Earlier this week, we brought you the Happy Funtimes Leagle Beagle News that open suer Larry Klayman, famous in the olden days for subpoenaing Bill Clinton’s penis like three times a day (and also Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force records, because “nonpartisan” or something) and famous recently for representing twin Lights Bradlee Dean and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, had filed a $1.4 million lawsuit against Village Voice Media, CityPages, the Phoenix New Times, and pretty much everyone who wasn’t Your Wonket, for saying he might have touched his children in their swimsuit area. How, we keened, was this even fair???
Well, it turned out we weaseled out of a lawsuit the old-fashioned way: by pointing out in our story that just because a magistrate found evidence of “grossly inappropriate” touching, and just because the appeals judge let the magistrate’s finding stand despite Klayman’s objections, and just because Klayman constantly pleaded the Fifth in his civil divorce case regarding same, did not mean he was actually guilty of it. (We pointed this out because we are liberals and also because — STOP LAUGHING — we are “fair.”)
But it seems we might have bitched about being left out too soon! Because we finally read the complaint, and buried in there is a lil’ poop nugget about how the complaint might get amended to sue us, eventually, by name! Also buried in there, but not as buried, is the reason Klayman is able to assert malice and negligence on the part of CityPages, New Times, VVM, et al.: because when they reported on this official court finding via an official court document, they did not point out that the judge was biased against Larry Klayman because that judge was a Jew.
We are not sure it is incumbent on the press to report every time a judge is a Jew, but we are not the founder of Judicial Watch, so what do we know? Anyway, let’s have a gander at the relevant portion.
Larry also falls back on the “the judge said mean things about me,” which he went on and on about for days in a similar complaint about the judge hearing the case when he very unsuccessfully sued Rachel Maddow on behalf of Bradleeeeee Dean. In that case, he said the judge was “biased” because she called Maddow’s attorney “distinguished,” but did not call him “distinguished.” Also, he said that judge was “a woman scorned.”
A+ professional lawyering, would do business with professional lawyer again!
Any lawyers in the house who would like to confirm your Editrix’s vague J-school recollections that a news outlet may report on official judicial proceedings or official judicial decisions or official judicial documents without having to note who is Jewish, please feel free to do so in the comments!
That’s what we thought!
As a side note, though our old employers VVM have plenty of attorneys of their own, we will just point out that in fact CityPages did not say Klayman was convicted of a crime, despite Klayman’s claim that they did. Maybe he is bad at reading! (He is definitely bad at reading.) (Although they maybe did presume he was guilty of the accusation much more than we did.) (We are definitely going to have to start reading everybody’s bloggy posts closer before we actually do get all libelly up in there.) (We are looking at YOU, Doktor Zoom.) (If that even is your real name.)
Anyway, what are these other screenshots we grabbed?
Ooooh, yeah, that’s the stuff.
And then there’s this thing:
YOU CAN’T SUE SOMEONE FOR BEING QUEER ILLEGAL LOVERS, LARRY.
Or fuck it, maybe in Obama’s Amerikkka, YOU CAN!