1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DR. JEROME CORSI, et al

 Plaintiffs

v.

INFOWARS, LLC, et al

Defendants.

 Case Number: 1:20-cv-298-LY

 

 

PLAINTIFFS JEROME CORSI’S AND LARRY KLAYMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE ANDREW W. AUSTIN

Plaintiffs Dr. Jerome Corsi and Larry Klayman (“Plaintiffs”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2), hereby submits the following written objections to Magistrate Andrew W. Austin’s 

(“Magistrate Austin”) Report and Recommendation of May 25, 2021. ECF No. 108. (the 

“Report”)

I. INTRODUCTION

As set forth in detail previously in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Have Presiding Judge Decide 

Outstanding Motions to Dismiss, at the hearing of March 23, 2021 before Magistrate Austin, and 

related pleadings he demonstrated a virtual complete lack of understanding about the allegations 

of the Amended Complaint, and in so doing appeared to have prejudged the case without a valid 

basis. ECF No’s 108, 112, 114. This lack of understanding combined with prejudgment has, 

regrettably, carried over to his fatally flawed Report, which contains numerous factual and legal 

errors which must be rejected and thus corrected.

Indeed, Magistrate Austin’s Report, which appears to have been hastily written on the 

eve of his retirement, after an enormously prejudicial nearly (8) month delay after this matter 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 65
2

had been fully briefed, in the face of the presiding judge’s strong direction issued at the outset of 

this case, where he told the parties to move this case along to trial:

You're going to have to figure how much time you want because once I get it set, 

once I fill in after a subsequent conference your trial month and final pretrial 

conference date and time, you're not likely to get a continuance or a 

postponement. 

I like to try lawsuits. If I had my way and could pass one law, I would do away 

with motion practice altogether, and you would either settle your case or try your 

case, the way it was in the olden days. 

This necessitated the filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Report and Recommendation 

of Magistrate Austin, which was not a personal attack on Magistrate Austin whatsoever, as 

Defendants disingenuously assert, but simply a necessary pleading to point out the numerous 

errors contained out in the Report and to argue that this case must now move quickly to 

discovery and trial. These legal and factual errors are set forth fully, in detail below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition 

that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 

recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge 

with instructions. As Magistrate Austin is now retired, the latter option is not viable in any event.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT

As set forth above, Magistrate Austin’s Report contains numerous legal and factual errors 

that are addressed in turn below.

a. Magistrate Austin’s Report Contains Numerous Legal Errors

As a threshold matter, Magistrate Austin gravely erred when he ignored the sworn 

affidavits submitted by both Plaintiff Klayman, Dr. Corsi, Kelly Morales (formerly Mrs. Alex 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 65
3

Jones), which show that Plaintiffs went far beyond the necessary pleading requirements set forth 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and under Supreme Court precedent. Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 attached 

hereto. ECF No. 73, 74. The standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is that a complaint “does not 

require detailed factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (U.S. 2009) (internal 

quotations omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only “contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint more than meets this low pleading standard, and they have 

buttressed their claims even further with sworn affidavits from themselves as well as Defendant 

Alex Jones’ ex-wife Kelly Morales, while Defendants have provided no affidavits. Exhibits 1, 2, 

and 4 attached hereto. ECF No 73, 74.

What Magistrate Austin has done here is he has usurped the role of the jury, which is 

especially egregious at the motion to dismiss stage. In situations where resolution is necessarily 

fact intensive, like defamation, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[m]aintenance of the jury 

as a fact-finding body is of such importance and occupies so firm a place in our history and 

jurisprudence that any seeming curtailment of the right to a jury trial should be scrutinized with 

the utmost care.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 486 (U.S. 1935). If a statement is capable of 

more than one meaning, it requires a jury to decide whether that statement is defamatory. “If, 

however, the court finds the statement is capable of at least one defamatory meaning and at least 

one non-defamatory meaning, a jury must determine whether the defamatory meaning was 

conveyed.” Tu Nguyen v. Duy Tu Hoang, 318 F. Supp. 3d 983, 1007 (S.D. Tex. 2018). 

Magistrate Austin’s error here is underscored by in the Report where he writes at page 8, that 

“[w]hen a defamation suit is brought against a media defendant over a matter of public concern, 

the plaintiff bears the burden of proving falsity.” Of course this is true if the matter were given to 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 65
4

a jury, but at the motion to dismiss stage, there is no burden to “prove” falsity on Plaintiffs. This 

is a clear error that resulted from Magistrate Austin improperly appointing himself as the entire 

jury. 

i. Magistrate Austin Ignored the Allegations in the Complaint that 

Defendants Were Working Together in Concert 

Magistrate Austin recommended dismissal of claims against Defendants Shroyer and 

David Jones because Plaintiffs have not made any factual allegations supporting the assertion 

that these Defendants have conspired with their co-Defendants to defame them. This is simply 

not true, and a subversion of the pleading standard set forth in Iqbal. 

The Amended Complaint specifically and expressly alleges that the Infowars Defendants

were at all material times “working together in concert with and as agents of Stone....” Am. 

Comp. ¶ 36. Furthermore, “Plaintiffs have demanded retraction and correction of the defamatory 

videos and publications...but Defendant shave arrogantly refused, thereby ratifying any and all 

defamatory statements contained therein....” Am. Comp. ¶ 38.

These assertions are supported by detailed factual allegations:

Defendant InfoWars and Defendant Free Speech Systems are both owned, 

controlled, and operated by Defendant Alex Jones and David Jones. Defendant 

Free Speech Systems owns www.infowars.com, where content created by 

Defendants Alex Jones, Shroyer and Stone were at all material times posted and 

broadcast into this district, nationally and internationally. Am. Comp. ¶ 11.

Defendant David Jones is Defendant Alex Jones’s father and holds the official 

title of Director of Human Relations for Defendant Free Speech Systems. On 

information and belief, Defendant David Jones is the owner of Defendant 

InfoWars and Free Speech Systems and he manages and controls the business and 

related activities for Defendants InfoWars and Free Speech Systems, as well as 

Defendant Alex Jones’ other companies. Am. Comp. ¶ 8.

Thus, given the fact that each of every one of the Infowars Defendants are intricately bound 

together by virtue of the fact that they all directly participate in creating and publishing the 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 4 of 65
5

content on the Infowars site, it is more than merely plausible that they are working together in 

concert. This is more than enough at the pleading stage, where again, to survive a motion to 

dismiss, a complaint need only “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

However, Plaintiffs have taken this a step further and submitted sworn affidavits of 

themselves as well as Ms. Morales, Defendant Alex Jones’ ex-wife who swears under oath:

Based on my personal knowledge and experience, David Jones runs Infowars with 

Alex Jones and helps him with his activities, including fixing media stories and 

endorsing and/or aiding his slanderous and/or fraudulent behaviors, all for profit.

Alex Jones could not function without David Jones, and has conspired with him 

on the past to commit this breach of fiduciary duty and fraud on my 

business/estate with Alex Jones. While David Jones did this, he slandered and/or 

defamed me to experts and assisted Alex Jones and his attorneys to do the same, 

so as to steal/hide my estate and his grandchildren’s inheritance.

Alex Jones is quasi-illiterate, and cannot use technology or apps such as email 

with any fluency, and he cannot function without assistance from those around 

him, including David Jones. Exhibit 2.

This was in addition to an affidavit submitted by David Jones himself on behalf of Alex Jones in 

his bankruptcy case, where he states, “I have been involved with Alex Jones’ personal and 

business finances for many years....” Exhibit 3. 

Notwithstanding the affidavits incorporated into a well pled Amended Complaint and 

related pleadings, and the hard fact that all of the Defendants all closely work together as part of 

Infowars and appeared together in concert on the same defamatory broadcasts, the law, which 

was presented to the Magistrate, shows otherwise: 

Civil conspiracy is used to extend tort liability beyond the wrongdoer to those 

who merely planned, assisted, or encouraged his acts. See Carroll v. Timmers 

Chevrolet, Inc., 592 S.W.2d 922, 925-26 (Tex. 1979); Helping Hands Home 

Care, Inc. v. Home Health of Tarrant County, Inc., 393 S.W.3d 492, 506 (Tex. 

App.-Dallas 2013, pet. denied). Once a civil conspiracy is proved, each

conspirator is responsible for all acts done by any of the conspirators in 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 5 of 65
6

furtherance of the conspiracy. Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561, 619 (Tex. 

2002); Carroll, 592 S.W.2d at 926 (Tex. 1979); Helping Hands, 393 S.W.3d at 

506. A finding of civil conspiracy imposes joint and several liability on all 

conspirators for actual damages resulting from the acts in furtherance of the 

conspiracy. Carroll, 592 S.W.2d at 925; Helping Hands, 393 S.W.3d at 

506. When a jury finds that liability for a civil conspiracy exists, this finding 

requires the legal conclusion to impose joint and several liability on the coconspirators. LandAmerica Commonwealth Title Co. v. Wido, No. 05-14-00036-

CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11201, at *29 (Tex. App. Oct. 29, 2015).

Additionally, under Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 577, comment f, “One is liable for 

defamation by a third person whom as his servant, agent, or otherwise he directs or procures to 

publish defamatory matter.” See also Universal Commun. Sys. v. Turner Broad. Sys., 2005 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 58575, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2005) (“One is liable for defamation by a third 

person whom as his servant, agent, or otherwise he directs or procures to publish defamatory 

matter.”)

Thus, given all of this, it was a grave error for Magistrate Austin to recommend dismissal 

of Defendant Shroyer and Defendant David Jones on the basis of lack of personal involvement,

especially at the pleading stage, where it has been expressly alleged that (1) all of the Defendants 

were working together in concert, and (2) each of the Infowars Defendants were acting at the 

direction of Defendant Stone. Am. Comp. ¶ 36. Plaintiffs have more than adequately pled, if not 

proved, all of the Defendants specific, personal involvement as set forth in the allegations of the 

Amended Complaint. And if the Magistrate wanted more, he should not have stayed discovery, 

creating a heads I win, tails you lose scenario.

ii. Magistrate Austin Erred By Recommending Dismissal of Defamation 

Claims

This defamatory statements at issue in this case are so outrageous that they are clearly 

defamatory on their faces, and they are defamatory per se, as they harm Plaintiffs in their trade 

and profession, and as such damages are presumed, as set forth in detail below. Statements that 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 6 of 65
7

injure a person in her office, profession, or occupation are typically classified as defamatory per 

se. Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59, 63–64 (Tex. 2013). These published statements are:

(1) “He (Klayman) was ousted at Judicial Watch. Ask Tom Fitton [the 

current president of Judicial Watch] why he left. He was ‘ousted’ because 

of a ‘sexual harassment complaint.’” Am. Comp. ¶ 56.

(2) “He’s (Klayman) never actually won a courtroom victory in his life.” Am. 

Comp. ¶ 55

(3) “For those people out there who think...that Larry Klayman’s IQ is 

higher than 70, you’re wrong...” Am. Comp. ¶ 62.

(4) “He’s (Klayman) incompetent, he’s a numbskull, he’s an idiot, he’s an 

egomaniac, and he could be the single worst lawyer in America. With him 

as Jerry Corsi’s lawyer, Corsi may get the electric chair. So your idea 

that he’s a good guy is entirely wrong” Am. Comp. ¶ 59

(5) Plaintiff Klayman is a “piece of garbage.” Am. Comp. ¶ 61

With regard to Plaintiff Dr. Corsi, Defendants have falsely and maliciously published 

that:

(1) “Plaintiff Corsi “seemed to be extremely mentally degraded to the point 

of what I would call dementia.” Am. Comp. ¶ 42

(2) Defendant Alex Jones purportedly saw Plaintiff Corsi at a steakhouse “on 

the ground at another table” and that his security staff “thought he was 

dead in the elevator.” Am. Comp. ¶ 43

(3) Accusing Plaintiff Corsi of having suffered a stroke, publishes maliciously 

that “whatever comes out of his mouth ain’t the truth.” Am. Comp. ¶ 44

(4) that Plaintiff Corsi was “fired from World Net Daily.” Am. Comp. ¶ 49

(5) “He (Corsi) was perfectly willing to lie, to perjure himself saying that a 

memo that he had wrote me was written on the 30th for the purposes of 

cover-up.... which is further proof that Jerry lied under oath.” Am. 

