[Clara Lou]

If you guys would stop your personal attacks on Larry Klayman and JW, we wouldn't have so much of a problem with you.
There's that naiveté rearing its ugly head again. Who cares whether you have a problem or not? Most Freepers, over time, have come to see Larry Klayman for what he is-- an opportunist in sheep's clothing, taking donations to file lawsuits that come to naught-- except that one against his mother, of course.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"There's that naiveté rearing its ugly head again. Who cares whether you have a problem or not? Most Freepers, over time, have come to see Larry Klayman for what he is-- an opportunist in sheep's clothing, taking donations to file lawsuits that come to naught-- except that one against his mother, of course."

You obviously care, since you are choosing to debate with me in one way or another. You believe Klayman to be an opportunist in sheep's clothing because he hasn't won some of his cases yet. If you do this, then surely you should be holding the Justice Department accoutable for refusing to investigate the Clinton crimes. I believe that especially after September 11th, Americans are very concerned about the well-being of our national security, perhaps they will be interested in reviewing the Cox Report again.

You guys also complain about the way in which Judicial Watch chooses to operate their budget, despite the fact that they are planning to open up branches in Chicago and elsewhere. In order to do this, they must have some money saved up, yes? And their assets must exceed their liabilities if they are to survive in the long term, yes? Perhaps Judicial Watch is planning for the future, afterall, Larry Klayman does plan for the future well-being of his organization.