Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 140 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID 5986

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 5:13-00143-ACC-PRL
LARRY KLAYMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY PAGES et al.,
Defendants.
______________________/
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
Defendants submit their response to Plaintiffs Motion For Disqualification Pursuant To
28 U.S.C. 144 And 28 U.S.C. 455(a) (the Motion) [ECF No. 139]. The Motion should be
denied for the following reasons:
Two things must be noted at the outset. First, any notion that the Motion has been brought
because Plaintiff really thinks Judge Conway is biased and not simply because Plaintiff is
unhappy that he lost this case is belied by Plaintiff, himself. At his deposition, Plaintiff
thank[ed] God not only for the for the fact that Judge Conway was assigned to this case, because
she is a really good judge, but also because she is not among the judges who wear their biases
on their sleeve and do things that harm ordinary folk (Deposition of Larry Klayman (Exhibit 1),
p.34, l.22 p.35, l.12; p.95, 1.13 p.96, l.18).
Second, seeking the recusal of judges who rule against him or his clients appears to be
standard operating procedure for Plaintiff. There are at least seven published orders and decisions
documenting motions for recusal that Plaintiff has filed, and that is to say nothing of how many
other motions Plaintiff may have filed that are not documented by published decisions. See

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 140 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID 5987

Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 744 F.Supp.2d 264 (D.D.C. 2010); Baldwin Hardware Corp. v.
Franksu Enterprise Corp., 78 F.3d 550 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Strange v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 46
F.Supp.3d 78 (D.D.C. 2014); Sataki v. Broadcasting Board of Governors, 733 F.Supp.2d 54
(D.D.C. 2010); Meng v. Schwartz, 97 F.Supp.2d 56 (D.D.C. 2000); Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811
(8th Cir. 2000); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Carroll, 801 So.2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
With respect to the Motion, Plaintiff argues that recusal is warranted because the Court
delayed in ruling on Defendants dispositive motion for summary judgment, the Courts Order
granting the motion for summary judgment contains what Plaintiff says are intentional errors of
fact and/or law, and the same Order contains remarks that Plaintiff says mock and ridicule him.
None of those reasons warrants recusal:
First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias
or partiality motion. In and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding
comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance
upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances
evidence the degree and favoritism or antagonism (as discussed below)
when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are
proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal. Second, opinions formed by the
judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of
the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis
for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism
or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus, judicial
remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or
even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases ordinarily do not support
a bias or partiality challenge. They may do so if they reveal an opinion that
derives from an extrajudicial source; and they will do so if they reveal such
a high degree or favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment
impossible. . . . Not establishing bias or partiality, however, are expressions
of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within
the bounds of what imperfect men and women, even after having been
confirmed as federal judges, sometimes display. A judges ordinary efforts
at courtroom administration even a stern and short-tempered judges
ordinary efforts at courtroom administration remain immune.
See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994) (emphasis in original) (internal citations
omitted). The Motion should be denied.

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 140 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID 5988

Respectfully submitted,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 374-8500 (telephone)
(305) 789-7799 (facsimile)
By: /s/ Scott D. Ponce
Sanford L. Bohrer (FBN 160643)
Scott D. Ponce (FBN 0169528)
Email: sbohrer@hklaw.com
Email: sponce@hklaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of May 2015, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF System.
/s/ Scott D. Ponce

3
#35743719_v1

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 140-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID 5989

EXHIBIT 1

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 140-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID 5990

Page 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

2
CASE NO.:

5:13-CV-00143-ACC-PRL

3
4

LARRY KLAYMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY PAGES, KEN WEINER, a/k/a KEN AVIDOR, AARON

RUPER, PHOENIX NEW TIMES, MATTHEW HANDLEY, and VOICE

MEDIA GROUP,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------

10
11

222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1000

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

12

September 9, 2014
10:03 a.m. - 1:06 p.m.

13
14
15
16

DEPOSITION OF LARRY KLAYMAN

17
18

Taken before Angela Saxon, Florida

19

Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for

20

the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of

21

Taking Deposition filed in the above cause.

22
23
24
25
Veritext Legal Solutions
800-726-7007

305-376-8800

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 140-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID 5991

Page 34
1

when you believe in Jesus.

the bias comes from, in part.

I believe that's where

And also the fact, let me add this, that I

was being hometowned in that case.

