1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA


LARRY KLAYMAN,

Plaintiff,
v.

JUDICIAL WATCH

Defendant.






Case No: 1:13-cv-20610-CMA



PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT OPPOSITION AND NOTICE OF
OBJECTION TO AFFIDAVIT OF ORLY TAITZ

Plaintiff, Larry Klayman, (Plaintiff or Klayman) hereby files this Reply to
Defendants Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement Opposition and
Notice of Objection to Affidavit of Orly Taitz (Taitz).
I. The Affidavit of Orly Taitz Is Timely.
Defendant Judicial Watchs claim that the filing of the affidavit of Taitz is untimely is
without merit. First, as set forth in Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants 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. Plaintiffs Supplement to Opposition to
Defendants 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 Watchs counsel well before Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiffs
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

PDFaid.Com
#1 Pdf Solutions
2
II. 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 Watchs 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 Watchs 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 Taitzs affidavit testimony, that she is testifying
from personal knowledge. Thus, Judicial Watchs objections are red herrings, but now moot
in any event. The two affidavits contain the exact same substantive language.
Either of Taitzs affidavits are substantively proper and probative and hardly
conclusory. See Plaintiffs Supplement to Opposition to Defendants 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 Klaymans donors. In addition, the affidavits 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 which bears on Klaymans 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

3
Klaymans 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 Ruffleys and Judicial
Watchs defamatory statements.
Even had Taitz not attested to the statements made by Constance Ruffley and Judicial
Watch, as set forth in Plaintiffs Opposition 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.
III. 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 does 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

4
Thus, even had Taitz not provided affidavits, the representations of Constance
Ruffley and Judicial Watch that were published on Taitzs website are legally sufficient to
defeat summary judgment.
IV. Orly Taitz is Also Subject to Deposition.
As set forth in Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Expedited Motion to Compel
Compliance with Subpoena to Orly Taitz and Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Expedited
Motion to Compel, attached as Exhibits 3 and 4, Plaintiff Klayman timely subpoenaed Orly
Taitz for deposition, she then refused to appear, and therefore moved to compel her
deposition in the U.S. District Court for the Center District of California where she is located.
Plaintiff Klayman requested that this Court expedite its determination, particularly since
neither Taitz nor Judicial Watch timely objected or filed a motion for protective order to
attempt to quash the subpoena. Thus, legally both have no cause to try to prevent this
deposition.
It is accepted practice that a deposition, which is set and subpoenaed within the
timeframe before discovery cut-off, can be enforced after discovery cut-off. That Taitz
refused to appear for deposition and defied a subpoena is no fault of Plaintiff Klayman. In
any event, for purposes of summary judgment given Taitzs affidavits and Klaymans
affidavit, the deposition is not necessary at this time to defeat Judicial Watchs summary
judgment motion based on their testimony as well as other facts and legal analysis set forth in
the pleadings.
V. Conclusion.
For these compelling reasons, based on the totality of the sworn facts and legal
analysis provided to this Court, which include but are not limited to the affidavits of Orly
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2014 Page 4 of 6

5
Taitz, Plaintiff Klayman, Constance Ruffley where she conveniently lost her memory, and
the self-authenticating nature of the defamatory publications on Taitzs website, Worlds
Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Web site, and the other facts and legal analysis
contained in the pleadings, it is clear not only that Taitzs affidavits are legally sufficient to
oppose summary judgment but the summary judgment itself must respectfully be denied.
Finally, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as a matter of law must
grant Plaintiffs motion to compel Taitzs deposition as neither she nor Judicial Watch timely
objected or moved to protective order in an attempt to prevent it. Plaintiff Klayman
subpoenaed Taitz well within the discovery period and should respectfully not be prejudiced
by Taitzs refusal to appear for deposition. However, this deposition is not even necessary
given everything on the record to defeat Judicial Watchs summary judgment motion.

Dated: March 27, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman
LARRY KLAYMAN
Attorney at Law
2520 Coral Way, Suite 2027
Miami, FL 33145
(310) 595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com

Plaintiff Pro Se



Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2014 Page 5 of 6

6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 27, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing Reply
To Defendants Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion To Supplement Opposition
And Notice Of Objection To Affidavit Of Orly Taitz with the Clerk of the Court using the
CM/ECF filing system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this date on all
counsel of record or pro se parties on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via
transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by the CM/ECF system or in some other
authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically
Notices of Electronic Filing.


/s/ Larry Klayman
LARRY KLAYMAN

Plaintiff Pro Se



SERVICE LIST

Douglas James Kress
Schwed Kahle & Jenks, P.A.
11410 North Jog Road
Suite 100
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
561-694-0070
Fax: 561-694-0057
Email: dkress@schwedpa.com

VIA CM/ECF

Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2014 Page 6 of 6