OPINION AND EDITORIAL
Once again so-called attorney Larry Klayman has been handed unfavorable news by a federal judge. This time it seems Klayman, a Jason Goodman side-kick, wanted lightening to strike the same place twice. The lightening rod appears to be former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Jason Goodman is the former “Hollywood film maker” that co-founded “CrowdSource The Truth” a conspiracy brand that has been a platform for Klayman’s “Citizen’s Grand Jury”, which “indicted” Robert S. Mueller, III, Special Counsel, about a year ago.
Above: Larry Klayman appears on the Jason Goodman podcast with another client Ryan Bundy (see Bundy stand-off at Oregon wildlife refuge)
KLAYMAN PUSHES THE PATIENCE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
As of this writing, Larry Klayman remains a member of the bar in good standing. And so he is free to file motions accusing U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth of making “a politicized decision, little better than some other judges in this courthouse” and demanding that His Honor reverse himself for being a political hack.
It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off! (Spoiler alert ….)
Klayman’s outburst of derpitude came after Judge Lamberth dismissed the defamation suit filed by former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio against the New York Times for failure to demonstrate actual malice. Arpaio alleged that a 2018 Times editorial entitled “Well, at Least Sheriff Joe Isn’t Going to Congress” damaged his prospects in the 2020 Arizona Senate race to the tune of $147,500,000.
When you lose a lawsuit — as former Sheriff Joe Arpaio did last year — you have a few options. Arpaio sued a few news outlets for defamation, alleging their reference to him as a convicted felon had done over $300 million in damage to his pristine reputation.
Represented by Larry Klayman, Arpaio came away with a loss. The DC federal court not only said Arpaio failed to state facts pointing to actual malice by the publications, but that Arpaio failed to plead any facts at all. That’s classic Klayman lawyering: go light on facts, heavy on rhetoric, and try to avoid being being hit with sanctions and/or having your license suspended for your antics both on and off the court.
A day after a federal judge dismissed former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s defamation lawsuit against the media for a second time, conservative attorney Larry Klayman filed a motion to reconsider. In the motion, Klayman included a footnote in which he maintained that it “does not take a rocket scientist” to see that the media defendants acted with actual malice when they falsely referred to Arpaio as a convicted felon.
The footnote said:
Obviously, these leftist media Defendants, who covered Plaintiff Arpaio like a “wet blanket,” since he is a foil to try to harm President Trump and disparage his immigration policies, knew the score; namely that the sheriff is not a convicted felon. This simply is why actual malice was properly pled. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand this.
Former sheriff Joe Arpaio — represented by Larry Klayman — sued the Huffington Post for defamation, lost, and then filed a new lawsuit for the same thing. He loses again today, but the court won't award sanctions for the "frivolous" case. https://t.co/ewD2I05EFP pic.twitter.com/KUYMMSTjrM
— Adam Steinbaugh (@adamsteinbaugh) April 29, 2020
Wisely, Larry Klayman and Sheriff Joe Arpiao ask the court to reconsider, arguing that the court is politically biased and too dumb to understand the issues, and that appeals take too long. https://t.co/M04OITum65 pic.twitter.com/jopZObqeAx
— Adam Steinbaugh (@adamsteinbaugh) April 30, 2020
To be continued…
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.