Comp. ¶ 50

(6) “and then states that I knew about John Podesta’s emails being stolen in 

advance, the only proof of that is Jerry’s feeble alcohol affected memory 

– it’s a lie....” Am. Comp. ¶ 51

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 7 of 65
8

(7) “Jerry was prepared to stab a principle Trump supporter in the back, he 

was perfectly prepared to bear false witness against me, even though I 

had done nothing in my entire life other than help him.” Am. Comp. ¶ 52

(8) “all I ever did was show Jerry Corsi friendship and support and try to 

help him and his family and what I get is Judas Iscariot, the willingness to 

testify against me and help the deep state bury me....and then he makes 

up this story about helping me formulate a cover story.” Am. Comp. ¶ 53

(9) “... you can always tell when Jerry Corsi is lying because his lips are 

moving....” Am. Comp. ¶ 54

(10) “He [Corsi] was perfectly willing to bear false witness against me on 

multiple points that are complete fabrications.” Am. Comp. ¶ 64 

(11) “the good doctor [Corsi] has told a number of lies. In fact, he’s 

starting to conflate his lies.... he was perfectly willing to lie about me.... 

but now lying about Alex Jones, lying about InfoWars, lying about Dr. 

(David) Jones, who’s one of the nicest, gentlest, sweetest, most honest men 

I have ever met, it’s beyond the pale.... Jerry Corsi can no longer be 

believed.” Am. Comp. ¶ 65

(12) “I think you’ve [Corsi] been deep state from the beginning. Your 

whole birther thing is used as a club to destroy conservatives....I look 

forward to our confrontation. I will demolish you. You’re a fraudster, out 

of your alcoholic haze you have made up lies about David Jones and Alex 

Jones and Roger Stone and now I suspect they want you to lie about the 

President.” Am. Comp. ¶ 66

(13) Plaintiff Corsi of being a “spook, back and forth with different 

agencies,” Am. Comp. ¶ 67

(14) Falsely publishing a false statement of Plaintiff Corsi “not being able 

to walk.” Am. Comp. ¶ 68

1. Magistrate Austin Erred In Finding that Plaintiffs Did Not 

Allege Actual Malice

Magistrate Austin simply arbitrarily writes that “Corsi has failed to adequately allege that Alex 

Jones knowingly made false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in making 

the complained of statements about Corsi, and has failed to adequately plead that Jones acted 

with malice in making the statements.” ECF No. 108 at 14. This conclusion is reached with zero 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 8 of 65
9

analysis, supporting Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Report was written hastily and with 

prejudgment in mind.

Indeed, a review of the record shows that Magistrate Austin’s finding here was clearly 

erroneous. First, and foremost, the Amended Complaint expressly sets forth that the Defendants 

acted with actual malice, as they knew that the defamatory statements were false given their long 

history, relationship, and familiarity with Plaintiffs: “Defendants, each and every one of them, as

set forth herein, acted with actual malice, in concert, as joint tortfeasors, as they knew that the

statements which they published were false.... Am. Comp. ¶ 36. 

The Amended Complaint sets forth the fact that Defendants “have known Plaintiff Corsi 

for a long time and even worked with him... so they were well aware that the statements made 

by the co- Defendant Stone, and their own false, misleading, malicious and defamatory 

statements were, indeed, false, as well as their acting as agents of, much less their ratification of 

the malicious false statements published by Defendant Stone on their networks and media sites.” 

Am. Comp. ¶ 39. This is further buttressed by Dr. Corsi’s affidavit, Exhibit 1, which details his 

long-standing relationships with the Defendants:

I personally know Defendant Roger Stone (“Defendant Stone”) and he personally 

knows my qualifications and me. I have even ghostwritten books for Defendant 

Stone and we used to be friends and colleagues. Defendant Stone is thus 

intimately familiar with my personal and professional history.

In 2016, after the presidential election, I worked very closely with Alex Jones and 

his father David Jones, as well as with the Infowars staff, including Owen 

Shroyer. I made multiple trips to Austin, Texas, to appear live in-studio on 

Infowars broadcasts. I accepted an assignment from Alex Jones to create for 

Infowars a news bureau in Washington, D.C. From the beginning, I found Alex 

Jones to be erratic, subjects to emotional outbursts, even reacting that I was trying 

to “steal his company” when with his father’s assistance, I brought a multi-million 

dollar legitimate investment offer from highly credible sources to the table to 

discuss the proposal with Alex and his father.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 9 of 65
10

Several times, concerned that I might quit over how badly Alex Jones was treating 

me, Dr. Jones met with me privately, often over breakfast. In those breakfasts, I 

counseled Dr. Jones over my concerns that Alex should seek professional 

psychological help. While in my work under various contracts with federal 

government agencies to consult over anti-terrorism tactics, I had the opportunity

to work with very experienced psychiatrists and psychologists. Still, I am not 

medically trained, and I cautioned Dr. Jones that the problems I perceived with 

Alex’s behavior should be professionally evaluated by qualified medical 

professionals. Exhibit 1.

Indeed, as conclusive evidence that Defendants were acting with actual malice, as set forth in Dr. 

Corsi’s affidavit, Indeed, Dr. Corsi’s book, “Killing the Deep State,” was at all material times, 

still available for sale on the Infowars website! Exhibit 1. This shows that the Infowars 

Defendants at all times knew that Dr. Corsi was neither an alcoholic nor a liar, yet still willingly 

participated in branding him as such. This is textbook actual malice.

With regard to Plaintiff Klayman, “At 1:30 in the January 18 Video, Stone maliciously

falsely published, “He (Klayman) was ousted at Judicial Watch. Ask Tom Fitton [the current

president of Judicial Watch] why he left. He was ‘ousted’ because of a ‘sexual harassment

complaint.’” Defendant Stone had no basis to make these false, malicious, and defamatory

claims. As pled in the Amended Complaint, Mr. Klayman “left Judicial Watch

voluntarily on his own accord in order to run for U.S. Senate in Florida in 2003 -2004.” 

Am. Comp. ¶57. This is a fact. Defendant Stone’s false revisionist history is a malicious 

and false statement of fact.

Furthermore, as the final “nail in the coffin” to Defendant Stone’s assertions, Thomas 

Fitton (“Fitton”), under oath, at a deposition in another matter testified that “[y]ou [Mr.

Klayman] weren’t ousted as a result of a sexual harassment complaint.” Exhibit 5. This 

conclusively shows that Defendant Stone, in concert with the Infowars Defendants, published an 

objectively verifiable false statement. Indeed, at the same deposition, Fitton admits to never have 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 10 of 65
11

spoken to Stone, which shows that Stone simply made this lie up. Exhibit 5. Stone admitted 

under oath in a deposition that he did not speak to Fitton about this either, so it’s clear that Stone 

made this up to defame Mr. Klayman. Exhibit 5. This evidences the fact that Defendant Stone, in 

concert with the other Defendants, acted with actual malice.

Furthermore, Mr. Klayman’s affidavit further shows that Defendant Stone and the other

Defendants, acting in concert, with actual malice and at a minimum acted with reckless disregard 

for the truth.

Defendant Stone was a “political consultant” who claimed to help get presidents 

and other politicians elected. The firm made money by then lobbying the very 

men they put in office.

Defendant Stone backed Republican candidate Jack Kemp for President and he 

recommended that I be put on the executive finance committee, which also 

included Donald J. Trump.

Because Defendant Stone knew of my successes and capabilities as a private 

lawyer, he told me that he had recommended me for U.S. Attorney when

George Bush was President in 1992.

In 1996, at a Republican Convention in San Diego, California, Defendant Stone 

was filmed at a “toga party” with his wife at a “swingers party.

The media at the time went after Defendant Stone because of his alleged

participation in the “sex party” and created a scandal.

The media alleged at the time that Defendant Stone solicited sex half-naked, and 

that there was a picture of Defendant Stone in a compromising position to back up 

the story.

Defendant Stone contacted me and, because he knew my capabilities and

acumen as a lawyer, retained me to represent him to get the media to cease

what he claimed then was a smear campaign.

I successfully got the media to back off Defendant Stone through my skill as

a lawyer and Defendant Stone was grateful.

Because he was aware of my prior successes at Judicial Watch and before, 

Defendant Stone wanted to work with me as my U.S. Senate campaign manager.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 11 of 65
12

During this time, the spring, summer, and fall of 2003, and in preparation for my 

U.S. Senate run, Defendant Stone researched and kept books and records of many 

of my accomplishments. He had several binders (2-3 feet) full of information 

about me and the victories that I had obtained at Judicial Watch and elsewhere. 

Again, because Defendant Stone knew of my successes and legal political 

acumen, Defendant Stone wanted to be on my team and help me run for the U.S. 

Senate.

Defendant Stone thus knew of many cases I had won in courtrooms and other 

legal accomplishments and in fact had kept records of successes in a book of my 

accomplishments. Exhibit 4.

Accordingly, this shows that Defendant Stone had actual knowledge that his statement 

regarding Mr. Klayman’s abilities as a lawyer were flat out false, including but not limited to the 

“fact” that Mr. Klayman had “never won a courtroom victory in his life.” Thus, Mr. Klayman has 

also far exceeded any requisite showing of actual malice. Thus, Magistrate Austin’s finding 

that Plaintiffs failed to show actual malice was a clear error.

2. Magistrate Austin Erred By Finding Defendants’ Statements 

Unactionable as Defamation

Magistrate Austin’ Report is limited to statements made by Defendant Alex Jones of and 

concerning Dr. Corsi. Because he makes no finding that Defendant Stone’s statements were not 

defamatory, to the extent that the Court adopts any part of Magistrate Austin’s Report, this 

finding concerning Defendant Stone must also be adopted. Magistrate Austin only found that the 

defamation claims against Defendant Stone fall outside of the statute of limitations.

The elements that a defamation plaintiff must prove are that (a) the defendant published a 

false statement of fact; (b) the statement defamed the plaintiff; (c) the defendant acted with 

actual malice, if the plaintiff is a public figure or a public official, or negligently, if the plaintiff 

is a private individual; and (d) the statement proximately caused damages.” Rodriguez v. 

Gonzales, 566 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. App. 2018). Furthermore, in a claim for defamation per se, 

damages are presumed, as the “statements are so obviously harmful that damages, such as mental 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 12 of 65
13

anguish and loss of reputation, are presumed.” Van Der Linden v. Khan, 535 S.W.3d 179, 198 

(Tex. App. 2017). Statements that injure a person in her office, profession, or occupation are 

typically classified as defamatory per se. Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59, 63–64 (Tex. 

2013). A defamation by implication claim arises when a “when discrete facts, literally or 

substantially true, are published in such a way that they create a substantially false and 

defamatory impression by omitting material facts or juxtaposing facts in a misleading way.” 

Dall. Morning News, Inc. v. Tatum, 554 S.W.3d 614, 627 (Tex. 2018).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Texas has found that a defendant may not escape 

liability for his defamatory conduct simply by couching his defamatory statement as an 

“opinion.” Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002). The Bentley court gave an example:

If a speaker says, "In my opinion John Jones is a liar," he implies a knowledge of 

facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker 

states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect 

or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still 

imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of 

opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, "In my opinion 

Jones is a liar," can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, "Jones 

is a liar." As Judge Friendly aptly stated: be destructive of the law of libel if a 

writer could escape liability for accusations of [defamatory conduct] simply by 

using, explicitly or implicitly, the words 'I think.'" See Cianci [v. New Times 

Publishing Co., 639 F.2d 54, 64 (2d Cir., 1980)]. It is worthy of note that at 

common law, even the privilege of fair comment did not extend to "a false 

statement of fact, whether it was expressly stated or implied from an expression of 

opinion." Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 566, Comment a (1977). Id. at 583-84. 

Magistrate Austin committed a grave error in ignoring the black letter law of the Bentley Court 

and recommending that the Defendants escape liability simply by couching their factual 

defamatory statements as opinion. 

a. Statements Concerning Dr. Corsi

There are numerous defamatory statements at issue in this matter, each of which are 

defamatory per se, as they directly involve Plaintiffs’ trades and professions and therefore 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 13 of 65
14

damages are presumed. This also evidences the fact that these statements qualify as commercial 

speech under the Lanham Act, since Defendants are disparaging and discrediting Plaintiffs in 

their trades and professions, as Plaintiffs and Defendants are commercial competitors. This is set 

forth in detail in the following section.

The first statement at issue appears in paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint, where 

Defendant Alex Jones stated that Dr. Corsi “seemed to be extremely mentally degraded to the 

point of what I would call dementia.” Magistrate Austin found that this was Alex Jones “offering 

his opinion regarding how he perceived Corsi’s cognitive state based on seeing him in person.” 

