Joesph Farrah’s wingnut webpaper World Net Daily ventured into dangerous and treasonous waters today by publish an article by rightwing extremist Larry Klayman (who just so happens to be the lawyer who represented hate group leader Bradlee Dean in his losing libel suit against Rachel Maddow) who makes a case and a call for NEW American Revolution against our current goverment.

“We no longer have a free nation! We no longer have a functional republic! What choice is there when the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government fail and refuse to take into account the profound grievances of the ‘We the People’ and instead walk off to feather their own corrupt establishment nest? Thus, the profound and moving words and self-evident truths contained in the Declaration of Independence ring even more true today than in 1776. They
read just in part, ‘… when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them (meaning ‘We the People’) under absolute Despotism, its is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.’  The time has come after a long line of ‘abuses and usurpations’ for us to rise
up and demand that our current so called rulers leave ‘Dodge City,’ or suffer the consequences as King George III was forced to do.” – Larry Klayman, writing for World Net Daily.

A court recently ordered Klayman to pay his ex-wife $325,000 in attorney fees. Klayman appealed, but a judge tossed it out.  It seems that Larry Klayman, has allegedly sexually abused his own children.

These are buried in the Judges ruling against Klayman:

{¶23} In his third assignment of error, Klayman argues that the magistrate’s finding that he engaged in inappropriate touching of his child was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

{¶24} A judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed by a reviewing court as against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978). A reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court where there exists some competent and credible evidence supporting the judgment rendered by the trial court. Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 614 N.E.2d 742 (1993). Where the decision in a case turns upon credibility of testimony, and where there exists competent and credible evidence supporting the findings and conclusions of the trial court, deference to such findings and conclusions must be given by the reviewing court. See Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (1984); Cohen v. Lamko, Inc., 10 Ohio St.3d 167, 462 N.E.2d 407 (1984). 

{¶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. 

{¶27} 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.

THIS is the cream of the crop of the EXTREME Right Wing.

DISGUSTING