[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
Case number 25-8509, Henry Larry Elliott Clayman. Mr. Clayman, on behalf of the respondent.

[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors. I sat through these two oral arguments, and I want to commend you on your thoroughness. It's something which I think the American people appreciate.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
I'd founded Judicial Watch many years ago, and I believe that judges are our most important public servants. I do what I do.

[00:00:31] Speaker 01:
But this is a very important case. It is manifest injustice in many respects.

[00:00:38] Speaker 01:
This case stems from my attempts to gain pro-hack Dice entry into a very high profile and controversial case involving the standoff at Bunkerville with Clyde Bundy.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
I applied.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
It was denied.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
And the court found, the lower court found, that I had not been candid with the court.

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
The fact is, is that we had, when it went up to the Ninth Circuit, a very independent jurist. I might add, somebody who's not of my ideological ilk, Judge Gould, who said that I disclosed everything I needed to disclose, that I'm an advocate, that it was zealous representation, and that I didn't do anything wrong.

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
But unfortunately, the DC bar, the disciplinary apparatus, and I mean this in a humble way, has become very partisan. And we know that.

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
I'm a conservative activist. I support President Trump. In the age of President Trump, the D.C. Bar has gone after a number of lawyers like me. I'm only one. I'm not going to dwell on that because Your Honor is considering reciprocal discipline. You have an independent authority and duty to decide whether that is warranted or not. Otherwise, it would have been a fait accompli and I wouldn't be here today.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
What's important here is that three things are in play.

[00:02:14] Speaker 01:
One, the entire disciplinary proceeding had nothing to do with the District of Columbia. Absolutely nothing. It was about my conduct in Nevada. I was never sanctioned by the district court. I was never sanctioned by the Ninth Circuit. In fact, I won the appeal for Bundy when his indictment was dismissed.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
And I was never, ever even referred to an internal court disciplinary proceeding. That underscores the partisan nature.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
And this court has made a very important ruling, this is the Douglas case, that when there's viewpoint discrimination, which there is here, and I brought a separate lawsuit on that, which is still running through your court, that in fact, this was a violation of my constitutional rights.

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
I had not just the testimony or the findings of Judge Gould in my favor, but Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall. None of these witnesses are my ideological kin. But Chemerinsky also found that I did nothing wrong. I did not make any misrepresentations. And the number of pleadings that I filed is not a reason to sanction me or to suspend me for 18 months.

[00:03:32] Speaker 01:
Now, this is another factor which is very important for this court, is that the D.C. disciplinary apparatus, that's what I call it, the ad hoc hearing committee that heard this could not find an ethical violation after the hearing.

[00:03:47] Speaker 01:
And that was put in writing, in an order.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
Four years later, four years later, almost half a decade, when President Trump's coming back into office, they come up with one-year suspension.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
And what they're alleging are very petty things.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
I submit that I did not commit any violations. If there were a few inadvertent errors, that's all it was. But you don't get sanctioned for 18 months for that.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
And what's important here is that if your honor does not, if your honors do not recognize that the D.C. Bar had to follow the rules of its own court, both of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Board, which used the word shall, a decision had to be made, a recommendation by the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee within 120 days. They took four years.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
then you're making a ruling that people don't have to observe your rules either, either lawyers or litigants. So this is an important case, precedentially, for this court itself, because the D.C. Court of Appeals basically said, it doesn't matter that we use the word shall, that you shall make a decision in 120 days to recommend it.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
We can do whatever we want. We have unbridled discretion. Well, that's not the way things work, and it's not the way this court works.