However, this is an erroneous conclusion under Bentley. Whether a person is “mentally 

degraded” is a medical question of fact. One either is, or is not. Defendant Alex Jones takes it a 

step further, making a diagnosis of “dementia.” Again, this is an objective medical diagnosis that 

is a statement of fact. One either has dementia or he doesn't. Dr. Corsi is neither “mentally 

degraded” not does he have “dementia.” Thus, the statements of “fact” spewed by Defendant 

Alex Jones are objectively and provably false. It should make no difference under wellestablished precent that Alex Jones cleverly couched this as opinion. Thus, Magistrate Austin’s 

finding was erroneous.

The second statement at issue appears in paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint, where

“Defendant Alex Jones, acting in concert with the other Defendants, maliciously fabricates a 

story where he purportedly saw Plaintiff Corsi at a steakhouse “on the ground at another table” 

and that his security staff “thought he was dead in the elevator.” Magistrate Austin’s prejudice 

and haste in writing his Report truly comes through with regard to these false and defamatory 

statements, which Alex Jones did not even attempt to couch as opinion. These are two statements 

of objectively verifiable fact. Either Dr. Corsi collapsed or he didn't, and either his security staff 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 14 of 65
15

thought he “was dead in the elevator” or they didn't. This is not a question of what Alex Jones 

perceived, as Magistrate Austin erroneously writes. It is a question of (1) whether Dr. Corsi 

collapsed at a steakhouse, and (2) whether his security staff thought Dr. Corsi was dead in the 

elevator. This finding was clearly erroneous.

The third statement at issue appears in paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint, where 

“after accusing Plaintiff Corsi of having suffered a stroke, publishes maliciously that “whatever 

comes out of his mouth ain’t the truth.” This is textbook defamation, especially in the context of 

Defendant Alex Jones’ previous attempts to cast Dr. Corsi as a liar or, at a minimum, someone 

mentally incapable of telling the truth. As set forth above, falsely accusing someone of having 

suffered a stroke is not only reprehensible, but it is also stating a false, objectively verifiable fact. 

Magistrate Austin admits as much, expressly finding that the statement that “[Corsi] had a 

stroke,” however, is a straightforward factual statement, which, if false could support a 

defamation claim.” ECF No. 108 at 12. However, he then strains to still find this statement as 

non-actionable, despite clearly making the opposite finding, based on supposed “context” in the 

form of Alex Jones saying, “I think he’s got dementia or a stroke I mean I don’t know,” and his 

description of Corsi having “a really sharp brain until about a year ago.” There is absolutely 

nothing about this supposed “context” that lessens the defamatory impact of this statement. If 

anything, it amplifies the defamatory nature, as he falsely accuses Dr. Corsi of having suffered a 

stroke more than once! Whether indicative of strong bias and prejudice, or simple hasty 

carelessness, this is a clear error in Magistrate Austin’s Report. 

The fourth statement at issue is that “Defendant Alex Jones maliciously and falsely 

accuses Plaintiff Corsi of being a ‘spook, back and forth with different agencies,’ falsely saying 

that Dr. Corsi had worked with different government agencies.” Am. Comp. ¶ 67. This is an 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 15 of 65
16

actual statement where the context is important, but tellingly, Magistrate Austin here refuses to 

consider said context. However, the defamatory nature of this false statement of fact is apparent 

when considering the context in which it was made. This statement was made to advance the 

false notion that Dr. Corsi was cooperating with Special Counsel Mueller to try to take down 

Stone, and by extension, President Trump. By publishing the false statement that Dr. Corsi is 

now working with Mueller to take down Trump, the Infowars Defendants has severely harmed 

Plaintiff Corsi professional image and reputation. This has negatively impacted Plaintiff Corsi’s 

ability to garner support and make a living in the conservative community. Falsely accusing Dr. 

Corsi of working with Mueller to take down President Trump is tantamount to an accusation of 

“treason” in the conservative community. Indeed, conservatives who support Trump and 

believed Defendants’ false statements would understandably be turned off to Dr. Corsi’s work.

Lastly, Magistrate Austin does not even address Alex Jones’ falsely accusing Dr. Corsi 

sometimes “sometimes “not being able to walk,” creating the false and defamatory implication 

that he is an alcoholic.” Am. Comp. ¶ 68. There is no possible “context” where this is not 

defamatory. Merely falsely asserting that at some point, Dr. Corsi had been, or continues to be 

unable to even walk, especially when trying to accuse Dr. Corsi of alcoholism, clearly tends to 

injure reputation in the popular sense; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in 

which the plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions 

against him.

b. Statements Concerning Mr. Klayman

As with Dr. Corsi, Defendants’ defamation of Mr. Klayman is per se defamatory as they 

are specifically targeting Mr. Klayman’s trade and profession. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 16 of 65
17

For instance: “At 1:30 in the January 18 Video, Stone maliciously falsely published, “He

(Klayman) was ousted at Judicial Watch. Ask Tom Fitton [the current president of Judicial

Watch] why he left. He was ‘ousted’ because of a ‘sexual harassment complaint.’” Defendant

Stone had no basis to make these false, malicious, and defamatory claims. As pled in the

Amended Complaint, Mr. Klayman “left Judicial Watch voluntarily on his own accord in

order to run for U.S. Senate in Florida in 2003 -2004.” Am. Comp. ¶57. This is a fact. 

Defendant Stone’s false revisionist history evidences actual malice and is clearly a false 

statement of fact.

Furthermore, as the final “nail in the coffin” to Defendant Stone’s assertions, Thomas 

Fitton (“Fitton”), under oath, at a deposition in another matter testified that “[y]ou [Mr.

Klayman] weren’t ousted as a result of a sexual harassment complaint.” Exhibit 5. This 

conclusively shows that Defendant Stone, in concert with the Infowars Defendants, published an 

objectively verifiable false statement. Indeed, at the same deposition, Fitton admits to never have 

spoken to Stone, which shows that Stone simply made this lie up. Exhibit 5. Stone admitted 

under oath in a deposition that he did not speak to Fitton about this either, so it’s clear that Stone 

made this up to defame Mr. Klayman. Exhibit 5.

Furthermore, Defendant Stone, in concert with the Infowars Defendants made the false 

statement that Mr. Klayman had “never actually won a courtroom victory in his life.” Am. 

Comp. ¶ 55. To the contrary:

Klayman has been a practicing attorney for over four decades and has won 

numerous cases on behalf of his clients and also against the government for 

constitutional and other violations. He is the founder of both Judicial Watch and 

Freedom Watch, a former candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida, a former trial 

attorney and prosecutor of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of 

Justice, where he was a member of the trial team that successfully broke up the 

AT&T monopoly and created competition in the telecommunications industry. 

Among many other legal victories, Plaintiff Klayman also won landmark 

decisions at the chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch enjoining the 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 17 of 65
18

illegal mass surveillance by the National Security Agency. Klayman v. Obama, 

1:13-cv-851 (D.D.C). Am. Comp. ¶ 60.

This is further disproved in Mr. Klayman’s affidavit. Exhibit 4. 

Later, with my law firm, I won Section 337 unfair trade practice cases at the

U.S. International Trade Commission ("USITC") concerning tennis rackets from

Belgium, power tools from Taiwan, luggage from Taiwan, mass spectrometers

from France, jam from Belgium, and machine tools from Brazil. I won a

landmark case concerning recloseable plastic bags, which broke the patents of

Minigrip and Dow Corning, Minigrip's licensee. That case victory opened up

competition for zip lock bags, a multi-trillion dollar industry. Exhibit 4.

I won a jury trial against Makita over power tools, another jury trial against

domestic manufacture of removable swimming pools for my client Remove Pool

Fence Co., and yet another jury trial for my client, Maccaferri, on a contract

dispute. Exhibit 4. 

I brought a case for Jose Basulto of Brothers to the Rescue in a Florida court, 

which resulted in a $1.8 million judgment against the Republic of Cuba for

shooting down Brothers to the Rescue planes, and I represented the Miami family

of Elian Gonzales and other victims of Fidel Castro, such as journalists who were

jailed by Castro for their political beliefs. In this regard, I not only filed criminal

complaints for these victims against Fidel Castro in Belgium courts, but also

lobbied and testified in both Italian and French in Italy and France, as I am fluent

in both languages, before various European parliaments to increase economic

sanctions on Cuba for abuse of human rights. I also lobbied the European Union

in Brussels, Belgium for increased sanctions on Cuba. Exhibit 4. ECF No. 73.

Thus, despite Magistrate Austin choosing not to address it in his Report, there are clearly 

actionable defamatory statements as to Mr. Klayman.

iii. Magistrate Austin Erred in Finding that Plaintiffs Lacked Standing 

Under the Lanham Act

The Lanham Act protects consumers from being misled by the use of "unfair practices by

an imitating competitor." ADT, LLC v. Capital Connect, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 671, 686 (N.D. 

Tex. 2015). Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act:

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any

container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or

device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or

misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact,

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 18 of 65
19

which— (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as

to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person,

or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or

commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or

promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic

origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial

activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or

she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. 15 U.S.C. 1125.

Here, Mr. Klayman is “a media personality and author, columnist, and syndicated radio talk

show host.” Am. Comp. ¶ 4. Dr. Corsi is an “author and political commentator....” Am. 

Comp. ¶ 3. “Plaintiffs Corsi and Plaintiff Klayman are both competitors to Defendants as 

conservative media personalities, broadcasters, authors and columnists on social media and 

elsewhere.” Am. Comp. ¶ 70. Thus, both Mr. Klayman and Dr. Corsi are media personalities 

who derive income from their appearances on radio and the internet. Defendant Stone clearly 

also appears on radio and internet in order to derive income, as evidenced by the allegations 

against him in paragraphs 47-63 of the Amended Complaint, where he appeared on The

War Room with Defendant Owen Shroyer. The same is true of the Infowars Defendants, who

derive their income from their internet and radio broadcasts of their programming through 

the Infowars network and website. 

The Amended Complaint clearly and expressly alleges that:

Plaintiffs, like Defendants, rely on viewer and listener financial and other support 

and sales and their reputations and good will in order to continue their work. 

Defendants’ false and/or misleading statements concerning Plaintiffs is meant to, 

and has, diverted financial and other support, referrals and sales away from 

Plaintiffs and to Defendants instead, and severely harmed Plaintiffs’ personal and

professional reputations. Am. Comp. ¶ 74.

This is further buttressed in Dr. Corsi’s affidavit. Exhibit 1. Dr. Corsi declared: 

In 2016, after the presidential election, I worked very closely with Alex Jones

and his father David Jones, as well as with the Infowars staff, including

Owen Shroyer. I made multiple trips to Austin, Texas, to appear live in-studio

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 19 of 65
20

on Infowars broadcasts. I accepted an assignment from Alex Jones to create for 

Infowars a news bureau in Washington, D.C. From the beginning, I found Alex

Jones to be erratic, subjects to emotional outbursts, even reacting that I was

trying to “steal his company” when with his father’s assistance, I brought a

multi-million dollar legitimate investment offer from highly credible sources to

the table to discuss the proposal with Alex and his father. Exhibit 1. 

Given the fact that Dr. Corsi used to “work...very closely” with the Infowars Defendants, 

as well as the other pled factual allegations, it is clear that they are all in the same commercial 

field, and are therefore competitors. Exhibit 1

Thus, the Amended Complaint clearly alleges that each of the Defendants were all

direct competitors to Plaintiffs as media personalities and commentators who derive income

from the internet and radio. Am. Comp. ¶ 70.

Furthermore, the Lanham Act prescribes liability for “commercial advertising or 

promotion.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). One of the factors that the Supreme Court has set forth 

in determining “commercial speech” is whether the speaker had an economic motivation for 

distributing the material. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 67 (1983). 

Defendant Stone’s and the other Defendants’ economic strong economic motivation is expressly 

pled in the Amended Complaint. For instance, “Defendants’ false and/or misleading statements 

concerning Plaintiffs is meant to, and has, diverted financial and other support, referrals and 

sales away from Plaintiffs and to Defendants instead, and severely harmed Plaintiffs’ personal 

and professional reputations.” Am. Comp. ¶ 74.

Accordingly, the Amended Complaint clearly sets forth (1) the Plaintiffs and Defendants 

are all competitors and (2) that Defendants engaged in commercial speech. Magistrate Austin 

erred in minimizing Plaintiff’s claims as alleging “[t]he mere fact that the parties may compete in 

the marketplace of ideas....” As set forth in Am. Comp. ¶ 74, “Defendants’ false and/or 

misleading statements concerning Plaintiffs is meant to, and has, diverted financial and other 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 20 of 65
21

support, referrals and sales away from Plaintiffs and to Defendants instead, and severely harmed 

Plaintiffs’ personal and professional reputations.” This is textbook commercial speech, meant to 

degrade the nature of Plaintiffs’ services and divert business to Defendants instead. 

