Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

This kind of sums up HN's analysis of what's happening for me: a comment that says Larry Klayman's credentials cannot be called into question.

Sorry for singling you out.

View on HN

Thanks for pointing this out.

"In 2012, Klayman filed on behalf of a Florida resident an unsuccessful challenge to Barack Obama's placement on the primary ballot and claimed that the latter is not a natural-born citizen."

What a hero.

"In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook, accusing the social media website of "negligence" for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down an anti-Israel "Third Intifada" page and demanding $1 billion in damages."

A true defender of the bill of rights.

So I should have made a comment that had a greater depth of thought to it? If you want to tell me that I'm wrong go right ahead. But could you at least tell me why I'm wrong?

EDIT ADDED THIS: Also I guess I think that his credentials -- in this case -- are a big deal. Anyone can sue anyone for anything at all and it's up to the courts to quash all the bullshit lawsuits. Since lawsuits cost money to file (if you're not a lawyer) or time (which is money if you are a lawyer) the millions and billions of frivolous lawsuits that could be filed generally aren't. Obviously this guy could be filing a totally bogus lawsuit just for the publicity but that scenario seems much more likely if he wasn't a former DOJ lawyer.

EDIT AGAIN: Just saw that this guy's deal is nuisance lawsuits. Bummer. I was hoping this was a real thing that would get legs.

Not to put words in his mouth, but I think tptacek is referring to how credulous this site can become when it's something they feel passionate about. You said that the credibility of the petitioner here "could not be called into question" when it quite obviously can. You were just one example of this trait, but you were the highest rated one.

Also, there's this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#Federal_sov...), which should immediately occur to anyone who follows legal stuff in even the most passing fashion. Generally speaking, you can't sue the President over anything related to his work.

There are lots of waivers to sovereign immunity, some routinely granted by the courts (for injunctive relief) and some granted by Congress. There are specific waivers relating to law enforcement abuses, particularly for abuses of search and seizure powers, written into the law but I won't speculate as to whether they apply.

For those following sovereign immunity issues, the recent Millbrook v. United States should come to mind right away.

And it's the content of your EDIT AGAIN to which tptacek was referring. If people had looked more deeply than "former DOJ prosecutor", as you put it, into this whackadoo's history, they'd have seen this isn't much of a thing.

Yeah I'm really bummed about that part. And worse it'll probably make it really difficult for someone who wants to make a real legitimate case on the issue.

What they said. But yeah, I felt bad that the comment was going to sound personal, which is why I apologized.

An apology in advance is not worth much. Either stand by what you say or don't say it.

Uh, thanks.

So as someone who wants someone to tackle this issue, and who doesn't know or care about who or what this person is or did, why should their prior history mean anything in this context? Also, is this a challenge to simply make money, or is it a challenge to revert any sort of law?

I undestand people saying "this guy fills frivolous lawsuits and never wins them, this will probably end in nothing" but really, does the judge take that into account when it's judging the case? Does he/she say "oh well, that guy again, archive this" or does he/she follow due process and request people to explain themselves, etc, etc, etc?

I understand, as I said, that we want to chat about it at length and give our opinion on it.. but how the judicial system sees it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com