Bob Unruh uses a July 10 WorldNetDaily article to obfuscate the facts in the case of evangelist Bradlee Dean's lawsuit against MSNBC's Rachel Maddow -- and he fails to report at all Dean's inflammatory attack against the judge who ruled against him.
Unruh leads with Dean and his attorney, Larry Klayman, "asking that the judge in the case be removed because of her biased comments." It's not until after he rehashes the case in a biased manner favorable to Dean -- specifically, the 20th paragraph -- that Unruh gets around to reporting the big news in Dean's lawsuit: that the judge in question had ordered Dean to pay around $24,000 in legal fees to Maddow before she would permit Klayman's request to move the case from District of Columbia court to federal court in order to get around Maddow citing the District's anti-SLAPP laws in her defense.
Unruh uncritically repeated Dean and Klayman's claim that Maddow's "defense work would be equally applicable in the new filing in federal court," without explaining how a federal court can address legal fees for another lawsuit filed and withdrawn in another jurisdiction. Also, given that Dean and Klayman are admitting they're moving their lawsuit to federal court specifically to avoid the District's anti-SLAPP laws, Maddow's defense work could not directly be used since a different set of laws would apply.
Unruh also uncritically -- and selectively -- repeated Dean's complaints about the judge's alleged "biased comments," which included the laughable complaint that the judge "stated in her order that defendants lawyers are ‘distinguished,’" while not applying that description on Klayman. Unruh appears not to have considered the concept that Klayman's legal work, especially of late, is not "distinguished" at all -- or, more to the point, it's distinguished only by its record of failure. (And we haven't even gotten to his own status as a lawbreaker for refusing to pay child support.)
Unruh also cited Dean's complaint of the judge's "mockery of Klayman’s health issues," which according to the affidavit consisted of a broken leg that prevented him from traveling from California to the District of Columbia.
It seems like Dean has a case against Klayman for inadequate (or incompetent) representation.
Unruh failed to mention that Dean, in his affidavit, personally attacked thte judge, calling her a "woman scorned." Insulting the judge is hardly the best way to successfully argue your case -- something Unruh seemed to recognize by not reporting it.
It's also a sign of Klayman's apparent incompetence as a lawyer that he thinks Dean's insult is acceptable to enter as evidence. No wonder he can't win a case.