Lastly, and Magistrate Austin does not find otherwise, each of the Defendants are clearly 

within the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ claims under the Lanham Act. 

iv. Magistrate Austin Erred in Finding That Plaintiffs Did Not 

Adequately Plead Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

To succeed on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must

show that “1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, 2) the conduct was extreme and

outrageous, 3) the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff emotional distress, and 4)

the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe.” Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d

619, 621 (Tex. 1993). Texas Courts have held that a single threat of physical harm or

death can sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. “With the possible

exceptions of the bomb and death threats, no single action...rises to the level of

intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Household Credit Servs., Inc. v. Driscol, 989

S.W.2d 72, 82 (Tex. App. El Paso 1998).

Here, Defendant Stone directly threatens Dr. Corsi, after maliciously defaming him,

saying “I think you’ve [Corsi] been deep state from the beginning. Your whole birther thing is 

used as a club to destroy conservatives.... I look forward to our confrontation. I will demolish

you. You’re a fraudster, out of your alcoholic haze you have made up lies about David Jones and

Alex Jones and Roger Stone and now I suspect they want you to lie about the President.” Am.

Comp. ¶ 66. (emphasis added). This is a direct, credible threat to Dr. Corsi’s life and the lives of 

those around him. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 21 of 65
22

Magistrate Austin errs in finding that this claim was derivative of the defamation claims. 

Plaintiffs’ IIED claims are apart from any claim for defamation, as Defendant Stone’s intent was 

to specifically cause Dr. Corsi emotional distress and physical harm, which would have removed 

Dr. Corsi as a witness who could by Stone’s paranoid thinking testified against him at his 

criminal prosecution. Lastly, it is indisputable that Texas has a two year statute of limitations for 

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, so Defendant Stone’s actions fall squarely within 

that period.

v. Magistrate Austin Erred in Finding That Plaintiffs Did Not

Adequately Plead Assault

In order to sustain a claim for assault, a Plaintiff need only plead that the Defendant

“intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury.” Moore v. City

of Wylie, 319 S.W.3d 778, 782 (Tex. App. 2010).

Defendant Stone made direct threats to Dr. Corsi’s life, saying “I look forward to

our confrontation. I will demolish you.” Am. Comp ¶ 66. These threats are more than

credible, as Stone also threatened to kill Randy Credico and his service dog. Am. Comp. ¶

66. Thus, it was more than perfectly reasonable for Plaintiffs to take this as a credible threat on 

their lives.

vi. Defendant Stone’s Statute of Limitations

It is telling that the Defendants argued that Florida law should apply, in an attempt to 

have this Court apply the Florida Anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiffs would welcome Florida law 

being applied to this case as to Stone, who resides in South Florida and is a citizen of Florida, 

along with its two-year statute of limitations for defamation.

b. Magistrate Austin’s Report Contains Numerous Factual Errors

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 22 of 65
23

In addition to the numerous legal errors set forth above, Magistrate Austin’s Report 

contains a litany of factual errors that evidence that his Report was given “short shrift,” and was 

simply hastily written on the eve of his retirement. 

First, Magistrate Austin’s Report recommended dismissal of the Amended Complaint 

against Defendant David Jones without prejudice on page 10, but then, deciding on his own that 

even leave to amend would be futile, writes at page 17 “...the undersigned recommends that the 

Court not permit Corsi or Klayman leave to amend, and dismiss (all) the claims with prejudice.” 

It is clear that, in haste, the Magistrate Austin right hand had no idea what his left hand was

doing. Errors like this strongly evidence the fact that Magistrate Austin gave Plaintiffs’ 

submissions little to no consideration. 

Second, the Magistrate, relying on a sua sponte order of another judge in another case 

which did not even involve Plaintiff Corsi, states in his Report that he and Mr. Klayman had an 

obligation to amend a complaint which Mr. Klayman voluntarily dismissed. Klayman v. 

Infowars, Case No. 20-cv-80614 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2020). However, the cold hard fact remains 

that this case was not dismissed by the judge, but voluntarily dismissed by Mr. Klayman alone, 

when he concluded based on objective facts that the judge had a personal relationship with Roger 

Stone and had likely been recommended for appointment by President Trump to the federal 

bench by Stone, one of the Defendants. Indeed, Mr. Klayman inquired about this with the 38 

year old newly appointed and confirmed judge and he refused to respond, necessitating a 

complaint, asking for an investigation, with the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit, which 

remains pending. Tellingly, the Infowars Defendants picked up on this error and even falsely 

tried to use this to their advantage, falsely writing in their opposition Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 23 of 65
24

the Report and Recommendation that this case had been dismissed by the judge instead of 

voluntarily dismissed by Mr. Klayman.

These errors are indicative of the prejudice and hastiness that is readily evident in 

Magistrate Austin’s fatally flawed report.

IV. CONCLUSION 

As shown above, Magistrate Austin’s Report is filled with both legal and factual errors 

that must not be adopted but instead put aside by this Honorable Court. These errors strongly 

indicate that Magistrate Austin gave Plaintiffs’ submissions little to no consideration, and that he 

hastily crafted the Report on the eve of his retirement. Accordingly, the Report should be given 

no weight, and the Honorable Lee Yeakel should now rule that this case must go to discovery 

and then trial. This is underscored by the “heads I win, tails you lose” approach used by 

Magistrate Austin where be made up his own facts, taking the matter away from a jury, that he 

pulled out of thin air, then unjustifiably stayed discovery contrary to the directive of Judge 

Yeakel to move this case along to trial at the outset of this case being transferred to this Court. 

Plaintiffs Corsi and Klayman have been seriously damaged—which continues to this day 

–by the tortious actions of all of the Defendants, acting in concert, and they at least deserve their 

day in court before a jury of their peers. 

Dated: June 8, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/Sanjay Biswas 

SANJAY BISWAS, Esq.

#24061235—Texas

#24966--Louisiana

11720 Duxbury Dr.

Frisco, Texas 75035

Telephone: (972)-866-5879

Email:sanjaybiswas41@gmail.com

Fax: 1-800-506-6804

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 24 of 65
25

Counsel for Dr. Jerome Corsi

/s/Larry Klayman 

Larry Klayman, Esq.

7050 W. Palmetto Park Rd

Boca Raton FL, 33433

Email:leklayman@gmail.com

Tel: 561-558-5336

Plaintiff Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8, 2021, a true copy of the foregoing was filed via 

ECF and served to all counsel of record though the Court’s ECF system.

/s/ Sanjay Biswas

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 25 of 65
EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 26 of 65
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DR. JEROME CORSI and 

LARRY KLAYMAN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

INFOWARS, LLC, FREE SPEECH 

SYSTEMS, LLC, ALEX E. JONES, 

DAVID JONES, OWEN SHROYER, and 

ROGER STONE

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00298-LY

SWORN DECLARATION OF DR. JEROME CORSI

I, Dr. Jerome Corsi, being over eighteen years of age and duly competent to testify, 

hereby swear and affirm as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and if called upon as a witness, 

could testify competently thereto. 

2. I graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in Political Science and Economics 

from Case Western Reserve University in 1968.

3. I received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University in 1972.

4. For over twenty-five (25) years, I worked in banking and finance, establishing 

investment programs for banks in the United States and worldwide to create financial planning 

services for their retail customers. 

5. From 1968 to 1981, I worked at various universities where I conducted research 

on federally funded grants. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 27 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 23 of 39
2

6. In 1981, I published “Terrorism as a Desperate Game: Fear, Bargaining, and 

Communication in the Terrorist Event” in Journal of Conflict Resolution, a mathematical gametheoretical model for predicting the outcome of terrorist events. 

7. The content of my publication resulted in a top-secret clearance by the U.S. 

Department of State’s (“State Department”) Agency for International Development, where I 

joined a team of psychiatrists and psychologists to develop a hostage-survival training program 

for State Department’s officials overseas. 

8. Since 2004, I have published over twenty-five (25) books, seven (7) of which 

were New York Times Bestsellers, including two (2) #1 New York Times Best-sellers. 

9. In addition to being a New York Times Bestselling author, I am also an 

investigative journalist and political analyst. 

10. I currently hold active Life & Health insurance licenses, as well as Property & 

Casualty insurance licenses in New Jersey. 

11. For over twenty (20) years, I have been a licensed National Association of 

Security Dealers registered representative, currently holding FINRA-registered licenses as a 

Registered Principal, Financial Principal, Options Principal and Municipals Principal. 

12. I have been a frequent guest on radio and television shows, including but not 

limited to appearances on CNN, Fox News, Fox Business, MSNBC, and on Infowars, before 

having been defamed by Defendants.

13. I personally know Defendant Roger Stone (“Defendant Stone”) and he personally 

knows my qualifications and me. I have even ghostwritten books for Defendant Stone and we 

used to be friends and colleagues. Defendant Stone is thus intimately familiar with my personal 

and professional history. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 28 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 24 of 39
3

14. In 2016, after the presidential election, I worked very closely with Alex Jones and 

his father David Jones, as well as with the Infowars staff, including Owen Shroyer. I made 

multiple trips to Austin, Texas, to appear live in-studio on Infowars broadcasts. I accepted an 

assignment from Alex Jones to create for Infowars a news bureau in Washington, D.C. From the 

beginning, I found Alex Jones to be erratic, subjects to emotional outbursts, even reacting that I 

was trying to “steal his company” when with his father’s assistance, I brought a multi-million 

dollar legitimate investment offer from highly credible sources to the table to discuss the 

proposal with Alex and his father.

15. Several times, concerned that I might quit over how badly Alex Jones was treating 

me, Dr. Jones met with me privately, often over breakfast. In those breakfasts, I counseled Dr. 

Jones over my concerns that Alex should seek professional psychological help. While in my 

work under various contracts with federal government agencies to consult over anti-terrorism 

tactics, I had the opportunity to work with very experienced psychiatrists and psychologists. Still, 

I am not medically trained, and I cautioned Dr. Jones that the problems I perceived with Alex’s 

behavior should be professionally evaluated by qualified medical professionals.

16. My efforts to create a news bureau in the nation’s capital failed because Alex 

Jones insisted that staff I wanted to hire must work for free as “interns.” Throughout my 12 

years at World Net Daily, I frequently had White House press credentials. In 2012, the Secret 

Service cleared me to work as “traveling press,” riding on the Romney campaign airplane for the 

last 3 weeks of the presidential campaign. At no time was I ever denied press credentials at the 

highest levels was alcohol ever raised as an issue in the many extensive background checks I 

underwent. In the early 1980s, I received Top Secret clearance from the federal government to 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 29 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 25 of 39
4

work on anti-terrorism contracts with the Agency for International Development at the State 

Department in Washington, D.C.

17. Throughout the time I spent with Infowars, Dr. Jones would typically pick me up 

at the Austin Airport to transport me to the downtown hotel where Dr. Jones had made my room 

reservations. At various times, we had breakfast together, often on trips when he was returning 

me to the airport to depart Austin.

18. I am today 74 years-old. I have no alcohol-related offenses on my record. Since 

the mid-1980s, I have held securities licenses, first with the NASD and now with FINRA, 

agencies that conduct licensing in the securities industry for the federal government. My 

securities records over that time, contain no customer complaints and no reports of behavior 

problems of any kind, including no alcohol-related problems. I also have held for decades 

property and casualty as well as life and health insurance licenses in New Jersey. I have created 

two broker/dealers in my financial services career.

19. On my website, CorsiNation.com — a website I founded and managed as CEO —

I conduct a daily hour-long podcast, live-streamed on multiple Internet channels 

simultaneously. I hold a Ph.D. from Harvard University’s Department of Political Science, 

dating back to 1972. I appear regularly on various news programs, including those broadcast by 

the major networks. I have conducted thousands of radio interviews going back to 2004, when I 

entered the third phase of my career, currently working full-time as an investigative journalist 

and political commentator.

20. Charges of alcoholism by the Defendants including broadcast charges made by 

Alex Jones and Defendant Roger Stone, have no basis in fact or substantiation in the extensive 

public record that exists of my life and professional career.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 30 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 26 of 39
5

21. Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted Defendant Stone on seven counts of 

perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

22. The Honorable Amy Berman Jackson who presided over Defendant Stone’s 

prosecution, placed a gag order on him in part for threatening the judge herself by posing an 

Instagram meme of a crosshairs (gun) to her head. 

