Back sometime that was more than five yet less than ten years ago, Atrios was fond of stating, sometimes as a question, his belief that there was nothing a conservative could say or do that would get him or her permanently banned from public life. This belief I call “Atrios’ Law”.
It looks like Larry Klayman is about to test that law.
Klayman, you will recall, is the guy who first came to fame at the helm of Judicial Watch. The guy who sued his own mom. The guy who lost control of Judicial Watch and then sued it. The guy who is now suing City Pages and pretty much anyone he feels like suing or silencing (except for Wonkette, whose “Snipy” has dared Klayman to sue them over the same issue for which he’s suing City Pages).
Has Klayman finally gone a SLAPP suit too far? It could be:
Via the birther debunker site Fogbow’s thread, KLAYMAN v CITY PAGES, et al. – MDFL – (Klayman Suit for Defamation Bluestem has learned that the defendants in conservative lawyer Larry Klayman’s defamation lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss on Wednesday, May 29, 2013.
The docket for the case can be viewed here. Bluestem embeds the motion below.
In the 13-page document, the crux of the defendants’ argument is to appeal to the truth of their accounts and the privilege that journalists receive for “fair and accurate reports of official documents”:
Thus, this lawsuit is about whether Plaintiff can sue Defendants for making that one statement in light of the magistrate’s finding that Plaintiff’s behavior was “grossly inappropriate,” and the Ohio appellate court’s decision affirming the magistrate. He cannot, and the reasons he cannot is because the statement is truthful and cannot form the subject of a claim for defamation, because he does not identify any true statements of fact as is necessary to state a claim for defamation by implication, and because his claims are barred by the substantial truth doctrine and the privilege for fair and accurate reports of official documents.
So what’s Larry suing about? This:
A Florida lawyer has hit City Pages with a $1.4 million defamation lawsuit for a story last fall that said the lawyer inappropriately touched his children.
Larry Klayman’s lawsuit, announced Monday, March 25, said City Pages sought to hurt the attorney in retaliation for Klayman’s representation of Bradlee Dean, the controversial anti-gay preacher and founder of an Annandale-based group You Can Run But You Cannot Hide.
The City Pages story, which ran Sept. 28 last year, said an appeals court in Ohio had ordered Klayman to pay his ex-wife $325,000 in attorney’s fees, and that the order noted a lower court magistrate had heard evidence of sexual abuse from his children’s pediatrician, who reported it to children’s services, and from a social worker at that agency.
The story said the social worker’s findings were changed to “unsubstantiated,” but the magistrate found that Klayman acted in a “grossly inappropriate manner” with one of his children, although his conduct may not have been sexual….