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."

[Fred Mertz]

I would not be surprised if some of them still do.

[Amelia]

Hmmm. You're starting to sound like some of the people at that other forum.

At least I can *see* something here. All I've seen out of Larry is press releases.

[Howlin]

Discovery is not going to happen in Klayman's case because his case if frivilous and will/should be thrown out.

Which, of course, will call for another press release in which Larry claims that "they are out to get him."

[marty60]

Well, look at it this way, even Hitler got someone to marry him!

[goldilucky]

Most of the "facts" have already been debunked on this thread and others by people who have a clue about corporate accounting.

As I said before, that is why there are courts to determine the facts and law of this matter. Plain and simple. Forget the polls as you mention that Larry lied about. The polls are not the issue at hand to be determined. Let's stick with the facts instead of "debunking" them.

[goldilucky]

The issue of "frivilous" is moot. The facts may be further proven through discovery. To throw out a lawful complaint because someone thinks the facts are frivilous is obstruction of justice, malfeasance, and gross violation of due process. It is not for the court to be conducting themselves as lawyers but instead as neutral and to accept the claims and later determine them to be valid through discovery. The issue of a "frivilous" claim has become a long worn term used as a legal blocking machination to block discovery that the term might as well fit for the same purpose that the issue of immunity clause for elected officials is commonly invoked as a defense.

[Amelia]

Forget the polls as you mention that Larry lied about. The polls are not the issue at hand to be determined. Let's stick with the facts instead of "debunking" them.

The only facts you seem to be interested in are the "facts" presented by Larry. We've already proven that Larry is not credible.

The fact is, Larry lies.

[Howlin]

If I understand your posts correctly, you're saying that this case should continue IN CASE there is anything out there that Larry might use to smear Cheney and/or Bush.

That is NOT the way the law works; I've read his pleading. Larry's clients bought their stock AFTER the alledged 'crime'..........haven't you ever heard of "Let the buyer beware?"

[Amelia]

Apparently Larry only believes the 4th Amendment applies to Judicial Watch?

[goldilucky]

I take it you do believe that Judicial Watch should immediately comply with the IRS audit then, since NO ONE - not even Judicial Watch - is above the law?

That IRS audit was politically motivated. Why doesn't the IRS go after fraudelent corporate shakedowns like the so-called Reverand Jesse Jackson who's actions by inciting speeches of "civil rights" are both seditious and un-American.

Suckers might also be those who continue to believe every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Larry Klayman.

Larry Klayman happens to be putting the nail in a lot of coffins these days.

Suckers might be those who continue to send him money to "fight corruption" even though less than 20% of the money he receives goes for legal expenses and he so far hasn't won any of the many cases he's filed (except maybe the one against his mother?)

Suckers might also be those who voluntarily file an income tax when there is no law that says you are liable especially in the Federal Register. Nobody's forcing you to send money to fight government corruption. That's your option.

By the way, when you send money to Larry, does he give you a financial statement so that you can see what you've gotten for your investment? Or does he just send a letter asking for even more money?

Financial Statements can be acquired if you request of them. It is stated on the back of the donation form.

[goldilucky]

The key word to the Fourth Amendment is "unreasonable" search and seizure. There must be probable or reasonable cause for a foreign entity like the IRS to be questioning Larry.

[goldilucky]

Yes, I have heard of the term "let the buyer beware". I also understand that Cheney is not the only named defendant in this matter. And I really do look forward to having this go through discovery. Don't you?

[goldilucky]

Well you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. I just want to see the facts go to trial.

[Amelia]

That IRS audit was politically motivated.

So Larry says. But we know Larry lies.

It's also the law - and NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW - NOT EVEN LARRY.

Larry Klayman happens to be putting the nail in a lot of coffins these days.

Can you name a case he's won, other than the one against his mother?

Nobody's forcing you to send money to fight government corruption.

Believe me, Lyin' Larry will not get a dime of mine.

You know, of course, that many people believe this suit against Cheney is politically motivated. I suppose, using Larry's audit logic, that means the suit is invalid and shouldn't go forward?

[Amelia]

Well you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

It's not just my opinion. The proof is there. Did you even look?

[Howlin]

There will be no discovery is there is nothing there. That's what you all don't seem to understand. Larry just cannot "do discovery" because he hopes to find something.

But I will tell you this, IF -- and it's a big "if" -- this case goes forward, this is one case where Larry Klayman won't be able to stack it in the backroom where nobody knows what's going on with this case.

We're going to hear all about every single thing that happens in this case; it won't be like the usual Klayman case where there is a big hoopla when he files the charges and then nobody is ever able to find out what happens to it.

Halliburton will fight back; these bogus accusations will affect their stock prices and their business on a day to day basis. Klayman has impuned their reputation and they defend themselves with everything available to them.

KLayman is not use to playing with the "big boys" and they will show him for the shyster that he is. Klayman's biten off more than he can chew, IMO.

[Howlin]

The IRS audit is politically motivated only because Larry Klayman says so; an investigation by Michael Chertoff, a WELL RESPECTED attorney at DOJ, found no reason to believe it's politically motivated and told Klayman so personally, but Klayman played the politic card, sort of like Jesse plays the race card, in order to avoid having to produce his records.

What is Larry hiding?

[Sir Gawain]

hehe

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Dont! Listen! To! nopardons!, she! tends! to! be! extremely!shrill! and! often! overreacts!

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Hey...