x-ray might suggest a bullet wound.
And by "cooberate" I take it that you mean "corroborate"?
YES. Now would you like to define "IS"?
"Might suggest?" Don't go out on a limb, or anything!
One of the nation's most prominent forensic pathologists, Cyril Wecht has said (http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/17/32921) "It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown. I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht (who has conducted and reviewed tens of thousands of autopsies, has experience in both gunshot wounds and airplane crashes, and who is a democRAT) goes on to say "There was more than enough evidence of a possible homicide to call in the FBI so that (the autopsy could have been conducted) and a gunshot could have been ruled out. The military had a duty to notify the (Brown) family, and if the family didn't allow an autopsy, go to another authority to have it conducted. (AFIP) had a duty to do an autopsy."
And all Luis has been able to come up with to challenge such information is a message he received from HIS Ouija board. Talk about RUNNING.
The pathogists used stronger language. Colonel Cogswell, for instance, gave lectures at pathology conferences wherein he used the Brown case as an example of MISTAKES in pathology. He told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density" ... a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He and the others are quite DEFINITE about the need for an autopsy. Why are you so quick to dismiss their EXPERT opinions. Can you offer an expert in rebuttal? No? Well why not?
At least we are starting to close in on what you REALLY think, Silly. Keep talking.
Who exactly is "incriminated," and of what "crime?"
OOPS, MY bad. What I MEANT to say is:
WHO exactly is "INCRIMINATED," and of WHAT "CRIME?"
I don't rebut pet theories, I just point them out for what they are: theories.
And I don't make monkeys; I just train them.
You have the cart before the horse. The incriminating facts point to a murder (actually a mass murder) and a subsequent coverup by the Clinton Whitehouse, certain members of the military and the media. Exactly WHO committed the murder at this point isn't clear but there are facts which suggest that if it was a murder the Clinton Whitehouse is involved. Knowing exactly who isn't necessary at this point. The first thing we need to know is whether or not a murder took place and that could be easily ascertained by exhuming and autopsying Brown's body ... as should have been done 7 years ago.
Spoken like a true democRAT leader.
Oh no, the thanks is definitely MINE.
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.