Birther Lawyer Fighting Joe Arpaio Recall Was Found to Have "Inappropriately Touched" Kids

larry-klayman.jpg
sonorannews.com
Larry Klayman, who "inapropriately touched" children, is trying to help Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
What are the chances that a lawyer who was found by a court to have "inappropriately touched" children would try to stop the recall of a county sheriff whose agency failed to properly investigate more than 400 sex crimes?

This is quite the, um, coincidence, as we stumbled across a judgment from an Ohio appellate court, in a divorce case involving attorney Larry Klayman.

See also:
-Joe Arpaio's Birther Buddies Say They'll Take Recall Effort to Court to Shut It Down

As we reported yesterday, a group calling itself "Citizens to Protect Fair Election Results LLC" claims it will take action against the attempted recall of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

That group was registered by Surprise Tea Party "leaders" Jeff Lichter and James Wise -- the folks credited with getting Arpaio to start the "investigation" into President Obama's birth certificate -- and brought along Klayman to do the legal work.

Klayman, an attorney for Freedom Watch, happens to be friendly with the conspiracy theorists at World Net Daily, and once introduced a "birther" affidavit from Arpaio as evidence in an actual courtroom.

Thanks to our sister paper in Minneapolis, City Pages, we have an appellate court ruling from Ohio in which Klayman was unsuccessful in appealing a ruling about the terms of his parental rights stemming from his divorce, and a ruling that found him in contempt of court.

Part of that appeal was Klayman asking the court to review "the trial court's finding that [Klayman] engaged in inappropriate touching of his child is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and an abuse of discretion."

Read the excerpts from the appellate court's ruling below:

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.

Obviously, we're talking about civil court matters here, not criminal court or criminal charges.

However, a magistrate judge weighed the evidence and found that Klayman acted "in a grossly inappropriate manner with the children."

Klayman's challenge to the attempted recall of Arpaio probably won't turn out in his favor, either.


My Voice Nation Help
39 comments
biffguiznot
biffguiznot

Is Klayman admitted in Arizona? Or is he just the only dumbass the birthers were able to find to defend their demigod?

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

so Larry Klayman (a guy who inappropriately touches children) is going to defend the right to remain sheriff, a guy who doesn't feel investigating sex crimes against children is either that important or something that should be staffed with competent people...........how much do you want to bet Klayman is considering moving here? You always make sure its a neighborhood you will fit into before you move there. Hell, old Larry might just do this Pro-Bono. he has saved enough money by dodging his child support to get a nice house (and he owes enough other people that he wont pay, enough to get it in the area of his choice)    Yep, god bless America, right?

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

HAHAHA!!!! Oh the Irony!

But it doesn't surprise me in the slightest :)

robert_graham
robert_graham topcommenter

I smell a slander lawsuit. This article is pure hearsay and proves that the liberals are now in panic mode.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

i guess it makes sense to have a guy who has a history of touching kids be the one to defend Joe from looking the other way for crimes against children. he could always take the stand himself and say that Joe didnt look the other way while he was touching kids......Joe just didnt try to stop him


gerry_c
gerry_c

Not just the birther movement (aka bowel movement). It is our very own Surprise Tea Party Patriots supporting these odious cretins. Don't forget that Ole Saggy Balls hired the bald sausage chomper to investigate MCSO corruption almost all the way to the top. Baldy also has a very suspect past with minors.

deniseaz2003
deniseaz2003

wonder if Klayman's Ex can get a national warrant for the famous ( NOT ) ex . for unpaid child support , and when the jerk arrives here in the valley ,, wonder if the JoKKKe will arrest him for not paying up, as he does the other people ,, ??? think it is time to give the tea party nuts a cheering hurrah, they could not pick a better looser to front a t nutjob on the state , and county ,,, great pick kiddos

Comrade
Comrade

No surprise there, since the OLD FOOL seems to love that kind of people to the point of not doing anything to go after them. Maybe deep down inside, the Fng Shurf is one of them. It's to much coincidence that he loves pink undeware, allow the female immates to throw the pink panties at him, pink handcuffs, even a pink room fpr immates...allows a Hooker Beater to train His Clown Posse, and now another "child molester" pops up to join the "Party". JOE CAMEL AND THOSE PUTOS FROM CTPFER need to be investigated , BTW, probably Jaffy's real name is Robert Jaffy Klayman.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

is Seagal going to train the posse how to protect the schools and kids from Klayman? thats something Joe could publicize...........oh wait that would be 2 sex offenders in a school (that we know of). so much for the 500 foot rule

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

hold on...wait a minute....is this right? so the birther movement not only supports a guy who wont investigate sex crimes and sex crimes against children, but the birther movement even hires one of these degenerates to defend the guy who wont arrest them?  oh wait....my bad , he isnt a proven sex offender against kids  (he isnt cleared either) but he has been declared by the courts to be one who cant discern inapropriate touching from appropriate, and has been determined to be a perpetrator of INAPPROPRIATE touching to children........oh yeah, thats so much better

Warrior-X
Warrior-X

This shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with the Flaccid Failure's ongoing corruption and criminal enterprise known as the MCSO. He clearly serves as a magnet for rapists, child molesters and pedophiles. Who are naturally drawn to his nexus of evil. I hope there is more mainstream media coverage of this one. The American public needs to know about this.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

so Joe has surrounded himself with Seagal.....the woman abuser, and now Klayman....the child abuser. ......is the uninvestigated sex crime number starting to make a little more sense to you now?

