Oh good. Larry Klayman, walking proof that anyone can graduate law school and work for the United States Department of Justice, is back.

You may remember Mr. Superlawyer Klayman 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.

In this week's edition of Florida Man Goes to Court, Klayman is both the plaintiff and the lawyer, so you just know it's going to be good.

This week, Klayman filed Klayman v. Biden against Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the Biden campaign, and Biden campaign communications director and deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield for ... wait for it ... getting him kicked off of YouTube.

Yes, really.

As with everything involving Larry Klayman, if you want to really understand it, you should probably huff a few sharpies first.

Someone grab the popcorn

Saying that "he has been directly affected and victimized by" Joe Biden somehow managing to get him kicked off of YouTube (???), Klayman is suing the Bidens, et al., for tortious interference with his relationship with YouTube.

The way Klayman describes himself in the complaint is pretty adorable:

Plaintiff, Larry Klayman, is an individual and a citizen of Florida, as well as a former candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida. Plaintiff is also a well-known private lawyer and conservative public interest advocate and litigator, as well as a columnist, author and syndicated national radio talk show host on Radio America, his weekly show appropriately titled "SpecialProsecutor with Larry Klayman." Plaintiff Klayman conceived of and founded both Judicial Watch,Inc. and Freedom Watch, Inc. He is a former federal prosecutor of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he was on the trial team that broke up the AT&T monopoly.

No, that little thing about working for the DOJ Antitrust Division is not relevant to anything in this case. I think it was Klayman's attempt at making himself seem somewhat respectable to the court. Unfortunately for Larry, the rest of the complaint (or a quick google search) reveals the truth. THIS GUY IS FUCKING BATSHIT.

Klayman is president, chief operating officer, chairman, and general counsel of Freedom Watch, an "organization" that exists mostly so Klayman has an outlet for all of his conspiracy fantasies. He has a podcast, YouTube channel, the works.

At the end of the day, Klayman is a grifter who screams his bigoted conspiracy theories at his computer to try to make money off of other white supremacists. And posting incoherent rants to YouTube is a big part of that. So when he was briefly kicked off of YouTube earlier this month, he was PISSED.

As Klayman puts it in the complaint,

Plaintiff Klayman naturally benefits from this appearances on YouTube[,] which enhances his good will and reputation in his professional and personal capacities.

I would love to see the discovery on how Klayman's unhinged tirades "enhance his good will and reputation," but we're unlikely to see any of that, as this case should be immediately dismissed (and Klayman sanctioned).

The crux of this case is that earlier this month month Klayman's YouTube channel was suspended for two days.

What does this have to do with Joe and Hunter Biden, you may ask? Well, according to Larry,

This was done by YouTube as a result of undue and illegal political and other pressure and veiled threats from and exerted by Defendants, each and every one of them, working together in concert, jointly and severally.

Oh. Okay then.

If, at this point, you're wondering whether "Defendants, each and every one of them, working together in concert, jointly and severally" is a normal way for a lawyer to write, the answer is no, it is not.

Klayman's evidence for the Bidens' involvement in his YouTube suspension? Himself.

In an email to counsel for YouTube, Plaintiff Klayman correctly asserted that the suspension of his channel was due to "criticism on [his] weekly radio show, 'Special Prosecutor with Larry Klayman,' of former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden, regarding their apparent Ukrainian bribery scandal.

Yes, Klayman is citing to an email that HE WROTE HIMSELF as evidence that Joe and Hunter Biden got him kicked off of YouTube.

He goes on:

Plaintiff Klayman was forced to threaten YouTube with litigation in order to haveFreedom Watch's account restored on October 3, 2019, and in his correspondence with the legal counsel for YouTube Mr. Klayman attributed his broadcast statements about the Bidens, which had been posted on Freedom Watch's YouTube channel, as the reason for the suspension. In response, legal counsel for YouTube neither directly nor explicitly denied Mr. Klayman's assertion, thereby confirming, validating and effectively admitting it.

