Bradlee Dean's attorney, Larry Klayman, allegedly sexually abused his own children

Dean's lawyer, Larry Klayman (left), allegedly sexually abused his own kids. To the best of our knowledge, he's not gay.

Dean's lawyer, Larry Klayman (left), allegedly sexually abused his own kids. To the best of our knowledge, he's not gay.

Bradlee Dean has long linked homosexuality and child sexual abuse. For instance, in a blog post from June about Larry Brinken's child porn arrest, Dean wrote, "The news about Brinken's horrific child-pornography crimes followed the conclusion of 'Pride Week,' yet again puling off the mask of the radical homosexual agenda to expose who they are, what they are and who their target really is, showing who is truly under attack."


-- Bradlee Dean's troupe to Iowa public school: Homosexual lifestyle 'literally kills' gays [VIDEO]

-- In St. Cloud, Bradlee Dean speaks to more protesters than supporters

Well this week brought some uncomfortable news for the tracksuit-wearing homophobic preacher -- his notorious lawyer, the presumably straight Larry Klayman, has allegedly sexually abused his own children.

[jump] A court recently ordered Klayman to pay his ex-wife $325,000 in attorney fees. Klayman appealed, but a judge tossed it out. What's interesting, however, are a couple nuggets buried in the judge's ruling (via Ken Avidor -- emphasis his):

{¶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.

Turns out, gays aren't the only ones capable of disturbing, criminal sexual behavior -- apparently even conservative straight guys tight with Bradlee Dean can turn out to be total creeps.

If Dean distances himself from Klayman in light of these allegations, who will help him figure out how to reimburse Rachel Maddow and the now-defunct Minnesota Independent the nearly $25,000 in attorney's fees he owes them?