Another day, another loss in court for Larry Klayman, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver. This time it’s in the suit he filed against two independent newspapers for publishing a judge’s ruling about him allegedly touching his children inappropriately. He already lost at the district level and now the appeals court upheld that ruling.
Despite the fact that the only thing those two independent newspapers did was quote a public available judge’s ruling, in which the magistrate judge said that Klayman had acted in a “grossly inappropriate manner” with his children, though not much more is known than that. Any competent attorney would know that this could not possibly be defamation, but competence is a foreign concept to Klayman. He sued for defamation, arguing that the newspapers were motivated to publish this story as revenge for him suing my old employer, the American Independent News Network, Rachel Maddow and MSNBC on behalf of fellow halfwit Bradlee Dean.
That lawsuit was also for defamation, with Klayman arguing that we somehow defamed Dean by quoting him verbatim saying that Muslims are more moral than Christians because they put gay people to death:
“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”
Anyway, Klayman tried to argue in this case that the newspapers published the story about the inappropriate behavior with his children as retaliation for filing that suit, though why he thinks that is in any way relevant is beyond me. It simply cannot be defamation under any circumstances to publish a quote from a judge’s ruling about someone. The district judge granted summary judgment for the defendants and now the appeals court has agreed. And when evaluating a ruling for summary judgment, the court weighs every claim in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. It still wasn’t good enough:
Considering all the evidence, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Mr. Klayman, we hold that a reasonable jury could not find the existence of actual malice on the part of the defendants by clear and convincing evidence.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. As a result, Mr. Klayman’ s claim that the district court erred in denying his motion to perfect a prayer for punitive damages is rendered moot.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’ s grant of summary judgment on all counts, the denial of Mr. Klayman ’s motion to disqualify, and the denial of his motion to perfect a prayer for punitive damages.
So another loss for Klayman. I wish I still had LEXIS/NEXIS access. I’d love to do a full search and find out what his win-loss record is for lawsuits. It has to be terrible.