[00:05:16] Speaker 01:
What is important here is that by waiting four years, they were stacking disciplinary proceedings. In Florida, in a case, and I cite this in the brief, Florida Bar versus Rubin, that's illegal. Florida's recognized that. That's a distinguished court. Other states have recognized that. What they did the District of Columbia Bar Disciplinary Apparatus, the board and the DCCA, they held back until a prior suspension, which I'm also challenging, which is unjust, which I don't need to get into this here as well, also the result, partisanship, was over.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
So what do they do? They start a new one.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
And that's the Spundy case. And the prosecutor basically has said, Julia Porter, she had no witnesses, at all. And in fact, that's why I got a finding after the hearing that there was no showing of an ethical violation. That's very rare after a hearing at that level to make that decision.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
Your Honor looks at four factors in reciprocal discipline.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
Lack of due process.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
If you wait four years, what happened at the ad hoc hearing committee, memories fade. People forget what went on.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
Consequently, what was adopted was just the brief of the District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which then went up to the board, and the board gives that deference, so they rubber stamp it, and then the DCCA rubber stamps it. But what is really strange here, in addition to everything else in the age of Donald Trump, is that they upped the requested sanction to 18 months without any valid basis to do it, with a reinstatement provision.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
At the same time, someone like Kevin Clinesmith, who played guilty to a felony, who falsified a document which gave rise in large part to the Russian collusion investigation against the president, he got a slap on the wrist. Seven months, temporary suspension, no reinstatement, no problem. But he's on the other side of the political spectrum.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
So too for David Kendall of Williams and Connolly. So too for Mark Elias. Williams and Connolly admitted that they helped Hillary destroy the 33,000 emails. Someone filed a complaint. That was thrown in the trash.

[00:07:33] Speaker 01:
Elias did other things. No problem for him. So...

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
This is a question not just of a lack of due process after four years, but second factor, there's an infirmity of proof. And Your Honor, I'm sure will review my brief carefully. We gave you record sites. We gave you the transcript.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
Is it how can you find that I did anything wrong when I was, it didn't even involve this jurisdiction, never sanctioned, never referred to a bar in Nevada, never referred to the court. This was pulled out of the hat because as Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, public enemy number one, to the ideology of the District of Columbia Bar disciplinary apparatus, and you can check FEC records to see what that is.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
Then, The third factor is this would result in a grave injustice.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
And for all of these reasons, Your Honor, and I say what you're going to, I look forward to your writing something here because you see these things, it's not just what goes on here, but then it creates reciprocal discipline in all the jurisdictions that I'm a member of.

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
Florida, that's another one of my primary jurisdictions, the Wells District of Columbia.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
Northern District of Texas. Ninth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Middle District of Florida, all the courts, Southern District of Florida. This has consumed me with time and expense, keeps me from representing clients.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
And one of those reciprocal discipline proceedings resulted in a suspension in Florida when they never got into what went on here. It was just, OK, this is what DC did.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
We'll do it too. Well, I know this court's not going to do that, because you are a scholarly court, and that's why. And it wasn't gratuitous that I complimented you watching these oral arguments, because you did read what was presented to you, and you did make a reasoned factual decision. So what you're going to write is precedential.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
And it's precedential with regard to whether this court is going to make a ruling, like the District Court of Appeals, You don't have to follow rules.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
Again, the rules, well, and others, both of the court and of the board, say that you have to make a recommendation 120 days. Here it was four years, almost half a decade.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
And conveniently, only when someone who's perceived to be a supporter of President Trump, and I am, and I'm not in any way embarrassed to say that, someone who is and has always been on the cutting edge.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
You all know who Judicial Watch is.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
I think you're on the third of the three points. I want to make sure that you don't run out of time. I want to hear your fourth point as well.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
Well, the fourth point is that lack of due process, infirmity of proof, reciprocal discipline would result in injustice.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
and that Your Honor has, Your Honors have the ability to decide what sanction, if any, there should be. You have an independent authority, and here there should be none.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
And in particular, and I emphasize this, how can it be that there should be a sanction here when Nevada never sanctioned me, the Ninth Circuit never sanctioned me, when Judge Gould and Erwin Chemerinsky said that I did not fail to disclose anything, and that...

