Ultra Leftist Publications Use Klayman Children to Harm Him in Retaliation for His Legal Representation of Conservative Clients Fighting Radical Homosexual and Pro Illegal Immigrant Agendas

(Ocala, Florida, March 25, 2013). Today, Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch announced the filing of a lawsuit in federal court (Case No. 5:13-cv-00143 ACC –PRL) in Ocala, Florida, against City Pages and Phoenix New Times, both owned and operated by the ultra leftist media holding and parent company Voice Media Group. These companies and certain named reporters were sued for defamation and defamation by inference under Florida law, for having widely published domestically and internationally false and misleading statements that Klayman has committed and was convicted of the crime of sexually abusing his own two children. To the contrary, these charges having been leveled for strategic purposes by his ex wife, typically in a custody proceeding, which Klayman had initiated many years ago, were dismissed by the Cleveland Department of Children and Families, and the Sheriff and District Attorney of Cayahoga County. In addition, Klayman had voluntarily taken and passed a polygraph test, while his ex wife refused to do so over her false charges. The children also had admitted to investigators that they were coached by their mother and refused to implicate Klayman in any wrongdoing.

The complaint (see www.larryklayman.com) alleges that Defendants negligently, intentionally and maliciously sought to severely injure Klayman in retaliation for his legal representation of Bradlee Dean, a Christian preacher whose group, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide (YCR), teaches Judeo-Christian values to school children and who sued Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, an avowed lesbian, over her defamatory attacks on them for mentoring children to reject the homosexual lifestyle taught to children in many schools today. In addition, Klayman also alleges that the defamatory attacks on Klayman also amounted to retaliation over his legal representation of voters in Arizona who are opposing a recall petition to remove Sheriff Joe Arpaio from office. In each instance, the complaint alleges that the publications and their reporters who sought to harm Klayman are part of the radical gay, lesbian and transgender “rights” and pro illegal immigrant agendas of the far left.

Klayman stated: “To falsely use my young children to try to harm my clients and me is the lowest of the low and these sleazy ultra leftist publications and their reporters will pay a heavy legal price for doing so.”

The complaint is Klayman settling scores under the cover of the litigation privilege.

Page 10 is where Klayman tries to explain away the adverse finding of the magistrate.*

*

on more than one occasion [Klayman] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with the children. His conduct may not have been sexual in the sense that he intended to or did derive any sexual pleasure from it or that he intended his children would. That, however, does not mean that he did not engage in those acts or that his behavior was proper.

The magistrate further found it significant that although Klayman denied any allegations of sexual abuse, he never denied that he did not engage in inappropriate behavior with the children. The magistrate further found it notable that Klayman, “for all his breast beating about his innocence * * * [he] scrupulously avoided being questioned by anyone from [children services] or from the Sheriff’s Department about the allegations,” and that he refused to answer any questions, repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, about whether he inappropriately touched the children. “Even more disturbing” to the magistrate was the fact that Klayman would not even answer the simple question regarding what he thought inappropriate touching was.

A further development in Klayman's Ohio case: having lost the direct appeal of his domestic relations case to the Ohio Supreme Court, he has now filed an action for a writ of mandamus, asking the OSC to order the lower courts to rule in his favor. Sure, that'll work.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ ... tyname.asp

The Ohio case that was the basis for the articles. Nb.:


The inevitable Klayman deposition in this suit would be SECR's dream!

May I just ask these questions -- entirely rhetorical?

1) WHY can't Birfers spell the names of the people they sue? Aaron RupAr, not Ruper.

2) WHAT is a false alias? Would that be a real name???

3) WHO is doing the defamation here? Perhaps SCREW Magazine wants to sue old Larry Boy.

4) HOW can a publication be a homosexual "lifestyle"? Or any lifestyle, actually?

5) WHEN did it become okay to SMEAR individuals when suing them for defamation?

6) WHERE in the Torah or the Midrash or The Shuchan Aruch does it say that one can be a Jewish Christian.

Okay, that's the 5 W's and an H, in honor of these poor journalists attacked by KKKlayman.

The litigation privilege! The one thing Larry Klansman understands! He can say whatever crazy, lying-ass shit he likes in a legal complaint, and it is privileged against defamation.

Um, okay. This, coming from someone who introduced a "birther" affidavit from Arpaio as evidence in an actual courtroom.

The Phoenix New Times doesn't think much of Klayman.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... imes_i.php

The complaint linked to in this thread is posted on www .larryklayman.com. I'm not saying that anyone named in the complaint necessarily has a defamation case against him, but if Klayman himself posted this complaint on his web site, is the content still protected by the litigation privilege?

If Bradlee was going to sue us, why won’t his terrible lawyer sue us? Goddammit! What are we, not pretty enough to be sued? Not young enough to be sued? Not ultra-leftist enough to be sued? Not malicious enough to be sued? OK, it could never be that last reason, as we are malicious as can be. Especially in this case, we should totally be sued, because we linked to the City Pages’ article about Klayman’s alleged child-touching. It is too boring and complicated to re-explain here, and if we did re-explain here, we wouldn’t get delicious page views to make you go read our old article on it.

Who does a blog have to blow to get sued around here?

Klayman subsequently sued Judge Kollar-Kotelly, U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle, the Judicial Council for the District of Columbia, and the Office of the Circuit Executive. I haven't seen the complaint, but the 9/26/2012 opinion dismissing the case (available via GPO here) seems unremarkable to me.

Klayman has appealed, of course.

Those of you who enjoy a quality smackdown--particularly of a manipulative, incompetent fool like Klayman--will probably particularly enjoy this memorandum opinion from U.S. District Court (D.C.) Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, containing her denial of Klayman's motion for her recusal/disqualification. While obviously carefully written, it's a classic...a better smackdown for its more (and occasionally, less) subtle qualities...mostly because Judge Kollar-Kotelly makes it clear that Klayman pulled no wool over her eyes, managed to sneak nothing by her, and that she is simply bringing the swatter down on him as she would any pesky fly who had buzzed too long and often at the blueberry pie, and making it clear that Klayman is no more remarkable or impressive or important than any other self-aggrandizing fool trying to play games with the court.

Enjoy!