Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz

If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.

The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
 -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.
 -- Mahatma Gandhi

Clarification regarding article2legal fund and Larry Klayman

Posted on | February 26, 2012 | 1 Comment

I received an e-mail from attorney Larry Klayman

Here are some clarifications

1. Mr. Klayman writes the following: “you stated,… that I cannot participate in cases by entering pro per”

Response from Orly: I never said that.

Any person can file law suits anywhere pro per (on his own behalf)

2. you stated, that..”.I cannot   participate in cases in California working with my collegue, who is licensed in California”

I never said that.

I posted an advertisement by Article2superpac, which stated, that Larry Klayman will be paid $25,000 to handle 2 cases: one in Florida and one in California on behalf of Barnett, Noonen and others. The advertiasement did not state, that attorney Klayman together with another attorney licensed in California will represent those clients, provided that the judge will grant attorney Klayman pro hac vice, meaning right for an out of state attorney to represent  clients in the state of California together with a specific California attorney.

The advertisement stated that attorney Larrry Klayman will be a counsel for Barnett, Noonen and others. I believe others are Wilmott, Turner, Dolz, Miller. I believe there were 7 people in this case, which was filed pro se so far.(it was filed without an attorney).  I wrote a true and correct statement, that Larry Klayman is not licensed in the state of California.

If in the future Article2 legal fund will hire another attorney, who is licensed in the state of California and the judge will allow Mr. Klayman to be a co-counsel together with the attorney, who is licensed in California, than Mr. Klayman can be a co-counsel, however this is a hypothetical, which may or may not happen.

The statement, which was made, was correct. Advertisemnent stated, that he will be a counsel, representing those individuals, so people assumed, that he is licensed in California. I wrote a correct statement, that he is not licensed in California.

3. Mr. Klayman writes “you stated, that I  have not done work on the project”

Response from Orly: I simply posted a link to the complaint filed by the Florida bar against attorney Klayman.

THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case
Complainant,vs. No. 2011-70,621(11A)


3. On or about November 11, 2007, Natalia Humm (“Humm”) filed a grievance against Respondent (Larry Klayman) alleging that he had had failed to provide services in her criminal case after she paid him a $25,000 retainer.


Attorney Larry Klayman complaint for sanctions by the Florida bar filed with the Supreme Court of FL

4. I read the first post I made in regards to Mr. Klayman and I saw that indeed there was an error. I wrote, that Ms. Ruffley stated that Mr. Klayman was just recently convicted of non payment of child support. The link and the article right under it stated, that he was indicted in 2 counts of criminal non-support, that he owes $78,861.76 and arrignment was scheduled for February 7, 2012. So, there was an error. Mr. Klayman was indicted in the state of Ohio  on two counts of criminal non-support, but he was not convicted yet. I am making this correction. Ms. Ruffley made an error. It was also self evident in the February 23, 2012 article, as I posted the link right underneath and the link stated, that he was indicted and arrignement scheduled. The article was published just a couple of days ago, on February 23, 2012 and I corrected it today, February 26, 2012.

See the link below:

Larry Klayman, 60, of Los Angeles, California, was indicted on two (2) counts of criminal non-support. He owes $78,861.76 for his two children ages 11 and 14. Two hearings were held in Domestic Relations Court between 2009 and 2010. The last voluntary payment was made on August 30, 2011, in the amount of $1,014.26. Arraignment is scheduled for February 7, 2012.


5. In connection with Article2 legal fund, I made a correct statement. The advertisement by the Article 2 superpac stated, that $25,000 was needed to pay attorney Larry Klaymant within 96 hours, so that 2 lawsuits could be filed within 1 week, which was supposed to be by February 17th. Those law suits were not filed by attorney Larry Klayman and I asked a legitimate question: what happened? Was attorney Klayman paid or not? Within a day or two I posted an update from George Miller, who stated, that attorney Klayman was not paid, because the Article 2legal fund could not raise $25,000 reainer,(deposit) as requested by attorney Klayman.

At this point  I suggested, that if members of the public donated for a particular purpose of paying a specific attorney to file specific law suits by a specific deadline, those donors should be refunded.

Indeed, Article2superpac published on their web site, that a refund was offered to the donors, which only confirms, that I was correct.

I, also, related to the readers of my web site, that according to Article2Superpac, they deal only with education and promoting understanding of the article 2 of the constitution. They were stating that the article2legal fund is a separate entity.

I believe, a clarification by the Article 2 legal fund should be made to the donors and the public at large:

a. who runs Article 2 legal fund? How many people run Article2 legal fund? What are their names?

b. What is Article2 legal fund? Is it a not for profit corporation? is it registered with a Secretary of State? In what state?

c. are funds kept in a separate fund?

d. is there a bank account under the name Article2 legal fund? Who owns this bank account? Who are the signatories? Who signs checks from the Article 2 legal fund?

e. how much money did article2 Legal fund collect from the public?

f. how much money did Article2 legal fund pay attorneys? Which attorneys did they pay? How much did each attorney get?

g. Who is ultimately responsible for the payment of attorneys fees? If an attorney demands a retainer (deposit) of $10,000 or $25,000, and the Article 2 legal fund collected only $5,000, who is  supposed to pay the difference: the plaintiff or Article 2 legal fund?

i. Typically attorneys ask for a retainer (deposit) and draw their hourly fees from this deposit. What hourly fees was Article legal fund paying the attorneys?

I made all the clarifications and I am asking legitimate questions.  I hope that all the answers will be provided by the individuals, who are doing business under the name article2 legal fund and it should end the whole controversy.


One Response to “Clarification regarding article2legal fund and Larry Klayman”

  1. bacsi
    February 26th, 2012 @ 9:48 pm

    On the 23rd Pamela Barnett was listed a member of the superpac board:

    “Here are the listed Article II Super PAC Board Members
    Pamela Barnett, Richard (Rich) Garoutte, George Miller, Gary Wilmott, Helen Tansey”

    When I checked their site yesterday and today Pamela Barnett’s name was no longer listed.

    My initial positive reaction to their site was due first to Carl Swensson’s endorsement, bolstered by Pamela’s involvement. However, that has been nullified by Pamela’s apparent departure, and the apparent gross mishandling of their relationship with Klayman and their proposed Florida and California initiatives.

    Carl is still doing good work in Georgia, but since neither he nor anyone else apparently can find the interest or time to provide an update as to what is going on with Klayman and the proposed legal activities he was involved with – I didn’t see the update you referred to concerning refunds – I really question their true motivation and/or ability.

    I do not understand the antagonism members of various eligibility groups have toward you. The earliest example I remember seeing was on Walt Fritzpatrick’s site, JagHunter, a long while ago where he criticized you in what I took was a drunken ramble. I deleted my browser’s bookmark for his site at that time. With everything that has happened with him since, I have moderated my opinion at least to the point that I feel he is genuine in his love for this country and our constitution – he most certainly has paid his dues. I’ve wondered if Carl’s attitude towards you has something to do with his relationship with Walt. Something certainly is going on there and I wish it could be aired and sorted out, because this in-fighting among those who are on the same side benefits no one but our enemies.

Leave a Reply