jps wrote in
:

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

jps wrote in
m:

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

jps wrote in
m:

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.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in
:


"jps" wrote in message
...
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?

I can answer that: zero type of law.

You better watch out, you are libeling me! And I'm pretty sure
I'm not a public figure;-)Please, please tell my boss I'm not a
lawyer. I'm sure he'd fire me without any investigation or even
asking me for an explanation, based on your say so, and then I
can sue you for big damages and finally retire. And I can cite
your own arguments against you just by googling these posts! Oh
boy oh boy, pleeeeeeeze.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:27:37 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

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.

So, you're leaning towards the Naughtzi Party and away from the
Democrats. Interesting.

Their plan to invigorate the economy is to give even bigger tax cuts
to the rich. Great plan, eh? Didn't work so well the first time but
maybe if we make the cuts even bigger, it'll have a better effect.

And in the meanwhile we can clock some even bigger deficits.

I love it when folks are disgruntled with the party in power and think
by voting for the other guys things will be solved. We've got the
best congress money can buy and nothin' is gonna stop the rape of the
middle class until campaign finance reform is passed.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:27:37 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

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

jps wrote in
m:

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

jps wrote in
news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com:

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.

So, you're leaning towards the Naughtzi Party and away from the
Democrats. Interesting.

Their plan to invigorate the economy is to give even bigger tax cuts
to the rich. Great plan, eh? Didn't work so well the first time but
maybe if we make the cuts even bigger, it'll have a better effect.

And in the meanwhile we can clock some even bigger deficits.

I love it when folks are disgruntled with the party in power and think
by voting for the other guys things will be solved. We've got the
best congress money can buy and nothin' is gonna stop the rape of the
middle class until campaign finance reform is passed.


How about some people with integrity.....if they exist?

"jps" wrote in message
...


Their plan to invigorate the economy is to give even bigger tax cuts
to the rich. Great plan, eh? Didn't work so well the first time but
maybe if we make the cuts even bigger, it'll have a better effect.


Who is proposing "bigger" tax cuts?
All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in
:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

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

jps wrote in
news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com:

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?

I can answer that: zero type of law.

You better watch out, you are libeling me! And I'm pretty sure
I'm not a public figure;-)Please, please tell my boss I'm not a
lawyer. I'm sure he'd fire me without any investigation or even
asking me for an explanation, based on your say so, and then I
can sue you for big damages and finally retire. And I can cite
your own arguments against you just by googling these posts! Oh
boy oh boy, pleeeeeeeze.


In your professional opinion, do you think Plume is lying about her law
degree?

wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in
:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

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

jps wrote in
news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com:

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?

I can answer that: zero type of law.

You better watch out, you are libeling me! And I'm pretty sure
I'm not a public figure;-)Please, please tell my boss I'm not a
lawyer. I'm sure he'd fire me without any investigation or even
asking me for an explanation, based on your say so, and then I
can sue you for big damages and finally retire. And I can cite
your own arguments against you just by googling these posts! Oh
boy oh boy, pleeeeeeeze.


Oh boy, you're a moron.

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.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:34:24 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .


Their plan to invigorate the economy is to give even bigger tax cuts
to the rich. Great plan, eh? Didn't work so well the first time but
maybe if we make the cuts even bigger, it'll have a better effect.


Who is proposing "bigger" tax cuts?
All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

From Huffpost:

After opposing, stalling, stonewalling and filibustering almost every
recession-related bill for the past year, Republican lawmakers have
finally proposed a jobs plan of their own: a bigger, more expensive
version of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

The Economic Freedom Act of 2010 -- introduced by Reps. Jim Jordan
(R-Ohio) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) -- proposes deep tax cuts
favoring the wealthiest in America, a reduction in regulatory
oversight and the elimination of a federal tax on the estates of
millionaires, which will allow wealthy investors to escape taxes
entirely on a significant portion of their income.

Republicans say the bill will create jobs where President Obama's
policies have failed to do so.

"The multi-trillion dollar government stimulus programs and
taxpayer-funded bailouts have failed," reads the bill's official press
release. "A growing private sector economy is the only 'stimulus
program' that will create the jobs needed to restore America's
economic strength."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a conference call on
Tuesday that the GOP's proposal will not only fail to stimulate job
growth, but will triple the deficit by 2015 and devastate an
already-shrinking American middle class.

"The tax cuts they want to give, as usual under Republican policies,
will give 62 percent of the tax cuts to the top 1 percent of
Americans," Hoyer said. "Or said another way, an average $467 tax cut
to working Americans in the middle of the income levels, and to the
top 1 percent earners, an average of $157,000 tax cut, and to Goldman
Sachs, $2.6 billion in tax cuts. When you analyze that, you know what
is happening is the same old Bush policies of advantaging the wealthy
at the expense of the middle income working people and tax cuts which
did not, as they were advertised to, grow the economy and grow jobs.
In fact, they did just the opposite."

Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at the
Center for American Progress Action Fund, said the Republican proposal
is "unaffordable on a level we've never seen before."

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, jps wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?