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
I had a right because I wanted to defend Cliven Bundy, who faced life imprisonment, and he had a right under the Sixth Amendment to have me as his counsel. And then ultimately, the case went up to the Ninth Circuit. I defended Bundy there when, in fact, his indictment was dismissed at the lower court level and won.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
So that's very important. And I would turn your attention to pages. Mr. Klingman, may we take about one more minute, please? Yes. Pages two of my brief where I quote Judge Gould saying that I properly disclosed what was at issue in the ongoing disciplinary proceeding, that there was no deception.

[00:11:55] Speaker 01:
Page 7, where he talks about sometimes lawyers have to be a little bit combative with judges. This judge was criticized for violating Bundy's constitutional rights, that that's understandable in a criminal case.

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
And then Judge Gould, I quote him there as well, claimant had no greater duty to disclose any possible blemish on his career or reputation beyond responding to district court's further requests.

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
So that's the argument, and I hope that Your Honor will exercise your independence in making a ruling here and write down the reasons for it because it would also be helpful for the other jurisdictions. Thank you very much.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
Just a couple of questions. Yeah, sure. On the 120-day statutory deadline, that rule doesn't impose a consequence if it's failed to meet it.

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
That was the specious argument of our counsel.

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
The District of Columbia's statute of limitations has no consequence. There's no penalty. So by analogy, that should have no penalty either. Thank you, Your Honor, for asking that question.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
Okay. And then with respect to your due process claim, you had noticed, you had your opportunity to be heard. So are you really saying that this delay is prejudice to you?

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
Yes, it's prejudice. It creates stacking. where they could stack on something else after I was already clear of another suspension, Florida Bar versus Rubin. You can see the reasoning in there and his progeny in other states as well. And also, memories fade. Four years later, how do you remember what went on at the ad hoc hearing committee?

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
At that point, I don't know who wrote the decision. You take the brief of disciplinary counsel, no witnesses, and you just rubber stamp it, and that's what happened here.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
And then just quickly on your manifest injustice claim, you're suggesting that it's unconstitutional, but it wasn't really clear how you're saying so.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
And there is a case that I filed at the district court, which is now up here on appeal.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
and it deals with the Douglas decision that Your Honor's court rendered here, which dealt with the matter years ago. It's now been ratified or adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court just in the last few weeks that if you take an action based on someone's political or ideological views, it can be a violation of the First and Fifth Amendment. So, Your Honors, you also have the option here of staying what you're doing until that is fully litigated.

[00:14:37] Speaker 01:
And if you look at Exhibit B of our appendix, there are a number of articles there written on both sides of the political spectrum about what's going on here with the D.C. bar.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
And what's also interesting is President Trump sanctioned a number of law firms because He perceived that they opposed him with the Russian collusion. This court and other courts have reversed those sanctions based upon viewpoint discrimination, based upon the fact that those law firms have a different ideological perspective, political perspective, that there was retaliation by President Trump. It goes both ways.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
And it's very important in this atmosphere that we live in, which is highly partisan, highly combative, that this court make a stand on that because the DC bar disciplinary apparatus is being abused right now.

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
And I suggest, or I ask you to read those articles, and there are many more on Appendix B of what's going on right now. It's widely recognized that it's being used as a weapon Under the new disciplinary council, the old one, while his ship was not that way, he was a fair man. The new disciplinary council, Hamilton Fox, is highly partisan. Jeffrey Clark was found by the board, a professional responsibility, to be subject to being disbarred because he wrote a letter which he never sent to Georgia.

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
What could be more absurd and unfair? Rudy Giuliani was disbarred because he made a few errors in pleadings. There are complaints pending against Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz for supporting President Trump in the 2020 elections. Kellyanne Conway, Sidney Powell, John Eastman, a respected law professor, subject to disbarment here and in California.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
This is what's going on, and someone's got to put a stop to it.

[00:16:37] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
Thank you.