Replies

Klayman vs. Mom Suit

The following article is from the Washington Post. To access the article, go to Washington Post, and search for "Larry Klayman."

KLAYMAN CHRONICLES

Family Feud

Adversaries have described Larry Klayman as the sort of guy who would sue his mother. Turns out, he's the kind of guy who would sue his mother and take the case to trial.

The chairman of Judicial Watch, a crusading conservative with a yen for hardball and a knack for peppering Clintonites with litigation, now has Mom in his sights. Barring a last-minute settlement, Klayman's lawsuit against the seventysomething lady who brought him into this world goes to trial today in D.C. Superior Court.

The case is a spat about money. Klayman says his mother, Shirley Feinberg, reneged on a vow to cover the health-care costs of his grandmother, Feinberg's mom. According to Klayman, his now-deceased grandmother gave Feinberg tens of thousands of dollars that was supposed to be spent on his grandmother's hospital and nursing-home care.

But Feinberg has refused to part with the money, Klayman alleges in court filings, even though he incurred roughly $50,000 in expenses after he moved his grandmother from Pennsylvania to a Washington nursing home and later Georgetown University Hospital. He's suing to force his mother to fork over the cash.

Feinberg counters in court documents that her mother gave her the money, no strings attached. She says she was paying for her mother's care in Pennsylvania but opposed her son's decision to move her to Washington. She adds that she never agreed to pay medical bills that she says Klayman rang up because he neglected to win preapproval for his grandmother's treatment with her health insurer.

"I did not in March 1997, promise Larry Klayman that I would pay him for any medical or other expenses he might incur on behalf of my mother Yetta Goldberg," she stated in a sworn affidavit. "On the contrary," she continued, "on that occasion, Larry Klayman was verbally abusive to me and to my aunt (Yetta Goldberg's sister), which forced us to leave his house and go to a hotel for the night. Moreover, on this occasion, Larry Klayman's wife, Stephanie Klayman, was crying while Larry Klayman was screaming at my aunt and me."

A scene from "The Waltons" it isn't. In a May news release, Klayman stated that Yetta had raised him, and he accused his mother and stepfather of neglecting Yetta, misappropriating her life savings and allowing her health insurance to lapse. "We tried to settle it, we couldn't settle it," he said of the suit during an appearance that same month on the cable chat show "Hardball."

Although there is nothing quite so public as a trial, Klayman initially tried to keep this lawsuit a private matter. He kept his name off the title of the case by filing it under the name of his collection agency, Accounts Inc. But in May, Newsweek ran an item about the suit, provoking a volcanic Judicial Watch news release. The magazine "uses this information, which was obviously dug up by private investigators of the Clintons, to suggest that the Judicial Watch chairman will sue anyone, and to hurt Klayman by trampling on the memory of his grandmother. This is untrue, unfair and outrageous!" the release exclaimed. "Klayman looks to no one, other than God, for his guidance and direction."

Humble,

One thing that you will find out, if you haven't already, is that Larry Klayman's detractors love to insert sparse facts on these Judicial Watch Threads for the sole purpose of mud-slinging and discrediting Larry as a person.

First of all, Larry Klayman had every right to file suit against his mother; this was an obvious last resort for him. Larry Klayman sued his mother because she and his stepfather embezzled money that was intended for his grandmother's healthcare. The lawsuit was intended to be kept private, as it was a last resort to try to get his mother to pay back the money she stole.

Second, the lawsuit was intended to be kept private, in matter of speaking. Larry kept his name off the title of the lawsuit by filing it under the auspices of another name, Accounts Inc. After Newsweek Magazine ran a polemic piece about this lawsuit for the sole purpose of trying to smear Larry's reputation, Judicial Watch then ran a press release stating the facts of the case, as to not let Judicial Watch detractors and smearers get another final word in otherwise, or gossip about Judicial Watch wrongly.

Humble,

This is a letter to The Hill News, written by Klayman himself. In it, he does explain the lawsuit with his mother.

Click here for the article: David Keen Column Full of Cheap Shots

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Klayman: Keene column full of ‘cheap shots’

To the Editor:

I was disappointed to read David Keene’s April 18 column in The Hill (“Clinton-basher Klayman targets Bush, GOP”). This article contains a number of cheap shots against Judicial Watch and me, but more importantly it suggests that to be a conservative one must be a slavishly loyal Republican.

While in this instance, Keene’s organization, the American Conservative Union, has become a cheerleader for the Republican Party, Judicial Watch remains not only conservative but staunchly nonpartisan.

Indeed, respect for ethics, morality and the rule of law are conservative virtues, and when a political party that professes to be conservative sends out solicitations to donors asking for political campaign contributions in exchange for meetings on tax policy with Bush administration officials, “principled conservatives” have no choice but to act.

In the words of Bill O’Reilly, Dick Morris and many others, including some key Republican congressmen and senators, the recent solicitations by Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) are exactly what the Clinton administration did illegally when it sold seats on trade missions, overnight stays in the White House and rides on Air Force One, to name just a few similar transgressions. (The New York Times reported last week that Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson met with Republican donors in his government office as part of a massive Republican fundraising push.)

Are conservatives to look the other way when individuals and political parties within their ranks commit the same crimes that the Clintons committed?

In addition to forsaking conservative values, your article goes on to level several cheap shots against me and my colleagues at Judicial Watch.

First, you raised the issue of the lawsuit against my mother, which resulted when she and my stepfather misappropriated all of my grandmother’s savings and abandoned her after a severe hip injury which left her in a state which ultimately led to her death.

My wife and I stepped in to care for my grandmother, but she needed her savings for her extensive medical care. The lawsuit against my mother was intended only to recuperate my grandmother’s moneys. Are you suggesting that conservatives should look the other way and allow the elderly to be abused and left to die?

Second, you make reference to an alleged dispute between Judicial Watch and the NRCC, which the NRCC has falsely and dishonestly claimed was the motivation for our legal actions concerning the illegal DeLay/Hastert/Republican fundraising solicitations. There was no dispute with the NRCC and Judicial Watch took its actions based on principle.

Third, you suggest that conservatives may no longer want to donate to Judicial Watch because we have decided to hold the Bush administration to the same legal standards as the Clinton administration. If this is what the American Conservative Union stands for, then perhaps conservatives should reconsider donating to your group — which, if your article is to be read at face value, stands for little other than being the “yes man” of the Republican Party. Ironically, Judicial Watch has supported your group in the past.

I am very disappointed by your columnist’s concept of conservatism. “Principled conservatives” do not run interference for lawlessness. They believe that “no one is above the law.”

Larry Klayman

Chairman and general counsel

Judicial Watch