Larry Klayman writes in his Oct. 19 WorldNetDaily column, headlined "Sheriff Joe and I take on libelous N.Y. Times":
Last Wednesday, on behalf of “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” my friend and client Joe Arpaio, I filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the New York Times and its editorial board member Michelle Cottle for defamation per se, tortious interference with prospective business advantage and false light.
The complaint can be found at www.freedomwatchusa.org and was filed as part of Freedom Watch’s Leftist Media Strike Force, which seeks to hold the dishonest and unhinged “fake news” left and other irresponsible and lawless publications accountable to the rule of law.
The defamatory article at issue, published on Aug. 29, 2018, and written by Cottle, a member of the editorial board of the Times, is entitled “Well at least Sheriff Joe isn’t going to Congress: Arpaio’s loss in Arizona’s Senate Republican Primary is a fitting end to the public life of a truly sadistic man.” In this article, the defendants accuse Sheriff Joe of a score of heinous crimes and allegedly seek to trash and destroy his reputation and standing in the law enforcement and political community, severely damaging his future plans to run for public office again. The article is alleged to have been published with malice.
The filing of this complaint was reported by every major publication in the nation if not the world, with the exception of – you guessed it – the New York Times, whose tag line and motto should now be “all the fake news that isn’t fit to print.” Obviously, the Times, stung by our damage claim for over $147,500,000, felt it prudent to shut up for once! That is because few if any conservatives who have been trashed and their lives ruined by this despicable leftist rag previously had the guts, save for the good sheriff and me, to take it on frontally.
According to the brief Klayman filed, he never actually demonstrates that anything the Times wrote about Arpaio is, in fact, "false and defamatory." Instead, he claims Arpaio suffered "defamation per se " and declares that "As defamation per se, damage to Plaintiff Arpaio is presumed as a matter of law." The "tortious interference with prospective business advantage" stuff refers to Klayman's statement that Arpaio is planning to run in 2020 for the Senate seat formerly held by the late John McCain.
Indeed, Arpaio seems not to be aware of Klayman's high failure rate in defamation lawsuits (and lawsuits in general). This one is unlikely to fare any better.
Of course, the idea of Klayman accusing someone else of libel is highly ironic, since he has spent so much time hurling libelous claims himself. We've noted Klayman's Obama derangement over the years, which includes maliciously defamatory epithets like "mullah-in-chief, "Islamic mole," "traitor," "it is indeed more than likely that he pledges his allegiance to Allah," and "the most disloyal, anti-American, pro-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, socialistic and destructive president in our country’s brief history."
If Klayman thinks Arpaio has a case against the Times, then Obama definitely has a case against Klayman.
(P.S. Remember when Klayman threatened to sue us for telling the truth about him? That lawsuit never happened, presumably because even a shoddy lawyer like Klayman understands that truth is an absolute defense.)