On Aug 4, 8:53*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



jps wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
om:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on *first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even
passed the
bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a
lawyer from
my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he
intended to
libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed
liable in
the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of
libel?
Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past
30
years? *Real estate?

Finally a reasonable question. Yes, as a matter of fact, my
practice did in the past include real estate for several years.
Mostly I advised corporations in their business transactions,
contracts, M&A, that sort of thing. For the last ten years I've
been the general counsel of a nationwise logistics company. With
executives spouting their mouths off all over the place, in print
or live, I deal with libel and slander issues all of the time.
Almost anytime someone is fired the issue arises as well. I'm
sure there are bigger experts in the field, but I think I know
the basics and the real world on this issue better the amateurs
on this board. They can question my creditials, or they can learn
a thing or two. And BTW, I consider myself neither conservative
or liberal, more libertarian than anything; socially liberal,
economically conservative. I'm a life long democrat who voted for
Reagan and both Bushs. I don't like left wing democrats or right
wing republicans, but lately the dems bother me more because they
are just as partisan as the GOP, but are hypocrites about it.

Anyone who believes you're a lawyer is dumber than you.

Anyone who believes you are older than 12 is dumber than you.