[ALERT:] Florida passes vexatious litigant law -- ouch! Be careful pro se plaintiff Larry Klayman

Updated: Mar 16, 2022

Above: Super cool Larry Layman (UFO expert) is a pro se plaintiff in nine (9) lawsuits in Palm Beach County, Florida. But, what about the new Florida vexatious litigant law?

FLORIDA'S NEW VEXTIOUS LITIGANT LAW

If you are like Larry Layman and file more than five (5) lawsuits in the previous five (5) years you could be entering legal peril. If there is an adverse ruling against you in those five (5) pro se lawsuits, then you will be branded with a designation as a Florida Vexatious Litigant. Yikes.

(4) In addition to any other relief provided in this section, the court in any judicial circuit may, on its own motion or on the motion of any party, enter a prefiling order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from commencing, pro se, any new action in the courts of that circuit without first obtaining leave of the administrative judge of that circuit. Disobedience of such an order may be punished as contempt of court by the administrative judge of that circuit. Leave of court shall be granted by the administrative judge only upon a showing that the proposed action is meritorious and is not being filed for the purpose of delay or harassment. The administrative judge may condition the filing of the proposed action upon the furnishing of security as provided in this section.

WHINNING BY A PUBLIC FIGURE:

LARRY PRO SE LAYMAN

https://www.scribd.com/document/506576352/Larry-Klayman-vs-Commie-Girl-Industries-and-Rebecca-Schoenkopf-Order-to-Dismiss#fullscreen&from_embed

In the article below, about Larry Layman's problems with the District of Columbia Bar, POLITICO must have had said something ... because Leisure Suit Larry is suing them.

D.C. Bar officials contend the famously litigious Klayman misrepresented facts, filed meritless legal pleadings and brought frivolous demands for recusal and an ethics complaint against a judge who rejected the hard-charging lawyer’s bid to join the defense team at Bundy’s request. Klayman insists he’s guilty of nothing more than “zealous advocacy” in the episode. But looming over this week’s hearing is a more epic fight between ethics officials, who say he’s made a specialty out of using the legal system to harass his enemies, and Klayman, who contends he’s the victim of a politically motivated crusade to end his decades as a legal pit bull for conservative causes and figures.

When Larry Layman, pro se litigant, follows through on his threat to sue SDNY.BLOG that will become the number ten (10) lawsuit. If Leisurely Larry loses five (5) of the ten (10) lawsuits, then there could be legal peril for Mr. Layman.

Above: Larry Layman pal Jason Goodman, some conspiracy theorist from Chelsea, New York City. Didn't want to be an on-line astrologer, so "investigative journalist" was the next best thing.

Jason "Little Buddy" Goodman puts together the Citizen Grand Juries for Larry Layman on PATREON.

OPINION AND EDITORIAL

A List of Things A Judge Ordered We Can Say About Larry Klayman

The Complaint seeks redress for the following allegedly defamatory statements which are contained in two separate articles: October 24, 2019 Article: "Empaneling fake grand juries is one of [Plaintiff's] favorite hobbies, after sexual harassment and filing bullshit lawsuits." October 24, 2019 Article: "You may remember [Plaintiff] from some of his greatest hits, such as suing all the black people, trying to subpoena Bill Clinton's penis, and suing Robert Mueller, the DOJ, FBI, NSA, Jeff Bezos, and others on behalf of none other than Jerome Corsi" October 24, 2019 Article: "[Plaintiff] IS FUCKING BATSHIT". October 24, 2019 Article: "[Plaintiff] is president, chief operating officer, chairman, and general counsel of Freedom Watch, and 'organization' that exists mostly so [Plaintiff] has an outlet for all of his conspiracy fantasies." October 24, 2019 Article: "At the end of the day, [Plaintiff] is a grifter who screams his bigoted conspiracy theories at his computer to try to make money off other white supremacists. And posting incoherent rants to YouTube is a big part of that." July 26, 2019 Article: "Nota bene, Wonkette believes that Stataki's fleeing Klayman's car and seeking refuge from his rage and unwanted advances shows that Klayman's behavior qualifies as 'stalking' per the Department of Justice…" July 26, 2019 Article: "Could [Plaintiff] help it if it he fell so

deeply in love with her that he couldn't concentrate on her actual case because he was too busy declaring his love for months on end, and flipping out at public events if she talked to other people, and chasing her into a hotel women's room when she jumped out of his car and fled into the hotel for safety? They call the women's room the 'Klayman Room' now, he joked, because of all the remorse he did not have for a solid year of [sexually] harassing his client who was already having a nervous breakdown about her previous sexual harassment case."

July 26, 2019 Article: "Well, nobody ever said Superlawyer [Plaintiff] is good at 'lawyer'." July 26, 2019 Article: "But it seems like those would make [Plaintiff] – who is currently representing such luminaries as Jerome Corsi and Laura Loomer as well as convening a 'citizens grand jury' to indict and arrest Robert Mueller – bad at his chosen profession."

Which one's your favorite? Mine is all of them.

And what's your favorite part of the judge's order dismissing Klayman's libel suit against us? (Don't worry, you'll get to read it below!) Mine is:

Here, the Court finds that statements made by the Defendants are pure opinion, based on facts set forth in the article or otherwise known to the public, that were conveyed in a tone and manner that is clearly rhetorical hyperbole. Defendants' insinuation that sexual harassment is a "favorite hobby" of Plaintiff, or that he sued all members of a race and subpoenaed a former president's genitals, are obvious exaggerations intended for comedic effect. No reasonable reader would believe these statements factually true within the context of both the article and Wonkette as a publication. Defendants' references to Plaintiff as "Batshit", a "grifter" and a "bigot", are the types of "vigorous epithets" the Supreme Court characterizes as rhetorical hyperbole. Greenbelt Co-op. Pub. Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14 (1970). See also Raible v. Newsweek, Inc. 341 F. Supp. 804, 806-07 (W.D. Pa. 1972) ("To call a person a bigot or other appropriate name descriptive of his political, racial, religious, economic, or sociological philosophies gives no rise to an action for libel")[.]

https://twitter.com/johnphillips/status/1390000466923335684?lang=en