Ho-hum. Another day, another excretion from Larry Klayman against “Aaron Ruper” (he means Aaron Rupar), Ken Avidor (who Klayman insists on calling by another name even though Avidor’s legal name is Ken Avidor), and various other entities who dared talk about what was mentioned by a certain Ohio judge in the course of Klayman’s efforts to appeal prior judicial decisions regarding custody of and visitation rights for Klayman’s children:

Specifically, Larry Klayman was appealing a Cuyahoga County court order regarding visitation and his wife’s attorney’s fees, and the court found that previous magistrates had not been in error when they took away his visitation rights and awarded his ex-wife a shitload of money.

From BradleeDeanInfo, via CityPages:

From Appeals Court Judge Mary Boyle, July 26,2012 [PDF]

{¶25} 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.

{¶26} 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.

Interestingly, one party who Klayman has so far failed to sue has been the source of the above-quoted passage, Wonkette’s Rebecca Schoenkopf. This despite the fact that Ms. Schoenkopf and fellow Wonkette author Snipy have spent nearly two years daring him and baiting him to do so.

So why hasn’t Larry Klayman or his client Bradley Dean “Bradlee Dean” Smith sued Wonkette yet? This statement by Schoenkopf from February of 2013 might hold the answer:

We would like to invite Bradlee Dean and the attorney of his choice to come address our journalism class at University of California Riverside. We had such a fun libel session just a few weeks ago, and we’re sure our students would love to see some baseless defamation charges in action! We bet they could even cite a few of the Supreme Court cases explaining why Bradlee Dean does not have a fucking leg to stand on, and why Wonkette will be flush with lovely anti-SLAPP moneys!

Oh, also? Pretty much everyone at Wonkette is a lawyer except for your Editrix, but we do have an uncle who just happens to be one of the premier First Amendment attorneys in the nation, and unfortunately for Bradlee Dean, our Uncle Victor does not come cheap.

Very truly yours,
Editrix