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

Is he Jaffy's daddy?  That would explain Jaffy.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

i honestly cant believe that Joe would allow this guy to represent him. Joe treats everyone as if they are guilty before they have their day in court. this guy had his day in court and was found to have some serious kiddie issues

DNichols
DNichols

At least this "Pedifile" dosen't have to worry about Arpaio "Protecting Children."

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

wow......i mean really..........wow.   and this is the kind of guy Joe wants to represent him?  way to get those votes back that you lost for ignoring over 400 rapes and child molestations Joe.  if you guys go to lunch to discuss your case, dont do it within 500 feet of a school

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

Invoking your right to remain silent, whether in criminal or civil court proceedings, means that you did it.

Sandy Yost
Sandy Yost

another reason to sign to recall....

graham57
graham57

@JoeArpaioFan You can't get much of anything right can you? Slander is verbal, libel is written. 

IdontRecall
IdontRecall

HEY JAFFY DUCK, Finally You found Your way out of that maze that's the OLD FART's hole. BTW, you forgot to clean your mouth 'cause there's a lot of shit comming out of it. I wish You get cancer throat, - since that's the tool You use to work- and die a long and painful death.You are in IGNORANT MODE.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan  

 ahhh... I missed you JAF, I had forgotten how much your nonsense ramblings make me laugh!

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan  the only panic that the liberals are in is for the safety of their kids now that the birthers are shipping kiddie diddlers in and giving them work.....is that how you got your job at Burger King?

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan  hey Robert, speaking of lawsuits....when are they going to crack the case of "who kidnapped Joe" and prosecute them?

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan thats a shame, since the link to the court report are supplied that validate the claims. must be something wrong with your sense of smell

bob_lablaw96
bob_lablaw96

@WhoKnows Jaffy doesn't know who his daddy is.  For all he knows, the dribbles on his momma's legs hold the only DNA that could direct him to the sperm donor.  Not surprisingly, his father has never admitted parenthood

bob_lablaw96
bob_lablaw96

@danzigsdaddy Joe went for an expert opinion, apparently.  The only thing that could be worse would be for Joe to hire a Catholic priest to investigate these crimes...if they really happened.

bob_lablaw96
bob_lablaw96

@eric.nelson745 That is also my take on the invocation of that right.  If you do it in civil court, you might as well wave a flag admitting you are guilty, but too much a pussy to say the  word.

someguy
someguy

@eric.nelson745 in the court of public opinion, yes it does ... in the court of law it means nothing whatsoever, almost as if the question was never asked

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@eric.nelson745  it just means you refuse to answer because your answer could incriminate you.............so it both yes and no. its not a definite "i am guilty" but is pretty close to just saying you are without actually saying it. if he is refusing to answer as to his touching children because to answer it would incriminate him on something else.... i wonder what he is hiding that is worse than being a kiddie diddler?

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@eric.nelson745 i wouldnt say that...but in this case yes, because he was supposed to be fighting for the right to see his kids, or something of that nature. Id answer any and all questions i could if that meant getting my parental rights back. Seems like he didnt care too much about that. 

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@danzigsdaddy @eric.nelson745 The right to not answer questions is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution just like the right to deny law enforcement access to your house without a warrant is a Constitutional right.  It's not saying "I'm guilty." It's saying "Hey, police, go do your jobs and conduct an actual investigation because under our judicial system the onus is on you, police, to prove my guilt and not on me to prove my innocence."  I'm not defending this guy and I'm not saying he isn't a sleazeball - because the magistrate clearly felt that he is a sleazeball based on the language cited above - but I'm not willing to hold his exercise of his Constitutional rights against him.

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

@danzigsdaddy @eric.nelson745 One thing's for sure... he didn't expect the anti-Joe forces to delve into his past. It would be very unsurprising if he were to just all of a sudden leave town.

bob_lablaw96
bob_lablaw96

@JohnQ.Public @eric.nelson745 What, pray tell, does it infer to you?

The right to refuse to answer questions that might tend to incriminate you is valid.  But, it also says that you feel that by answering those questions, you would look like a pervert, in this case.  How could the refusal not look incriminating?

bob_lablaw96
bob_lablaw96

@JohnQ.Public @danzigsdaddy @eric.nelson745 Keep in mind, John Q, that an experienced prosecutor will never ask a question that he does not already know the answer to.  So, when you are asked a question in an open courtroom, trust that the prosecutor will bring in evidence of your guilt, whether you answer the question directly, or wait for the prosecutor to answer it....graphically!

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...