"Birther" attorney and Sheriff Joe Arpaio fan Larry Klayman has filed a federal lawsuit against New Times and our Minneapolis sister paper, City Pages, claiming "defamation."
Klayman's lawsuit points to New Times and City Pages blog posts that cite an appellate court ruling from Ohio, a public record, affirming a magistrate judge's finding that Klayman "inappropriately touched" his own children.
-Klayman Was Found to Have "Inappropriately Touched" Kids
-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
As usual, Klayman -- who just days ago asked if the head of the group trying to recall Arpaio is a "homo" who "want[s] my nuts" -- got weird, declaring that New Times "promotes a perverse radical gay, lesbian, transgender sexual orientation lifestyle for children and others at home and in the workplace" -- whatever that even means.
Among other things, Klayman claims that yours truly and City Pages writer Aaron Rupar -- while misspelling both of our names -- "defamed him by accusing him of committing and/or being convicted of a crime . . ."
Klayman seems to be upset that both blog posts accurately quoted the appellate court's finding:
The issues raised by Klayman involve credibility assessments made by the magistrate. Klayman challenges these findings. The magistrate heard evidence from the children's pediatrician who reported allegations of sexual abuse to children services, and from a social worker at children services who found that sexual abuse was "indicated." Although the social worker's finding was later changed to "unsubstantiated" when Klayman appealed, the magistrate explained that the supervisor who changed the social worker's finding did not testify. The magistrate pointed out that he was obligated to make his own independent analysis based upon the parties and the evidence before him. In doing so, the magistrate found 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. The magistrate stated that he could draw an adverse inference from Klayman's decision not to testify to these matters because it was a civil proceeding, not criminal.
After reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in overruling Klayman's objections regarding the magistrate's finding that Klayman inappropriately touched the children.
However, Klayman says the magistrate was biased because "the magistrate is Jewish and resented that Klayman, who is Jewish, because Klayman also believes in Jesus Christ and considers himself a Jewish Christian."
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to Phoenix New Times's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Phoenix's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
However, an entire section of the appelate court's ruling explains that Klayman's accusations of bias were found to be bogus (paragraphs 18-22).
"[Phoenix New Times], and in addition to supporting and furthering the radical gay, lesbian and transgender agenda, has shown a malicious hatred for Sheriff Joe Arpaio based upon his strong enforcement of immigration laws and manufactured false charges that he has not 'prosecuted' cases of sexual abuse," Klayman's lawsuit says.
Um, okay. This, coming from someone who introduced a "birther" affidavit from Arpaio as evidence in an actual courtroom.
Klayman's lawsuit can be found here.