23. The seven-count indictment against Defendant Stone included lying under oath, 

witness tampering and obstruction of justice by threatening to kill a material witness, Randy 

Credico (“Credico”) and his service dog if Credico did not lie or invoke the Fifth Amendment to 

government authorities concerning his involvement with Defendant Stone. Credico is Person 2 in 

the indictment. I am Person 1. Defendant Stone was later convicted of all seven (7) felony counts.

24. Based on my personal knowledge of the interactions of Defendant Stone and the 

other Defendants, I assert that Defendant Stone, acting in concert with the other Defendants 

including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars, began a calculated 

and premeditated public relations campaign against my lawyer, Mr. Larry Klayman (“Mr. 

Klayman”) and myself.

25. Defendant Stone knew of his imminent indictment and therefore began his 

malicious crusade against Mr. Klayman and myself in order to influence public opinion and 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller by trying to attribute guilt to me. 

26. It is apparent that the malicious crusade against me by Defendants, who acted in 

concert, was calculated to coerce me to testify falsely at Defendant Stone’s criminal trial. 

27. Defendant Stone, acting in concert with the other Defendants, also sought to 

divert funds away from my legal defense fund, while boosting his own. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 31 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 27 of 39
6

28. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, I am not “certifiably insane and I 

have not “told multiple provable lies.” Compl. at ¶ 26. In publishing this false statement that 

Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with me,

as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other Defendants, including Alex 

Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

29. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, I am not “mentally degraded to 

the point of [] dementia.” Compl. at ¶ 42. I do not have dementia and have never been diagnosed 

with any mental illness. In publishing this false statement that Defendants knew to be false or 

published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, Defendant 

Stone acted in concert with the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen 

Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars. 

30. Importantly, I was under contract with Infowars until the relationship ended and 

Defendants would not have retained me if I was “mentally degraded to the point of [] dementia.” 

Compl. at ¶ 42. 

31. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, he never saw me at a steakhouse 

where I was “on the ground at another table” where security staff “thought that [I] was dead in 

the elevator.” Compl. at ¶ 43. In publishing this false statement that Defendants knew to be false

or published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, 

Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, 

Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars. 

32. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, I never suffered a stroke and it is 

a false statement of fact that “whatever comes out of [my] mouth ain’t the truth.” Compl. at ¶ 44. 

In publishing this false statement that Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 32 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 28 of 39
7

because they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in 

concert with the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free 

Speech and Infowars. 

33. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, I was not “fired from World Net 

Daily.” Compl. at ¶ 49. In publishing this false statement that Defendants knew to be false or 

published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, Defendant 

Stone acted in concert with the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen 

Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

34. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, I was not “perfectly willing to lie, 

to perjure [myself] saying that a memp that [I] had [written] [Defendant Stone] on the 30th for the 

purposes of cover-up . . . which is further proof that [I] lied under oath.” Compl. at ¶ 50. In 

publishing this false statement that Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because 

they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with 

the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and 

Infowars.

35. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, I do not have a “feeble alcohol 

affected memory.” Compl. at ¶ 51. In publishing this false statement that Defendants knew to be 

false or published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, 

Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, 

Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

36. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s publication, I was not “prepared to stab a principle 

Trump supported in the back” nor was I “perfectly prepared to bear false witness against 

[Defendant Stone].” Compl. at ¶ 52. In publishing this false statement that Defendants knew to 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 33 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 29 of 39
8

be false or published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, 

Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, 

Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

37. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s publication, it is a false statement of fact that “all 

[Defendant Stone] ever did was show [me] friendship and support and try to help [me] and [my] 

family and what [Defendant Stone] got was Judas Iscariot, the willingness to testify against 

[Defendant Stone] and help the deep state bury [Defendant Stone] . . . and then [I] make[] up this 

story about helping [Defendant Stone] formulate a cover story.” Compl. at ¶ 53. In publishing 

this false statement that Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because they are 

intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other 

Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

38. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, it is a false statement of fact that 

“you can always tell when [I] [am] lying because [my] lips are moving . . .” Compl. at ¶ 54. In 

publishing this false statement that Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because 

they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with 

the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and 

Infowars.

39. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, it is a false statement of fact that 

Mr. Klayman “never actually won a courtroom victory in his life.” Compl. at ¶ 55. In publishing 

this false statement that Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because they are 

intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other 

Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 34 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 30 of 39
9

40. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, it is a false statement of fact that 

Mr. Klayman “was ousted at Judicial Watch. Ask Tom Fitton why he left .he was ‘ousted’ 

because of a sexual harassment complaint.” Compl. at ¶ 56. In publishing this false statement 

that Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because they are intimately familiar Mr. 

Klayman and with me, as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other 

Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

41. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, it is a false statement of fact that 

Mr. Klayman is “incompetent, he’s a numbskull, he’s an idiot, he’s an egomaniac, and he could 

be the worst single lawyer in America. With him as [my] lawyer, [I] may get the electric chair. 

So [the] idea that he’s a good guy is entirely wrong.” Compl. at ¶ 59. In publishing this false 

statement that Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because they are intimately 

familiar with Mr. Klayman and me, as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with the 

other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

42. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, it is a false statement of fact that 

Mr. Klayman is “a piece of garbage.” Compl. at ¶ 61. In publishing this false statement that 

Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with Mr. 

Klayman and me, as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other Defendants, 

including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

43. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, Mr. Klayman’s IQ is higher than 

70. Compl. at ¶ 62. In publishing this false statement that Defendants knew to be false or 

published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth above, Defendant 

Stone acted in concert with the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen 

Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 35 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 31 of 39
10

44. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, it is a false statement of fact that 

“[I] was perfectly willing to bear false witness against [Defendant Stone] on multiple points that 

are complete fabrications.” Compl. at ¶ 64. In publishing this false statement that Defendants 

knew to be false or published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with me, as set forth 

above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other Defendants, including Alex Jones, David 

Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

45. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, it is a false statement of fact that 

“[I] had told a number of lies. In fact, [I] [am] starting to conflate [my] lies . . . [I] was perfectly 

willing to lie about [Defendant Stone] . . . but now lying about Alex Jones, lying about Infowars, 

lying about Dr. [David] Jones . . . [I] can no longer be believed.” Compl. at ¶ 65. 

46. Defendant Stone falsely published: “I think you’ve [Corsi] been deep state from 

the beginning. Your whole birther thing is used as a club to destroy conservatives . . . I look 

forward to our confrontation. I will demolish you. You’re a fraudster, out of your alcoholic 

haze you have made up lies about David Jones and Alex Jones and Roger Stone and now I 

suspect they want you to lie about the President.” Compl. at ¶ 66 (emphasis added). Not only 

does Defendant Stone know this to be false but this malicious rant is also a threat. In publishing 

this false statement that Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because they are 

intimately familiar with me,, as set forth above, Defendant Stone acted in concert with the other 

Defendants, including Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and Infowars.

47. Contrary to Defendant Stone’s false publication, I am not a “spook, back and 

forth with different agencies[.]” Compl. at ¶ 67. In publishing this false statement that 

Defendants knew to be false or published recklessly because they are intimately familiar with me, 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 36 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 32 of 39
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 37 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 33 of 39
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 38 of 65
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DR. JEROME CORSI, ET AL

 

Plaintiffs

v.

INFOWARS, LLC, et al

Defendants.

 Case Number: 1:20-cv-298-LY

SWORN DECLARATION OF KELLY MORALES

1. I, Kelly Morales, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and

correct and based on my personal knowledge and belief.

2. I am over the age of 18 and mentally and legally competent to make this affidavit,

sworn under oath.

3. I am the former wife of Defendant Alex Jones. I was married to Alex Jones for 12

years and with him for 15 years and we have 3 children together. During our time together, I was

involved in the activities of Alex, his father David and Infowars and am intimately

knowledgeable about their activities and business structure.

4. Based on my personal knowledge and experience, David Jones runs Infowars with

Alex Jones and helps him with his activities, including fixing media stories and endorsing and/or

aiding his slanderous and/or fraudulent behaviors, all for profit.

5. Infowars, LLC is a sub-entity of Free Speech Systems, LLC (“FSS”), and David Jones

is an employee of FSS, or he has been.

6. David Jones is additionally a managing member of multiple entities that are closely

held businesses, constituting financial holding companies or financial distribution centered

around Infowars/Alex Jones’ supplement line, which are quintessential to funding and running

Infowars.

 

 

 

 

 

I hereby swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Executed on September 30, 2020

8. Alex Jones is quasi-illiterate, and cannot use technology or apps such as email with

any fluency, and he cannot function without assistance from those around him, including David

Jones.

7. Alex Jones could not function without David Jones, and has conspired with him on the

past to commit this breach of fiduciary duty and fraud on my business/estate with Alex Jones.

While David Jones did this, he slandered and/or defamed me to experts and assisted Alex Jones

and his attorneys to do the same, so as to steal/hide my estate and his grandchildren’s inheritance.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 39 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 37 of 39
________________________________

Kelly Morales

2

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 40 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 38 of 39
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 41 of 65
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

§

§

§ CASE NO. 20-10118-hem

§

§ Chapter 11

§

Affidavit of David Jones in Support of Alleged Debtor’s Motion to Dismiss

STATE OF TEXAS §

§

COUNTY OF TRAVIS §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared David Jones,

who after being sworn did state upon his oath, as follows:

1. “My name is David Jones. .1 am over 18 years of age and otherwise competent and

capable ofmaking this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge oflhe facts set forth herein and they

are true and correct.

2. “I have been involved with Alex Jones' personal and business finances for many

years and have personal knowledge ofthe matters set forth herein, and they are true and correct.

3. "I have personally reviewed the Real Estate Lien Note from Alexander Jones to

Kel ly R. Jones dated March 19, 2015 (the "Note''), which is attached to the Involuntary Bankruptcy

Petition filed in the above referenced case and have reviewed the record of payments made by

Alexander Jones to Kelly R, Jones under the Note. I have personally calculated the remaining

balance ofthe Note. The balance oflhe Note is $596.267.16 as ofthe date hereof.

''Further Affiant sayeth not."’

SIGNED on this J ^ y of February. 2020. / \

Sworn to and subscribed before me. the undersigned authority, on day of

February. 2020.

/C

_____ {/

Notary Public for the State ofTexas

gyp

-583/-5475-5/P

$

PATRICK RILEY

c Notary Public, State of Texas

Comra- Empires 09-24-2022

Notary ID 131734177

In re:

Alexander E. .Jones,

Alleged Debtor.

20-10118-hcm Doc#8 Filed 02/13/20 Entered 02/13/20 13:17:45 Main Document Pg 97 of

 97

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 42 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 74 Filed 09/30/20 Page 39 of 39
EXHIBIT 4

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 43 of 65
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DR. JEROME CORSI and 

LARRY KLAYMAN, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

INFOWARS, LLC, FREE SPEECH 

SYSTEMS, LLC, ALEX E. JONES, 

DAVID JONES, OWEN SHROYER, and 

ROGER STONE 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00298-LY

SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF LARRY KLAYMAN

I, Larry Klayman, being over eighteen years of age and duly competent to testify, hereby 

swear and affirm as follows: 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF MY BACKGROUND

1. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and if called upon as a witness, 

could testify competently thereto. 

2. In 1973, I graduated from Duke University where I majored in political science and 

French literature. I excelled academically and graduated with honors. 

3. I then matriculated at Emory Law School where I excelled academically and 

graduated in 1977. While in law school, I worked as an intern at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission, the Georgia Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of 

Georgia. 

4. I passed The Florida Bar the first time I took the exam. 

5. I passed all bar exams on my first attempt, including the District of Columbia Bar. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 44 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 28 of 66
2 

6. I began my legal career in this circuit in Miami, Florida as an associate for 

Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Roberts, Flick & Hoehl (. Blackwell ́), which was then the largest and 

most prestigious law firm in Florida. I was admitted into The Florida Bar having been sworn in on 

December 7, 1977. I have practiced law in this circuit continuously and extensively throughout my 

forty-two-year career and have active cases pending in this circuit and elsewhere in Florida, 

LQFOXGLQJ GXULQJ WKH SHULRG WKDW I ZDV D WULDO DWWRUQH\ IRU WKH U.S. DHSDUWPHQW RI JXVWLFH¶V (3DOJ ́) 

Antitrust Division, from 1980 to 1982, where I was assigned litigation in this circuit. 

