On Monday, December 16, 2024, Judge Mark Pittman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied a motion filed by Jewish lawyer Bernard Kleinman, seeking to conduct a court-ordered scheduling conference virtually on behalf of his client, Charles Johnson, a noted critic of Jewish interests. The court’s directive required all parties to meet in person, emphasizing that face-to-face interactions lead to more productive discussions.
Kleinman’s request was part of an ongoing legal battle involving Johnson, who is being sued by Point Bridge Capital, LLC, for allegedly running a fraudulent investment scheme. The court highlighted that if Johnson had complied with previous orders to secure local counsel, attending the meeting in person would not have posed any logistical challenges.
The judge’s order not only denied the virtual meeting request but also mandated that Kleinman appear before the court on December 19, 2024, to explain his failure to adhere to the court’s instructions regarding local representation. The court noted that Johnson appeared to be disregarding its explicit orders, which raised concerns about compliance and accountability.
This recent decision follows a series of events surrounding Johnson’s legal troubles. Earlier in November, Kleinman had filed a motion to allow Johnson to proceed without local counsel, claiming that Johnson had limited financial resources. However, this assertion was met with skepticism after Johnson made a public post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), boasting about his financial capabilities and suggesting he could purchase the publicly traded company 23andMe.
The juxtaposition between Kleinman’s claims regarding Johnson’s financial situation and Johnson’s social media statements raised serious questions about the credibility of both the attorney and his client. Judge Pittman responded swiftly to Kleinman’s motion, denying the request to proceed without local representation and warning of potential sanctions for non-compliance.
In the earlier article from ALABnews, we reported that Johnson, alongside co-conspirator Gator Greenwill, faced accusations of posing as intelligence agents to solicit investments in defense-related technology firms. Their alleged tactics included threatening companies with sabotage unless they met their demands for equity or favorable investment terms.
The court’s insistence on in-person meetings reflects its commitment to ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted effectively and in accordance with established protocols. Judge Pittman reiterated that the presence of local counsel would facilitate compliance with court orders and enhance the overall efficiency of the legal process.
The judge did not succumb to any perceived conspiracy from Mr. Kleinman or those who may or may not be associated with him when denying the request.
