Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Klayman v Judicial Watch FLSD 1-13-cv-20610-98

Klayman v Judicial Watch FLSD 1-13-cv-20610-98

|Views: 25|Likes:
Published by AnitaMariaS
REPLY to Response to Motion re 91 MOTION To Supplement the Record re 89 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Larry E Klayman, 3/27/2014
REPLY to Response to Motion re 91 MOTION To Supplement the Record re 89 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Larry E Klayman, 3/27/2014

More info:

Published by: AnitaMariaS on Mar 27, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





LARRY KLAYMAN, Plaintiff, v. JUDICIAL WATCH Defendant. Case No: 1:13-cv-20610-CMA
Plaintiff, Larry Klayman,
(“Plaintiff” or “Klayman”)
 hereby files this Reply to
Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Opposition and
 Notice of Objection to Affidavit of Orly Taitz
The Affidavit of Orly Taitz Is Timely.
Defendant Judicial Watch’s claim that the filing of the affidavit
of Taitz is untimely is without merit. First, as set fo
rth in Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment filed March 17, 2014, Plaintiff had hoped to have the affidavit on the day the Opposition was due. However, as previously explained because of the need for Taitz to notarize the affidavit, it was obtained shortly thereafter.
Plaintiff’s Supplement to Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was filed
shortly thereafter [Dkt. 91]. No prejudice resulted to Defendant Judicial Watch since Plaintiff moved to file the affidavit and a copy was  provided to Judicial
Watch’s counsel well before Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiff’s
opposition. Thus, Defendant Judicial Watch had an opportunity to review and comment on the affidavit and no prejudice resulted to it.
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2014 Page 1 of 6
P D F a i d . C o m      
#1 Pdf Solutions                                        
The Affidavits of Orly Taitz Are Legally Sufficient, Are Not Conclusory as a Matter of Law, Are Based on Personal Knowledge and Were Properly Executed.
While the original Taitz affidavit is legally sufficient as set forth below, Plaintiff has
obtained an affidavit which satisfies even Defendant Judicial Watch’s specious objection that
it is not made on personal knowledge and belief and is not signed under penalty of perjury. Attached as Exhibit 1 is an affidavit which contains this language and therefore makes
Judicial Watch’s contentions
 moot. (Attached as Exhibit 2 is the original affidavit. See Motion to Supplement filed March 27, 2014.) Importantly, there is nothing in the affidavit attached hereto which substantively changes anything in the original affidavit, which was  properly attested to as well, since it is sworn to under oath and notarized. Moreover, it is clear
from the affidavit, given the nature of Taitz’s affidavit testi
mony, that she is testifying
from personal knowledge. Thus, Judicial Watch’s objections are red herrings, but now moot
in any event. The two affidavits contain the exact same substantive language.
Either of Taitz’s affidavits
are substantively proper and probative and hardly conclusory.
See Plaintiff’s Supplement to Opposition to Defendant’s Motions for Summary
Judgment filed March 20, 2014 and March 27, 2014. They sets forth with succinct specificity that Constance Ruffley and Judicial Watch made the subject defamatory statements to Taitz,
telling her to publish them to Klayman’s donors. In addition, the affidavit
s confirm that Taitz did publish the defamatory statements on her website, which she authenticates, to readers concerned with the eligibility of the President of the United States to be elected to office. These readers, as Klayman sets forth in his own affidavit at paragraph 16, include donors and others, all of whi
ch bears on Klayman’s integrity,
reputation and livelihood as a lawyer. In short, there is nothing conclusory about these affidavits. They get directly to the point. All of the smoke spewed by Defendant Judicial Watch is just that
 smoke. Moreover, Plaintiff
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2014 Page 2 of 6
Klayman’s affidavit
at paragraph 14 and elsewhere also authenticates the Taitz website and sets forth its wide dissemination in Florida and elsewhere. In addition, Plaintiff Klayman testifies to what Taitz told him about the accuracy of Constance Ruffley
 and Judicial
Watch’s defamatory statements.
Even had Taitz not attested to the statements made by Constance Ruffley and Judicial
Watch, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Opposit
ion at pg. 20-23, the affidavits would still be more than legally sufficient for purposes of defeating a summary judgment motion because the website has been authenticated and they fall within hearsay exceptions. They are reliable and  probative.
Affidavits Are Hearsay and Are Routinely Used to Defeat Summary Judgment Motions.
Affidavits by their very nature, since they are not subject to cross-examination, are hearsay. Parties who oppose summary judgment motions routinely use them to controvert facts. They do not need to be admissible at trial to be used to defeat summary judgment motions. Because an affidavit is not admissible at trial does not mean it cannot be legally sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.
See McMillian v. Johnson
, 88 F.3d 1573, 1584 (11th Cir. 1996). As set forth above, the affidavits of Orly Tatiz and Plaintiff Klayman are more than sufficient to establish and controvert the so-called facts that were set forth by Constance Ruffley in her affidavit, where Ruffley conveniently could not remember what she said in any event. Importantly, Taitz
 remember what Ms. Ruffley said and Klayman remembers what Taitz told him in two telephone conversations and now with her own affidavits. Moreover, Taitz has agreed to testify live at trial. In addition, and as set forth  below, Taitz will likely be deposed as ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2014 Page 3 of 6

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->