7. I FRQFHLYHG RI DQG IRXQGHG JXGLFLDO WDWFK, IQF. (3JXGLFLDO WDWFK ́) LQ 1994, D

SXEOLF LQWHUHVW JURXS WKDW¶V PLVVLRQ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH DQG SURVHFXWH JRYHUQPHQW FRUUXSWLRQ DQG

abuse. I was the Chairman, General Counsel, and Corporate Treasurer of Judicial Watch until I 

voluntarily departed in 2003 to run as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida in the Republican 

primary election. 

8. In 1998, during the time I ran Judicial Watch, I KLUHG TKRPDV J. FLWWRQ (3FLWWRQ ́) DV

my contract assistant. I later appointed him president of the organization I founded. 

9. In September of 2003, I voluntarily departed from Judicial Watch to run for the 

U.S. Senate in Florida. At the time I left Judicial Watch, I learned that Fitton had never graduated 

from college, which he had told me he had when I initially hired him. 

10. CRQWUDU\ WR DHIHQGDQW RRJHU SWRQH¶V (3DHIHQGDQW SWRQH ́) IDOVH DQG GHIDPDWRU\

publications, I have enjoyed many successes in my career as a lawyer, many of which have been 

brought to the attention of the public by complimentary newspapers, magazines, editorials and 

journals. 

11. For example, I practiced law at Blackwell with my supervising partners Paul Larkin 

and Layton Mank and participating in winning product liability cases as defense counsel for 

Blackwell including cases involving Raleigh bicycles, pharmaceutical drugs manufactured by 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 45 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 29 of 66
3 

Burroughs-Wellcome, and allegedly misdiagnosed cancer victims, and other personal injury and 

medical malpractice cases. Additionally, I handled lawsuits in admiralty.

12. I left Blackwell to join the DOJ as a trial lawyer, prosecutor and defense lawyer in 

late 1979. During my time at the DOJ, I had many victories in the courtroom as well as favorable 

settlements for the government, i.e., such as for the Consumer Affairs Section of the Antitrust 

Division over misbranded, adulterated food and drug products including fruit drinks and 

prophylactics for the Food & Drug Administration (3FDA ́) and successful seizures and criminal 

prosecutions of dangerous products on behalf of the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(3CPSC ́) such as slant-sided refuse bins, IODPPDEOH FKLOGUHQ¶V sleepwear, and intraocular lens 

implants for cataract patients.

13. Importantly, I was also on the trial team that successfully broke up the AT&T 

monopoly ± creating competition in the telecommunications industry. I left the DOJ in late 1981. 

14. Then, working as an international trade lawyer for Busby, Rehm & Leonard and 

after a few years having founded my own firm The Law Offices of Larry E. Klayman, later named

Klayman & Associates, P.C., I won countervailing duty and antidumping duty cases concerning 

steel from South Africa, garden furniture from Italy, musical instrument pads from Italy, coffee 

filters from Brazil, key limes from Peru, fireworks from China and a host of other product imports.

I represented both importers and exporters. (While at Busby, Rehm & Leonard, I also took some 

months on hiatus and worked in the Competition Directorate (DG-4) of the Commission of the 

EuropeDQ CRPPXQLWLHV SHFWLRQ (3E.C. ́). 

15. Later, with my law firm, I won Section 337 unfair trade practice cases at the U.S. 

IQWHUQDWLRQDO TUDGH CRPPLVVLRQ (3USITC ́) concerning tennis rackets from Belgium, power tools

from Taiwan, luggage from Taiwan, mass spectrometers from France, jam from Belgium, and 

machine tools from Brazil. I won a landmark case concerning recloseable plastic bags, which 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 46 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 30 of 66
4 

broke the patents of Minigrip and Dow Corning, MLQLJULS¶V licensee. That case victory opened up 

competition for zip lock bags, a multi-trillion dollar industry. 

16. There was also an USITC patent case, pursuant to Section 337, which I litigated 

and won involving motorcycle helmets and another antidumping and countervailing duty cases

before the Commerce Department and USITC concerning fire protection products and scuba 

diving neoprene body suits.

17. I also won a Section 302 case involving paper from Brazil. 

18. All of the Section 337 cases were judge-tried and I won every one of them. 

19. I won a jury trial against Makita over power tools, another jury trial against a 

domestic manufacture of removable swimming pools for my client Remove Pool Fence Co., and 

yet another jury trial for my client, Maccaferri, on a contract dispute. These are only some of the 

jury trials I won during my early career. 

20. Because of my work during the time I ran Judicial Watch, a court ruled that 

President William Clinton committed a crime during the Filegate litigation. I also triggered the 

famous Chinagate scandal in a Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., which gave 

rise to Judicial Watch ultimately being awarded almost a million dollars. I filed cases which ended 

Bill and Hillary COLQWRQ¶V DWWHPSWHG LOOHJDO SXUFKDVH DW EHORZ PDUNHW UDWHV IRU WKHLU PRUWJDJH RI

their home at Chappaqua, New York and ended the illegal payment of legal fees to the Clintons by 

State Farm, which was a form of bribery. I also participated in the famous Gore v. Bush litigation 

in Tallahassee, Florida that settled the 2000 presidential elections by the U.S Supreme Court. I 

DOVR EURXJKW D FDVH XQGHU WKH FRUHLJQ AJHQWV RHJLVWUDWLRQ AFW (3FARA ́) RYHU WKH CKHQH\ EQHUJ\

Task Force that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

21. I brought a case for Jose Basulto of Brothers to the Rescue in a Florida court, which 

resulted in a $1.8 million judgment against the Republic of Cuba for shooting down Brothers to 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 47 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 31 of 66
5 

the Rescue planes, and I represented the Miami family of Elian Gonzales and other victims of 

Fidel Castro, such as journalists who were jailed by Castro for their political beliefs. In this regard, 

I not only filed criminal complaints for these victims against Fidel Castro in Belgium courts, but 

also lobbied and testified in both Italian and French in Italy and France, as I am fluent in both 

languages, before various European parliaments to increase economic sanctions on Cuba for abuse 

of human rights. I also lobbied the European Union in Brussels, Belgium for increased sanctions 

on Cuba. 

22. On December 16, 2013, Judge Richard J. Leon granted my request for a 

SUHOLPLQDU\ LQMXQFWLRQ LQ P\ FDVH DJDLQVW WKH NDWLRQDO SHFXULW\ AJHQF\ (3NSA ́) DQG WKH OEDPD

administration, when Judge Leon found for the first time in history that the collection of metadata 

telephony records by the NSA was likely unconstitutional. 

23. Because of that ruling, Congress enacted the USA Freedom Act, which sought to 

end illegal and unconstitutional mass surveillance by government intelligence agencies and the 

Federal Bureau of IQYHVWLJDWLRQ (3FBI ́). 

24. I obtained a jury verdict in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida against my former public interest group Judicial Watch, which was then run by Fitton, for 

maliciously defaming me in the amount of $181,000, which included punitive damages. 

25. My client Sheriff Joe Arpaio and I were the first to challenge former President 

OEDPD¶V XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO H[HFXWLYH DPQHVW\ IRU over 5 million illegal aliens and were ultimately 

successful, along with 25 other attorneys general, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

26. IW ZDV P\ HIIRUWV WKDW SUHYHQWHG DU. JHURPH CRUVL (3DU. CRUVL ́) from getting 

indicted, first because he told the truth and did not engage in witness tampering and threaten to kill 

a witness such as Randy Credico, as Defendant Stone did, and second because of my legal skill 

and acumen. Dr. Corsi is a material witness in the Russian Collusion investigation by Special 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 48 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 32 of 66
6 

CRXQVHO RREHUW MXHOOHU (3MXHOOHU ́) DQG LV OLVWHG DV a material witness as Person 1 in Defendant 

SWRQH¶V MXHOOHU LQGLFWPHQW. 

27. I have had many other successes in addition to the above-listed victories. 

28. I myself DXWKRUHG D ERRN WLWOHG 3WKRUHV: WK\ DQG HRZ I CDPe to Fight the 

EVWDEOLVKPHQW ́ SXEOLVKHG LQ 2009. IQ LW, I wrote about my unfortunate experience with Defendant 

Stone. See Exhibit A. I authored this book myself without a ghostwriter and I came runner-up at

an International Book Fair. It also still has a review on www.Barnesandnoble.com of 4.5 stars out 

of the maximum 5 stars. 

29. Upon its publication, JDFN CDVKLOO, WKH DXWKRU RI 3RRQ BURZQ¶V BRG\ ́ KDG WKLV WR

VD\ DERXW PH: 3TKDW Time PDJD]LQH KDV \HW WR QDPH LDUU\ KOD\PDQ μMDQ RI WKH <HDU¶ LV D IDLOXUH

of Time, QRW KOD\PDQ¶V. TKH ZRUN KH DQG JXGLFLDO WDWFK GLG RQ WKH BURZQ FDVH LV VWXQQLQJ. ́ See

Exhibit B. 

30. JRVHSK FDUDK, WKH IRXQGHU RI WRUOGNHWDDLO\.FRP, KDG WKLV WR VD\ DERXW PH: 3LDUU\

Klayman is my hero because he has integrity ± enough to prevent him from blind loyalty to party 

or ideolog\ . . . TKDW¶V EHFDXVH KH LV IHDUOHVV DQG UHOHQWOHVV LQ WKH SXUVXLW RI MXVWLFH . . . TKHUH ZHUH

other men like Larry early in American history. Their names were Washington, Jefferson, 

Madison and Henry. See Exhibit B. 

31. Louis Jacobson of the National Journal said this of me: 3 . . . WKURXJK KLV FKDOOHQJH

of secrecy rules, Larry Klayman has become a force in Washington. See Exhibit B. 

32. BLOO MR\HUV, RI 3NRZ ́ PBS, VDLG WKLV: 3. . . KLV LGHD RI IXQ LV WU\LQJ WR NLFN GRZQ D

door some public official has marked secret . . . Larry Klayman is himself a conservative, but 

WKHUH¶V QRWKLQJ SDUWLVDQ ERXW KLV LQGLJQDWLRQ. ́

33. Frank Rich, famed FROXPQLVW IRU 3TKH NHZ <RUN TLPHV ́ VDLG WKLV: 3LDUU\ . . . I 

appreciate your own maverick ± if we can still use that word! ± thinking DQG VWDQGV. ́

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 49 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 33 of 66
7 

34. These are just a few of the accolades I have received over the years from 

conservatives and liberals alike, who appreciate and admire my work. See my biography attached 

as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference; see also E[KLELW D, 3LDUU\ KOD\PDQ, WKH OQH

MDQ THD PDUW\ ́ ZKLFK DWWULEXWHV WKH genesis of the Tea Party to me. 

35. I am now the founder, Chairman and General Counsel of Freedom Watch, Inc., 

which has the mission of investigating and prosecuting government corruption and abuse through 

legal advocacy. I also am in private practice with The Klayman Law Group, P.A. I am unique as a 

public interest advocate. I am a columnist for World Net Daily and have had about 500+ columns 

published over the last 10 years. I have also been a columnist for Newsmax through a blog titled 

3KOD\PDQ¶ CRXUW ́ and in addition to my book 3Whores: How and Why I Came to Fight the 

EVWDEOLVKPHQW ́, I also published two other books: 3Fatal Neglect ́ and 3Essays of a Mad Man. ́ I 

also have my own syndicatHG UDGLR VKRZ ZLWK RDGLR APHULFD FDOOHG 3SSHFLDO PURVHFXWRU ZLWK

LDUU\ KOD\PDQ. ́

MY EXPERIENCES WITH DEFENDANT ROGER STONE

36. I met Defendant Stone at the Old Ebbitt Grill in Washington, D.C. in 1988 while he 

was a partner with Paul Manafort and others and was working as a lobbyist for the firm Black, 

Manafort, Stone, & Kelly. 

37. Defendant Stone was a 3political consultant ́ who claimed to help get presidents 

and other politicians elected. The firm made money by then lobbying the very men they put in 

office. 

38. Defendant Stone backed Republican candidate Jack Kemp for President and he 

recommended that I be put on the executive finance committee, which also included Donald J. 

Trump. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 50 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 34 of 66
8 

39. Because Defendant Stone knew of my successes and capabilities as a private 

lawyer, he told me that he had recommended me for U.S. Attorney when George Bush was 

President in 1992. 

40. In 1996, at a Republican Convention in San Diego, California, Defendant Stone 

ZDV ILOPHG DW D 3WRJD SDUW\ ́ ZLWK KLV ZLIH DW D 3VZLQJHUV SDUW\. ́

41. The media at the time went after Defendant Stone because of his alleged 

paUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKH 3VH[ SDUW\ ́ DQG FUHDWHG D VFDQGDO. 

