DC Judge Exasperated as Larry Klayman Lobs Legal Attacks on Mueller
"Go back to what we were talking about," U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle chided Klayman at one point.
October 02, 2019 at 07:29 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Larry Klayman had a tough time in court Wednesday where a federal judge repeatedly grilled him over his legal arguments that the special counsel illegally leaked grand jury material about his client, conservative figure Jerome Corsi.
Klayman struggled to gain traction with arguments that former special counsel Robert Mueller, in his personal capacity, threatened Corsi with an indictment. He also drew the judge's ire after he frequently attempted to introduce more cases to back up his points instead of directly answering her questions.
"Come on, go back to what we were talking about," U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle of the District of Columbia said as Klayman tried to introduce yet another case into his argument.
Klayman filed the lawsuit on Corsi's behalf late last year, but this hearing before Huvelle was the first time the merits of the case were briefed in open court. However, Huvelle seemed confused about exactly what Corsi wanted to achieve through the lawsuit.
During the hour-and-a-half-long hearing, Huvelle spent a significant amount of time questioning Klayman about exactly what the lawsuit claimed. Huvelle pressed Klayman over how Mueller was being sued in a personal capacity, particularly over allegations that the former special counsel threatened Corsi.
The lawsuit alleges that the special counsel's office threatened Corsi with an indictment if he did not falsely testify. Corsi publicly announced last year that prosecutors presented him with a plea deal for one count of making a false statement over contacts with WikiLeaks, but that he turned it down because he didn't believe he intentionally lied.
Corsi was not indicted before the special counsel's probe ended in March.
The judge asked if Mueller and Corsi ever met face to face. Klayman said not to the best of his knowledge, but argued it was irrelevant because prosecutors who had allegedly threatened Corsi did so under Mueller's supervision.
Klayman also pushed Huvelle to order discovery in the case so that Mueller would sit down for a deposition.
"Special counsel Robert Mueller shouldn't get special consideration because of his status," Klayman said, describing a conspiracy among the Washington, D.C., elite to give Mueller cover.
At one point, Huvelle asked Klayman if his "only goal here is to have discovery," which he denied.
"I'm old enough, I don't need to have further depositions," he quipped.
The judge also noted that Corsi was actually never indicted, like the subjects of several prior cases his legal team was citing.
"Some people would say that's a nice thing to have happen," Huvelle said of Corsi not being indicted.
The judge also asked why the prosecutors had to believe Corsi in the first place, if they had other evidence that could have backed up a potential indictment.
Klayman insisted that the special counsel's office knew that Corsi was telling the truth, and that he was not in direct contact with WikiLeaks, as they wanted him to testify.
He said that if the judge believed that Mueller didn't know those facts, "we live on a different planet. We're on Pluto."
"I'll be on Mars," Huvelle replied.
Corsi sued Mueller and federal intelligence agencies late last year, alleging he was illegally surveilled, and that details from his grand jury testimony were leaked.
Corsi emerged as a key witness in the prosecution of Roger Stone, who is accused of making false statements to the House Intelligence Committee about his contacts with WikiLeaks.
Stone had told the committee that he had been in touch with another associate, Randy Credico, who had served as a "back-channel" to WikiLeaks.
But federal prosecutors alleged in Stone's indictment earlier this year that Corsi actually played that role. Corsi was unnamed in the indictment, and was not in contact with WikiLeaks.
Klayman also said Huvelle could, in her capacity as a judge, refer the allegations surrounding the grand jury leaks to U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia, who handles grand jury cases in Washington. But Huvelle seemed doubtful about that possibility.
Klayman also invoked the illegal surveillance alleged in the lawsuit, in which Corsi claims his text messages, emails and phone calls were illegally picked up by the intelligence agencies, and that Mueller's team may have had access to them.
Klayman further alleged that Corsi was facing retaliation because he is a supporter of President Donald Trump.
While Klayman and Huvelle were respectful toward each other for most of the proceedings, there moments of exasperation on both sides.
As Klayman would start citing cases irrelevant to her question, the judge would cut him off or try to redirect him.
And when Huvelle read one statement in the lawsuit out loud, Klayman called it a "misquote."
"It's not a misquote, I'm reading it," she shot back. Klayman said the line was a mistake in the complaint he wrote and walked it back.
Klayman, founder of the conservative groups Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, may soon find himself unable to practice law in D.C., at least temporarily. A D.C. Court of Appeals board on professional responsibility hearing committee recommended in July that Klayman be suspended from practicing law in D.C. for 33 months for violating rules of professional conduct.
Huvelle spent significantly less time questioning the DOJ lawyers in the case, who have said the lawsuit should be dismissed. She ran by them what possible remedies she might be able to offer Corsi, citing little case law that applies directly to his allegations.
The lawsuit had asked for an injunction, but the judge was initially unclear on exactly who or what she could enjoin. Klayman later said they wanted a court order to prevent future grand jury leaks.
The government lawyers said that Corsi's allegations, like that of illegal surveillance, are highly speculative and therefore should be dismissed.
At the start of the government's time at the hearing, Huvelle asked whether she could submit documents that Corsi had made public, like his plea deal offer from Mueller's team, into the record from the case.
When one attorney gave a long, roundabout answer, the judge cut her off.
"It's easier dealing with Mr. Klayman," Huvelle said dryly.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
The New Federal Sentencing Factor in Downstate New York? Prison Conditions
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250