I'm not from

Cleveland.

one point, the guardian ad litem in this case told

me that he would never let me bring my kids to

Florida because Florida is a corrupt place which has

no ethics and no values.

Cleveland is a very insular city.

And he would never let

10

these kids come to Florida.

11

that.

12

lot of bias there.

I wasn't even seeking

I was seeking better visitation.

13

At

There is a

And my former wife happens to be -- her

14

maiden name, Stephanie Luck.

15

famous in Cleveland.

16

former all American quarterback for West Virginia

17

and her nephew is Andrew Luck who probably is the

18

greatest rookie quarterback in the history of the

19

NFL.

20

Klayman is trying to take a Luck kid away,

21

basically, which I wasn't even trying to do.

22

Her family is very

Her brother is Oliver Luck, a

So there is a great bias there when Larry

But are you saying that the magistrate did

23

not find that you are engaged in inappropriate

24

touching?

25

That's what he said, but the way he

Veritext Legal Solutions

800-726-7007

305-376-8800

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 140-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID 5992

Page 35
1

phrased it, this does not mean Larry Klayman did

not.

me.

It was very clever.

And he wanted to smear

And unfortunately, Mr. Bohrer, you know,

you're an experienced trial lawyer that some judges,

not all, we have a really good judge here, thank

God, but a lot of judges wear their biases on their

sleeves and particularly in family court matters.

The Cleveland family court even by virtue of

10

Cleveland Plain Dealer, the newspaper, is a cesspool

11

of corruption.

12

to time in that court.

13

Money even changes hands from time

The magistrate made a finding of

14

inappropriate touching and you appealed; is that

15

fair to say?

16

Correct.

17

You appealed it to what court initially?

18

The Ohio appellate court.

19

name of it.

20

I forget the

And the Ohio appellate court talked

21

about -- it's called the Court of Appeals of Ohio;

22

does that sound right?

23

Probably.

24

8th Appellate District?

25

I had an attorney.

I had a challenged

Veritext Legal Solutions

800-726-7007

305-376-8800

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 140-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID 5993

Page 95
1

my civil rights under color of state authority by

smearing me with what I alleged to be uncorroborated

false information that was leveled against me

because of my religion in part.

5
6

I'm not equating myself with Jesus Christ

but they went after him too based on his beliefs.

Again, I respect my faith, my background

and my religion but the Jewish high priests tried to

destroy Jesus Christ because of his beliefs.

10

not Jesus Christ.

11

throughout history is try to destroy people.

12

not God.

13

I'm

Something that people do

I'm

If you look at page 85 of this

14

magistrate's decision, on page 85 going to 86, the

15

magistrate goes over what he believes are court

16

decisions criticizing you for your ethics.

17

I'm not going to characterize what he said

18

or what was in his mind.

19

particular section, I will respond to.

20

If you want to read me a

I've been a lawyer for 37 years.

That's a

21

long time.

I'm been a member of good standing of

22

the Florida Bar, the D.C. Bar and other bars for

23

that period of time except when I didn't pay my dues

24

in Pennsylvania where I went on administrative

25

suspension.

It had nothing to do with ethics.

Veritext Legal Solutions

800-726-7007

305-376-8800

Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 140-1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID 5994

Page 96
1

Three instances in 37 years are not particularly

great.

I might add, anybody who watched the O.J.

Simpson case, knows that Johnny Cochran who

successfully defended O.J. Simpson and Marsha Clark

and Chris Darden were sanctioned more than any

criticism of me in this case, in one case, okay.

The lawyers as you know who take strong positions

who zealously represent their clients, sometimes

10

buck up against judges who have certain preconceived

11

notions and biases.

12

I am not defensive of this.

I'm proud

13

that I stood up to these judges.

14

I started Judicial Watch.

15

of the bench -- not this judge, thank God, in our

16

case and others -- that judges do wear their biases

17

on their sleeve and do things that harm ordinary

18

folk.

19

That's the reason

I saw among some portions

I've written about this.

Q

I wrote a book.

Are you denying -- these judges -- I've

20

been a lawyer a long time myself and I've had to

21

taking aggressive stances myself.

22

half a dozen judges say these things about me that

23

they say about you.

24

say that about me.

25

I'm glad.

I haven't had

In fact, I've had zero judges

Can I take your deposition and

Veritext Legal Solutions

800-726-7007

305-376-8800