Stop us if you've heard this before, but an attorney is alleging that notorious birther and Sheriff Joe Arpaio-fan Larry Klayman has filed a lawsuit without any legal merit.
In fact, Chris Ford -- legal counsel for Respect Arizona -- told New Times yesterday that he's also seeking sanctions against the pro-Joe group that filed the lawsuit, run by a pair of tea-party figures from Surprise, and its attorneys, Klayman and former birther lawmaker David Burnell Smith.
-Larry Klayman Sues New Times, Is Really Weird
-Klayman Was Found to Have "Inappropriately Touched" Kids
-David Burnell Smith Teams Up With Larry Klayman in Fight of Arpaio Recall
-Klayman Asks If Joe Arpaio Recall Chairman Is a "Homo" Who "Want[s] My Nuts"
-Joe Arpaio's Birther Buddies Say They'll Take Recall Effort to Court to Shut It Down
Klayman has claimed the recall effort is "illegal," "unconstitutional," and a "criminal recall enterprise." However, all of Klayman's claims are bogus.
Really, the only almost-but-not-really credible claim he made was that a recall petition can't be filed against someone unless they've been in office for six months.
Arizona law clarifies that it's not six months of a term, it's six months total in that office -- and Arpaio's been in office since the early '90s.
So, as members of Respect Arizona left some pink underwear as gifts for Arpaio outside his pricey office inside the Wells Fargo building yesterday, Ford explained that he's not only asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed, but it's "so utterly baseless and frivolous" that he's asking for the sanctions, which basically amounts to attorney fees.
Still, the complaint from Klayman was probably the most tame thing Klayman's done since involving himself in the defense of Sheriff Arpaio.
Klayman e-mailed a couple members of Respect Arizona, apparently on accident, asking Respect Arizona chairman William James Fisher, "WHAT KINDA NUTS IS TALKING ABOUT. DOES THIS HOMO WANT MY NUTS! HA. LETS GO TO WAR. BEST, L"
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Klayman then sued New Times, claiming "defamation," as we cited public records citing an appellate court ruling from Ohio, a public record, affirming a magistrate judge's finding that Klayman "inappropriately touched" his own children.
Good thing we didn't cite the magistrate judge's actual ruling (which can be found by clicking here), which is way, way crazier, and includes a nun claiming that Klayman kissed her -- she did not want that -- and other assorted allegations against him.