42. The media alleged at the time that Defendant Stone solicited sex half-naked, and 

that there was a picture of Defendant Stone in a compromising position to back up the story. 

43. Defendant Stone contacted me and, because he knew my capabilities and acumen 

as a lawyer, retained me to represent him to get the media to cease what he claimed then was a

smear campaign. 

44. I successfully got the media to back off Defendant Stone through my skill as a 

lawyer and Defendant Stone was grateful.

45. I maintained in sporadic contact with Defendant Stone until 2003 when I told him 

of my plans to voluntarily leave Judicial Watch and run for the U.S. Senate. 

46. There were confirmed rumors that Senator Bob Graham would retire from the U.S 

Senate well before he announced his retirement in November 2003. Defendant Stone traveled in 

Republican and political circles and knew that the Senator would be retiring in early to mid 2003.

47. Thus, I was in contact with Defendant Stone in early to mid 2003, having been put 

in contact with him by Scott Reed, then Chief of Staff to Jack Kemp, who then was Secretary of 

Housing and Urban Development, and Defendant Stone was made aware by Scott Reed that I 

LQWHQGHG WR UXQ IRU WKH U.S. SHQDWH WR ILOO BRE GUDKDP¶V VHDW. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 51 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 35 of 66
9 

48. As I was a newcomer to politics, it would have been virtually impossible for me to 

beat Bob Graham, the incumbent, given the privileges and name recognition an incumbent 

receives, unless he or she is enmeshed in a major scandal. Senator Bob Graham was never 

enmeshed in such scandal. 

49. Because he was aware of my prior successes at Judicial Watch and before, 

Defendant Stone wanted to work with me as my U.S. Senate campaign manager. During this time, 

the spring, summer, and fall of 2003, and in preparation for my U.S. Senate run, Defendant Stone 

researched and kept books and records of many of my accomplishments. He had several binders 

(2-3 feet) full of information about me and the victories that I had obtained at Judicial Watch and 

elsewhere. Again, because Defendant Stone knew of my successes and legal political acumen, 

Defendant Stone wanted to be on my team and help me run for the U.S. Senate. 

50. Defendant Stone thus knew of many cases I had won in courtrooms and other legal 

accomplishments and in fact had kept records of successes in a book of my accomplishments. 

51. Soon after I hired him and during the height of my U.S. Senate campaign, I 

discovered that Defendant Stone had a conflict of interest and was working with Al Sharpton, 

while simultaneously working with me. He had agreed to represent me exclusively and I 

considered Al Sharpton to be an unsavory character. He also was not competently running my 

campaign with a staff of his friends which he had hired at great expense to me. 

52. I let Defendant Stone go roughly after about one month of his working with me on 

my U.S. Senate campaign. Shortly after his being let go, Defendant Stone and his sidekick Mike 

Caputo, ZKRP KH KLUHG RQ P\ EHKDOI DV WKH FDPSDLJQ¶V SUHVV VHFUHWDU\, along with other staff 

Defendant Stone had hired, stole thousands of dollars of campaign cell phones and laptops, which 

I had purchased with my personal funds for the campaign. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 52 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 36 of 66
10 

53. I have not spoken to Defendant Stone since I parted ways with him in 2003 given 

this experience. 

54. Defendant Stone is an individual and citizen of Florida. Special Counsel Robert 

MXHOOHU (3MXHOOHU ́) LQGLFWHG SWRQH DV SDUW RI WKH DOOHJHG 3RXVVLDQ CROOXVLRQ ́ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZLWK

seven different felony counts, including lying under oath, witness tampering and obstruction of 

justice by threatening to kill a material witness and his service dog.

55. The January 18, 2019 InfoWars video, published in this circuit, contained several 

false, misleading and defamatory statements concerning me. These false and defamatory 

statements include but are not limited to: 

A ̀ 1:25, DeIe. daQW SWRQe Va\V, 3He¶V (KOa\PaQ) QeYeU acWXaOO\ ZRQ a 

cRXUWURRP YLcWRU\ LQ KLV OLIe. ́ 

AW 1:30, DeIeQdaQW SWRQe Va\V, 3He (KOa\PaQ) ZaV RXVWed aW JXdLcLaO WaWcK. 

AVN TRP FLWWRQ ZK\ Ke OeIW. He ZaV μRXVWed¶ becaXVe RI a μVe[XaO KaUaVVPeQW 

cRPSOaLQW.¶ ́

AW 1:37, DeIeQdaQW SWRQe Va\V, 3He¶V (KOa\PaQ) LQcRPSeWeQW, Ke¶V a 

QXPbVNXOO, Ke¶V aQ LdLRW, Ke¶V aQ eJRPaQLac, aQd Ke cRXOd be WKe VLQJOe ZRUVW

OaZ\eU LQ APeULca. WLWK KLP aV JeUU\ CRUL¶V OaZ\eU, CRUVL Pa\ JeW WKe 

electric cKaLU. SR \RXU Ldea WKaW Ke¶V a JRRd JX\ LV eQWLUeO\ ZURQJ. ́ 

AW 2:01, DeIeQdaQW SWRQe SXbOLVKed WKaW POaLQWLII LV 3a SLece RI JaUbaJe. ́ 

AW 4:11, DeIeQdaQW SWRQe Va\V, 3FRU WKRVe SeRSOe RXW WKeUe ZKR WKLQN . . . WKaW

LaUU\ KOa\PaQ¶V IQ LV KLJKeU WKaQ 70, \RX¶Ue ZURQJ . . . ́

Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 55, 56, 59, 61, 62.

56. Defendant Stone acted with actual when he published the false, misleading and 

defamatory statements concerning me because he knew they were false or acted with a reckless 

disregard to their truth, as set forth herein. 

57. Defendant Stone not only acted with actual malice when he published the false, 

misleading and defamatory statements concerning me, but he also had motives to maliciously 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 53 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 37 of 66
11 

defame me. He published the false and misleading statements knowing that they were false or with 

a reckless disregard for their truth. Defendant Stone had reason to know that his statements were 

false. 

58. Defendant Stone is aware of many, many victories of mine as he was in charge of 

putting together the book of my accomplishments for fundraising purposes for my U.S. Senate 

campaign, among other reasons. 

59. Since the time I let Defendant Stone go as my campaign manager in late 2003, 

Defendant Stone has tried to trade off my clients like a 3scavenger. ́ I have warned my clients not 

to become involved with him as, in my opinion and through my experience, Defendant Stone is 

not an honorable, ethical or honest person. He has been widely and rightly called a self-styled 

3GLUW\ WULFNVWHU ́ In my opinion, this characterization is accurate based on my experience dealing 

with him. See 3GHW PH RRJHU SWRQH ́ RQ NHWIOL[, 

https://www.netflix.com/title/80114666. He tried to trade off my clients for his own profit and 

purposes. 

60. When the National Enquirer contacted me in 2018 to get a comment on a story it 

was writing about President Donald Trump and to get my legal opinion on the Mueller 

investigation, I told the reporter not to quote me in the same article as Defendant Stone, or any 

article in which he wrote, as Defendant Stone wrote for the National Enquirer at the time. The 

National Enquirer is located in South Florida and is apparently close with Defendant Stone, a 

South Florida citizen. I did not want to be quoted or associated at all with Defendant Stone 

because I consider him ± like others do ± to be a self-styled dirty trickster who was likely going to 

be indicted for alleged criminal behavior by Mueller and in fact was indicted by Mueller. 

61. In 2018, I also told Alex Jones and his show producers on InfoWars that I did not 

want to appear on any show which included Defendant Stone or had ties to Defendant Stone, 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 54 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 38 of 66
12 

either as a guest or as a host, because I strongly felt at the time that Mueller may indict Defendant 

Stone. Defendant Stone was at the time a host on InfoWars. 

62. I also warned Alex Jones not to release any information ± that was potentially 

under seal in the contempt case of Melendrez v. Arpaio, 07-cv-02513 (D. Ariz. 2007) ± which he 

may have improperly obtained from Defendant Stone or others concerning Dennis Montgomery, 

another whistleblower client of mine who contracted with the U.S. government so it could use his 

software capabilities for intelligence gathering. 

63. During the criminal trial of my client Cliven Bundy, again to try to scavenge off 

my clients, Defendant Stone flew to Las Vegas, Nevada where the Bundys lived and boasted that 

KH FRXOG JHW D SDUGRQ IRU COLYHQ BXQG\ DQG KLV VRQV. I WROG CDURO BXQG\, COLYHQ¶V ZLIH DQG WKH

VRQV¶ PRWKHU, to stay away from Defendant Stone and she did. 

64. I also warned my then client at the time, Dennis Montgomery, to stay away from 

Defendant Stone. 

65. Defendant Stone wanted to ± and did ± intimate and threaten my client Dr. Corsi 

since he is a material witness in the Mueller investigation as Defendant Stone obviously feared 

that he would testify agDLQVW KLP WR MXHOOHU. DHIHQGDQW SWRQH IHDUHG PH DV DU. CRUVL¶V ODZ\HU DV

he knew that I know what type of person he is and must have thought falsely that my 

representation of Dr. Corsi was my revenge for him having harmed me during my U.S. Senate 

campaign.

66. In sum, Defendant Stone tried to trade off my clients and I shut this down every 

time in order to protect my clients from Defendant Stone. He also knew that I wanted nothing to 

do with him and I predicted early on in the Russian collusion investigation that Mueller would 

most likely indict Defendant Stone because of ± in my experience with him ± his rank dishonesty 

and dirty tricks. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 55 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 39 of 66
13 

67. This, in addition to other information that will be meted out in discovery, supplies 

the motive to maliciously defame me. That he attacks my acumen and ability as a lawyer and 

defamed me personally with false sexual harassment complaint claims is directly related to my 

having kept him away from my clients. 

68. This vindictive, malicious retaliation by Defendant Stone had a logical purpose. He 

tried to intimate and threaten Dr. Corsi and me in order for us not to collaborate with Mueller. We 

obviously did not collaborate with Mueller but Defendant Stone is both unstable and unhinged 

(See CDs containing videos of defamatory statements and publications) and apparently paranoid 

and he tried to prevent collaboration at all costs in order to save his own skin. His conduct toward 

us is similar to his conduct toward Material Witness 2 in the Mueller investigation, Randy 

Credico, who he allegedly threatened 3MDILRVR VW\OH ́ to kill. He even allegedly threatened to kill 

CUHGLFR¶V VHUYLFH GRJ, IRU ZKLFK KH ZDV LQ SDUW LQGLFWHG. 

DAMAGES 

69. As an attorney, I rely on my virtue and integrity, as my reputation and good will 

determines the amount of clients that come to me to earn a living for their legal matters in the 

public interest and privately.

70. Any damage done to my reputation harms my ability to practice law as a lawyer,

particularly in this circuit, which is my community. This also harms my work as an author, 

columnist and syndicated radio talk show host, all of which depend on reputation and good will. 

71. DHIHQGDQW SWRQH¶V VWDWHPHQWs in this instance have caused harm to my reputation, 

good will and well being in this circuit, the United States, and globally, as I am also an 

international lawyer as previously set forth in this affidavit. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 56 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 40 of 66
14 

72. There was never any single instance of someone making a sexual harassment 

complaint against me during my almost ten years at Judicial Watch. DefenGDQW SWRQH¶V VWDWHPHQWV

to the contrary are false and defamatory and made with actual malice.

73. Defendant Stone acted with actual PDOLFH ZKHQ KH SXEOLVKHG WKDW I ZDV 3RXVWHG ́

because of a sexual harassment complaint because he knew that was false. Am. Compl. at ¶ 56. 

Defendant Stone knew or had reason to know that this was false, as he was my campaign manager 

when I left Judicial Watch. 

74. AV VHW IRUWK LQ P\ RSSRVLWLRQ WR DHIHQGDQWV¶ PRWLRQV WR GLVPLVV, ZKLFK DWWDFKHV WKH

testimony of Fitton of Judicial Watch, this also proves the falsity of this statement. Indeed, both 

Fitton and Defendant Stone have been forced to testify under oath that they never spoke about my 

EHLQJ 3RXVWHG. ́ Defendant Stone thus fabricated this falsity, according to FLWWRQ¶V sworn 

testimony. 

75. The damage done to me and my clients Dr. Corsi, Cliven Bundy, and the Gold Star 

parents of Extortion 17 whose sons died in combat in Afghanistan, because of Defendant Stone is 

continuing. As just one example, a person approached me in an elevator and told me that I was 

3RXVWHG ́ DW JXGLFLDO WDWFK. 

76. Defendant Stone acted with actual malice when he published all of the defamatory 

statements. He knew the statements were false or had a reckless disregard for their truth. He had 

reason to know his false and misleading statements were false. 

77. I was damaged financially, as well as to my reputation and good will, and 

emotionally, by the defamatory and other tortious acts of Defendant Stone.

78. Each of the Defendants, Alex Jones, David Jones, Owen Shroyer, Free Speech and 

Infowars, is intimately familiar with my background, qualifications and successes as a public 

interest and private attorney. For this reason, I was previously invited to appear on Infowars on 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 57 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 41 of 66
15 

many occasions before Defendants decided ± at the direction of Defendant Stone ± to defame my 

client, Dr. Corsi and me. 

Affiant Sayeth Not 

SWORN TO UNDER OATH THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER OF 2020. 

_______________________

Larry Klayman

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 58 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 42 of 66
EXHIBIT 5

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 59 of 65
Transcript of Thomas J. Fitton

Date: June 6, 2019

Case: Klayman -v- Fitton

Planet Depos

Phone: 888.433.3767

Email:: transcripts@planetdepos.com

www.planetdepos.com

WORLDWIDE COURT REPORTING | INTERPRETATION | TRIAL SERVICES

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 60 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 54 of 66
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

LARRY KLAYMAN, *

 Plaintiff, *

 vs. * Civil Action

THOMAS FITTON, * No. 1:19-cv-20544

 Defendant. *

 Videotaped Deposition of THOMAS J. FITTON

 Washington, D.C.

 Thu rsday, June 6, 2019

 3:06 p.m.

Job No.: 247643

Pages 1 - 92

Reported by: Vicki L. Forman

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 A P P E A R A N C E S

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF PRO SE:

 LARRY KLAYMAN, ESQUIRE

 Klayman Law Group, P.A.

 Suite 345

 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest

 Washington, D.C. 20006

 (310) 595-8088

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:

 RICHARD W. DRISCOLL, ESQUIRE

 Driscoll & Seltzer

 Suite 610

 300 North Washington Street

 Alexandria, Virgini a 22314

 (703) 822-5001

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 Videotaped Deposition of THOMAS J. FITTON,

held at the offices of:

 Planet Depos

 Suite 950

 1100 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest

 Washington, D.C. 20036

 (888) 433-3767

 Pursuant to agreement, before Vicki L.

Forman, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and

for the District of Columbia.

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:

 KATIE M. MERWIN, ESQUIRE

 Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.

 Suite 120

 222 Lakeview Avenue

 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

 (561) 383-9206

 (Present via Telephone.)

ALSO PRESENT: Joannis Arsenis, Videographer

Transcript of Thomas J. Fitton 1 (1 to 4)

Conducted on June 6, 2019

PLANET DEPOS

888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 61 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 55 of 66
41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 MR. KLAYMAN: Certify it.

 Q So as President of Judicial Watch you

would have known for sure that this Complaint had

been filed, correct?

 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection to form.

 A Well, the press release indicates it was

filed and I recall we sued about the raid, yes.

 Q And you gave interviews about suing in the

raid, correct, in the media?

 A I don't remember.

 Q Turn to the last page, page five.

 The Complaint is signed by James F

Peterson, correct?

 A His name is on the last page of the

Complaint as a signatory.

 Q He is an attorney at Judicial Watch,

correct?

 A Yes.

 Q Now, Mr. Peterson had contact with Roger

Stone over the issue of the raid on his house, did

he not?

 A Not that I'm aware of.

 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection to form.

 Q You're saying you don't know one way or

the other?

43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

have been disclosed to me.

 Q But you don't know for sure that

Mr. Peterson didn't have contact with Roger Stone?

 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection to form.

 A I'm confident there was no such contact.

 Q You have told Mr. Peterson in the past,

have you not, that I was ousted from Judicial

Watch because of a sexual harassment complaint?

 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection to form.

Mr. Peterson is an in-house counsel and I'm going

to direct the witness not to answer. That's an

attorney-client privilege.

 MR. KLAYMAN: Certify it.

 Q So you don't know whether or not

Mr. Peterson repeating what you had told him then

republished that to Roger Stone?

 MR. DRISCOLL: The communications between

an in-house counsel and the President of the

corporation relating to legal advice and

assistance are privileged. He can't answer the

question about the contents of the communication

or derivative questions that would disclose the

content of the communication.

 MR. KLAYMAN: That's the crux of the

lawsuit. That does not apply in this context.

42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 A I don't believe he has. I said I would

know if he had.

 Q How would you know if you couldn't even

identify the Complaint?

 A Another abusive harassing question.

 MR. DRISCOLL: It's a foundation question.

You can go ahead and answer it.

 How would you know if he had contacted

Roger Stone?

 MR. KLAYMAN: Or if Roger Stone contacted

him.

 A Is it privileged?

 MR. DRISCOLL: That's an interesting

question. The fact of the communication would not

be. The contents of it would be.

 A How I would know is my question of whether

it's privileged or not.

 MR. DRISCOLL: No, I'm going to allow you

to answer that one.

 A How I would know about what my attorneys

are doing or Judicial Watch's attorneys are doing?

 MR. DRISCOLL: Yeah, and you're not

disclosing a communication. You're just

describing a process.

 A Typically that type of communication would

44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 MR. DRISCOLL: That doesn't waive the

privilege.

 Q Are you saying that you never told anyone

at Judicial Watch that I was ousted because of a

sexual harassment complaint?

 MR. DRISCOLL: Anyone other than the

attorneys?

 MR. KLAYMAN: Anyone.

 MR. DRISCOLL: No, I can't allow him to

answer that question.

 Q Are you saying that you never told anyone

that I was -- regardless -- let's take attorneys

out of it.

 Have you ever -- you have told other

people in addition to -- strike that.

 You have told other people excluding

attorneys that I was ousted from Judicial Watch

because of a sexual harassment complaint?

 A You have to ask the question again.

 MR. KLAYMAN: Read it back, please.

 A Please.

 MR. KLAYMAN: Let me rephrase it.

 Q I'm taking attorneys out of this question.

I'm saying you have told others who aren't

attorneys over the course of the last 16 years

Transcript of Thomas J. Fitton 11 (41 to 44)

Conducted on June 6, 2019

PLANET DEPOS

888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 62 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 56 of 66
45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

since I left Judicial Watch that I was ousted

because of a sexual harassment complaint?

 A No, because that's not true. You weren't

ousted as a result of a sexual harassment

complaint.

 Q After I sued you in this particular case

has anyone -- have you or anyone at Judicial Watch

or your counsel tried to contact Roger Stone?

 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection to form. The

question invades the attorney-client privilege and

the attorney work product. I direct the witness

not to answer.

 MR. KLAYMAN: Certify it.

 Madam court reporter, have a page in the

front where you have all the certified questions

and where you can find them to make it easy for

the Magistrate Judge. Thank you.

 Q Now, I turn your attention back to your

affidavit which is --

 A Exhibit 3.

 Q Exhibit 3. Turn your attention to

paragraph seven where it says "I have no

recollection of ever having any communication with

Roger Stone," do you see that?

 A Uh-huh.

47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Judicial Watch was motivated by an employee's

sexual harassment complaint," do you see that?

 A Yeah.

 Q Again, that statement does not say that

you never spoke with Roger Stone, just that you've

never published that particular issue, correct?

 A It says what it says.

 Q And then it states "Any statement by Roger

Stone regarding Klayman was made without my

knowledge or information and therefore I did not

intend and could not intend to harm Klayman or his

reputation," do you see that?

 A Yes.

 Q Now, you're not saying in that statement

that you didn't communicate with Roger Stone.

You're saying that you didn't know that he was

going to republish anything about me, correct?

 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection to form. The

document speaks for itself.

 A The document speaks for itself.

 Q If you don't want to explain it that's

fine.

 A You're mischaracterizing it.

 Q I do agree. It speaks for itself and

there's a lot of loopholes in it.

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 Q Now, it doesn't say you didn't have a

communication with Roger Stone. It just says that

you have no recollection of having one, correct?

 A That's correct.

 Q Do you remember during the Clinton years

that witnesses would always come in and say we

have no specific recollection and we would contest

that?

 MR. DRISCOLL: Just ask your question,

Larry.

 Q So you can't say categorically that you

haven't had communications with Roger Stone?

You're just saying you don't have a recollection

of ever having it, correct?

 A I think the statement speaks for itself.

 Q You could have said I have never

communicated with Roger Stone, correct, if that's

what you were trying to say, that you never had

any contact?

 A The statement speaks for itself.

 Q Then you state in the next sentence "I

have never published, uttered or implied to Roger

Stone that Klayman was the subject of a sexual

harassment complaint during his employment by

Judicial Watch or that his resignation from

48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 MR. DRISCOLL: Why don't you just ask him

the question. Did he ever --

 MR. KLAYMAN: I will ask the questions

that I want to ask, Mr. --

 MR. DRISCOLL: All right.

 Q I want to turn to paragraph eight.

 Do you see the statements in the last

sentence of paragraph eight where it says "To

support his claim Judicial Watch submitted

evidence demonstrating that Klayman was forced to

resign due to inappropriate conduct" and you list

three examples of your alleged inappropriate

conduct, do you see that?

 A Yeah.

 Q Now, you have in the last 16 years told

many people, and I'm excluding any attorneys,

exactly what is written in this affidavit and

which you swore to under oath?

 MR. DRISCOLL: I'm going to object to the

question and direct the witness not to answer that

question to the extent it's related to the other

lawsuit that is currently pending in the U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia, Case

Number 06-cv-670.

 MR. KLAYMAN: That's not a basis to tell

Transcript of Thomas J. Fitton 12 (45 to 48)

Conducted on June 6, 2019

PLANET DEPOS

888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 63 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 57 of 66
Roger Stone taken on 2/12/2020

Bailey & Associates c/o Empire Legal Reporting (954) 241-1010 Page: 1

 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH CIRCUIT

 IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY AND THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL

 2 CIRCUIT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, FLORIDA

 3

 4 LARRY KLAYMAN,

 CASE NO. 19-011394

 5 Plaintiff,

 6 -vs-

 7 ROGER STONE,

 8 Defendant.

 ____________________________________/

 9

 JEROME CORSI, et al

10

 Plaintiff

11

12 vs. CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-013711

13

 ROGER STONE, et al

14

 Defendant

15 ____________________________________/

16

 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROGER STONE

17

 VOLUME I OF II

18

 Wednesday, February 12, 2020

19 9:42 a.m. - 4:28 p.m.

20

 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 1700

21 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

22

 Stenographically Reported By:

23 PATRICIA BAILEY-ENTIN, FPR

 Notary Public, State of Florida

24 BAILEY & ASSOCIATES REPORTING, INC.

 Fort Lauderdale Office

25 Phone - 954-358-9090

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 64 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 58 of 66
Roger Stone taken on 2/12/2020

Bailey & Associates c/o Empire Legal Reporting (954) 241-1010 Page: 39

 1 But let's start with my sworn affidavit on top,

 2 and I'll ask that that be marked. It -- it entails --

 3 MR. KLAYMAN: And you can just mark it right in

 4 the book --

 5 THE REPORTER: Sure.

 6 MR. KLAYMAN: -- to make it easy.

 7 That's Exhibit 2 to the Stone deposition and it

 8 entails 59 pages.

 9 (Plaintiffs' No. 2, Affidavit of Larry Klayman,

10 was marked for Identification.)

11 BY MR. KLAYMAN:

12 Q. You are aware, Mr. Stone, that I'm the founder

13 of Judicial Watch?

14 A. I am.

15 Q. You've spoken to Tom Fitton, haven't you?

16 A. One time in my entire life. I saw him

17 backstage at a conference in -- at Dural, maybe a couple

18 months ago, and we -- we shook hands in passing. Beyond

19 that, I've never spoken to the man.

20 Q. You've spoken to others at Judicial Watch,

21 though, haven't you?

22 A. No, actually, I haven't. Not that I recall.

23 Q. You -- you may have, but you just don't recall?

24 A. I don't recall ever speaking to anyone at -- at

25 Judicial Watch. I couldn't name anybody else at

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 115 Filed 06/08/21 Page 65 of 65 Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-AWA Document 73 Filed 09/30/20 Page 59 of 66