Riiiiiiiight. YouTube's lawyer didn't want to waste time talking to Klayman about his conspiracy theory about why he got booted from YouTube, so obviously that's totally the same thing as admitting the Bidens were really behind everything!

But wait, let's keep reading. Not even Larry Klayman would file something so dumb in a court of law without-

HAHAHAHAHA sorry, couldn't finish that one with a straight face.

Anyway, apparently Kate Bedingfield of the Biden campaign slammed the New York Times for publishing an op ed by rightwing "journalist" Peter Schweizer, who's still arguing that the Bidens, and not the unhinged lunatic in the White House, did sketchy things in Ukraine. And somehow this means the Bidens are who got Klayman booted from YouTube.

Yeah, I don't know, either.

Klayman also complains about the fact that Biden tried to get a Trump ad removed from Facebook and Twitter, as if that is relevant to why he got kicked off of YouTube for two days.

These completely irrelevant anecdotes, according to Klayman, "evidenc[e] a pattern of conduct that is widespread."

And how does all of this connect? Well, according to Klayman,

Based on this pattern and practice, it is clear that Defendants tried to unduly and illegally pressure YouTube into suspending the Freedom Watch account, and succeeded in doing so, as a result of Plaintiff Klayman's criticism and statement that he would seek an indictment of the Bidens before a Freedom Watch citizens grand jury. The only difference is that YouTube succumbed to this pressure, while Facebook and Twitter correctly chose not to.

A "citizens grand jury," you say?

I would like to be as clear as possible about this: A "CITIZEN'S GRAND JURY" IS NOT A THING OUTSIDE OF LARRY KLAYMAN'S WEIRD LITTLE MIND.

In the United States of America here in 2019, only prosecutors can charge people with crimes. Only actual grand juries, empaneled by the government and bound by actual laws, can indict people.

Hanging out in some dude's basement while polishing off a 30-rack of Natty Light and screaming conspiracy theories and racial epithets is no more legally binding than a klan meeting.

At the end of their little soirée, Klayman and his buddies declare someone to have been INDICTED and CONVICTED by their VERY REAL grand jury. It's basically legal cosplay, except that most cosplay involves a lot more research and effort.

When Klayman and another group of racist nutjobs "indicted" Obama back in 2012 (I guess they thought a sitting president could be indicted then -- I WONDER WHAT HAS CHANGED), they actually called themselves a "Super American Grand Jury."

The "Super American Grand Jury" did not fool anyone with their name and were roundly laughed out of court.

This is not the first time Klayman has declared himself in charge of a fake "grand jury." Empaneling fake grand juries is one of Klayman's favorite hobbies, after sexual harassment and filing bullshit lawsuits. Klayman's fake grand juries full of sovereign citizen rejects have "indicted" Robert Mueller and John Roberts, for "ACA."

So this is all totally normal and very legally binding.

Also totally normal and legally binding is Klayman writing a piece for World Nut Daily (which apparently still exists!), announcing his plan to "indict" the Bidens.

So today, I, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor, pledge to you with my sacred honor that our citizens grand jury will meet again in the next few weeks, and I, as the citizens prosecutor, will present evidence of the Bidens' crimes. We will then indict the Bidens, try them in a citizens court and have them sentenced. We the People will then seek to peacefully and legally enforce the sentences.

As a "former federal prosecutor," you would think Klayman would know that there is no way to legally enforce fake prison sentences. But I digress.

Klayman goes on:

The Bidens will be subpoenaed to appear to defend themselves at the eventual trial, and one can only wonder what will be their defense. ... But don't expect either of them to show up. These characters do not respect the rights of the American people, and they will attempt as usual to escape Lady Justice.


In conclusion

Mr. Klayman, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Wonkette is ad-free and NEEDS YOU to keep paying our writers and buying us our pixels by the barrel. If you are at all able, please click below!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Jamie Lynn Crofts
Jamie Lynn Crofts is sick of your bullshit. When she’s not wrangling cats, she’s probably writing about nerdy legal stuff, rocking out at karaoke, or tweeting about god knows what. Jamie would kindly like to remind everyone that it’s perfectly legal to tell Bob Murray to eat shit.

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc