Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:35:03 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:53:06 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/30/10 11:25 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:49:04 -0700, wrote:

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

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, 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.
Since she was a political appointee and not US Civil Service it would
be easy to say she was a public figure.
This will be an issue before the court. It will really come down to
where she brings the suit and who is on the jury. If she is in DC she
will likely win and since that is where Breitbart works, he has no
reason to get a change of venue.
The only way he can win is if he can successfully bring the freedom of
the press argument up in appeal or of the judge dismisses it in
motions but that is a very good possibility. The courts seem to come
down on the side of journalists most of the time even if the
journalist has an agenda.

Again, the only winners will be the lawyers.



Uh...I doubt Ms. Sherrod would be considered a "public figure" prior to
Breitbart's attack for her purposes of pursuing a defamation lawsuit.
And even if she were a public figure, Breitbart acted with malice. That
negates any claim Breitbart might make that Ms. Sherrod was a public
figure.

Jurors in any fair-minded city where people of color are fairly
represented will decide in her favor, I think.

Let's not forget that Breitbart has a rep for being involved in
defamatory news reports. The videos he funded against Acorn were found
to be "highly edited" to make them inflammatory.

My guess is that Breitbart will want to settle this out of court. I hope
Ms. Sherrod tells him to go **** himself. We have some lawyers in the DC
area who will turn Breitbart inside out. I hope he has significant

Bingo, we have a winner. Someone who understands what happened in this
case and what happens with the press all of the time.

Bull****.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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

jps wrote in
:

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.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:12:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

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


You're deluded. Everyone involved has acknowledged she was forced to
resign.




Why? Something is fishy about this whole story.

Ms. Sherrod has demonstrated that she is an intelligent woman with years
of
public service experience. Seems to me that the first logical question
she
(or anyone) would ask when request to resign a job would be, "Why?"
How
many people would immediately resign with no reason given for the
request?
If the reason was given, why didn't she challenge the accuracy of the
edited
video - without submitting her resignation.

Doesn't make sense.

CC

Well, it makes sense if the whole story of the calls to the cell phone
were accurate, and I have serious doubts. Still more falling on a sword
for this idiot president...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

Still an idiot I see...

The idiot thinks he has standing to judge a man with 10 times the IQ
and 100 times the intellect.

A gnat among men.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...
Uh...I doubt Ms. Sherrod would be considered a "public figure" prior to
Breitbart's attack for her purposes of pursuing a defamation lawsuit.
And even if she were a public figure, Breitbart acted with malice. That
negates any claim Breitbart might make that Ms. Sherrod was a public
figure.

Jurors in any fair-minded city where people of color are fairly
represented will decide in her favor, I think.

Let's not forget that Breitbart has a rep for being involved in
defamatory news reports. The videos he funded against Acorn were found
to be "highly edited" to make them inflammatory.

My guess is that Breitbart will want to settle this out of court. I hope
Ms. Sherrod tells him to go **** himself. We have some lawyers in the DC
area who will turn Breitbart inside out. I hope he has significant

Bingo, we have a winner. Someone who understands what happened in this
case and what happens with the press all of the time.

Bull****.

Care to make a wager?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:47:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:55:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The only way he can win is if he can successfully bring the freedom of
the press argument up in appeal or of the judge dismisses it in
motions but that is a very good possibility. The courts seem to come
down on the side of journalists most of the time even if the
journalist has an agenda.

He's not a journalist. You said he would claim to be an entertainer.
Which
is it.

I believe he works for the Washington Times (newspaper)
He also has a blog.

Again, the only winners will be the lawyers.

Lawyers always win. lol


They collect 100% from the defendant and 30-50% from the plaintiff.
That is more than just winning. You can see why torts are so near and
dear to the legal profession.
Even when they lose, they get to deduct all of their expenses from
their taxes.

Then, he can't claim he's an entertainer.

Huh? Lawyers don't collect 100% from anyone. That's nonsense.

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed? The
plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if you don't
like it.



Well, expenses are expenses. Not sure what that has to do with anything.
If
a plumber tries and fails to fix a busted toilet, should he be prevented
from deducting the cost of the parts?

The plumber doesn't get to break the toilet in the first place.

?? If the plumber breaks the toilet, and he has to replace it, that is a
business expense.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed? The
plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if you
don't like it.


You no comprende English?



--
Me

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.


Cool! You gave yourself a JD.

--
Me

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if you
don't like it.


You no comprende English?



--
Me


You stupid? Si!

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On 7/31/10 3:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
reimbursed? The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated
%. Sorry if you don't like it.


You no comprende English?



--
Me


You stupid? Si!



Stupid is only the beginning of his problems. Imagine, if you can, being
such a loser that you have to post here with someone else's ID.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On 7/31/10 3:00 PM, jps wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.

Bert received his education as an enlistee in the marines, where he
spent many hours studying the ins and outs of our legal system,
including the important aspect of defamation of character.

Bertie's boy Breitbart is going to have a hard time defending the malice
behind his actions. To get off the hook for what he did, the acts have
to be "absent malice."

Whoops.

And Breitbart's previous incidents of faking news with malicious intent
will be part of the defamation trial, if there is one.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Jul 31, 2:13*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in message

...



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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Jul 31, 3:14*pm, TopBassDog wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:13*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

Of course, I find that I made an obvious error in typing the word,
"statement." So therefore i am lowering myself to your level,
D'Plume.

Don't you feel fortunate?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 2:13 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in message

...



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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if
you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

I'm sure you didn't attend at all! Ouch, that had to sting. Sorry!

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 3:14 pm, TopBassDog wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:13 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry
if you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

Of course, I find that I made an obvious error in typing the word,
"statement." So therefore i am lowering myself to your level,
D'Plume.

Don't you feel fortunate?

I really am not concerned with your typos. And, yes, I feel fortunate about
that.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article 8aa22b4c-90d9-49f1-a8e6-e9915bcbb5d7
@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jul 31, 2:13*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in message

...



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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

I am so sorry but I have to cite you for unmanly use of the letter "U".
Please refrain from that tooty fruity spelling here in this here news
group! Save it for Bonnie and his daughter...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/31/10 3:00 PM, jps wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.

Bert received his education as an enlistee in the marines, where he spent
many hours studying the ins and outs of our legal system, including the
important aspect of defamation of character.

Bertie's boy Breitbart is going to have a hard time defending the malice
behind his actions. To get off the hook for what he did, the acts have to
be "absent malice."

Whoops.

And Breitbart's previous incidents of faking news with malicious intent
will be part of the defamation trial, if there is one.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 3:14 pm, TopBassDog wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:13 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry
if you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

Of course, I find that I made an obvious error in typing the word,
"statement." So therefore i am lowering myself to your level,
D'Plume.

Don't you feel fortunate?

I really am not concerned with your typos. And, yes, I feel fortunate
about that.





--
Me

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Jul 31, 5:13*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article 8aa22b4c-90d9-49f1-a8e6-e9915bcbb5d7
@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...





On Jul 31, 2:13*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

I am so sorry but I have to cite you for unmanly use of the letter "U".
Please refrain from that tooty fruity spelling here in this here news
group! Save it for Bonnie and his daughter...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

I can't resist. I'm Canadian, eh?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Jul 31, 5:11*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...



On Jul 31, 2:13 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if
you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

I'm sure you didn't attend at all! Ouch, that had to sting. Sorry!

Sting? Is that what I was supposed to feel? Try harder D'Plume.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.

How are those fine German screwdrivers working out for you?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:04:15 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.

How are those fine German screwdrivers working out for you?

They're brilliant, unlike you.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:37 -0500, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

I agree that the whitehouse ****ed up, in the very same way they and
the congress ****ed up when Breitbart scammed them on the Acorn
fiasco.

They're so quick to want to sweep any controversy away that they get
suckered with bad info. I think it was Vilsack who screwed the pooch.

In any case, it puts the whitehouse in a bad light.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 5:11 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...



On Jul 31, 2:13 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry
if
you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

I'm sure you didn't attend at all! Ouch, that had to sting. Sorry!

Sting? Is that what I was supposed to feel? Try harder D'Plume.

Yes, we know you're an unfeeling racist/moron. Next question.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:37 -0500, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

I agree that the whitehouse ****ed up, in the very same way they and
the congress ****ed up when Breitbart scammed them on the Acorn
fiasco.

They're so quick to want to sweep any controversy away that they get
suckered with bad info. I think it was Vilsack who screwed the pooch.

In any case, it puts the whitehouse in a bad light.

I agree. They really blew it. What they did from top to Vilack was was dumb,
dumb, dumb.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:04:01 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:37 -0500, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

I agree that the whitehouse ****ed up, in the very same way they and
the congress ****ed up when Breitbart scammed them on the Acorn
fiasco.

They're so quick to want to sweep any controversy away that they get
suckered with bad info. I think it was Vilsack who screwed the pooch.

In any case, it puts the whitehouse in a bad light.

I agree. They really blew it. What they did from top to Vilack was was dumb,
dumb, dumb.

They're trigger happy with their own and gun shy with the enemy.

Seems bassackwards. Need to reinstall balls on the Democrats.

Time for a Grayson pep talk.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:37 -0500, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

I agree that the whitehouse ****ed up, in the very same way they and
the congress ****ed up when Breitbart scammed them on the Acorn
fiasco.

They're so quick to want to sweep any controversy away that they get
suckered with bad info. I think it was Vilsack who screwed the pooch.

In any case, it puts the whitehouse in a bad light.


It's refreshing to see you libbers telling the truth about this situation.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:04:01 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:37 -0500, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

I agree that the whitehouse ****ed up, in the very same way they and
the congress ****ed up when Breitbart scammed them on the Acorn
fiasco.

They're so quick to want to sweep any controversy away that they get
suckered with bad info. I think it was Vilsack who screwed the pooch.

In any case, it puts the whitehouse in a bad light.

I agree. They really blew it. What they did from top to Vilack was was
dumb,
dumb, dumb.

They're trigger happy with their own and gun shy with the enemy.

Seems bassackwards. Need to reinstall balls on the Democrats.

Time for a Grayson pep talk.

Definitely.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:37 -0500, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

I agree that the whitehouse ****ed up, in the very same way they and
the congress ****ed up when Breitbart scammed them on the Acorn
fiasco.

They're so quick to want to sweep any controversy away that they get
suckered with bad info. I think it was Vilsack who screwed the pooch.

In any case, it puts the whitehouse in a bad light.


It's refreshing to see you libbers telling the truth about this situation.


Oh go away. You're a moron. You have no credibility and you lie over an
over.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

On 7/31/10 3:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
reimbursed? The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated
%. Sorry if you don't like it.


You no comprende English?



--
Me


You stupid? Si!



Stupid is only the beginning of his problems. Imagine, if you can, being
such a loser that you have to post here with someone else's ID.

Then quit doing it, spoofer.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.


Cool! You gave yourself a JD.

Spoofer alert! *I* gave myself a degree from Yale that doesn't exist, so
who am I to call out others for doing the same?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On 8/2/10 8:28 AM, Harry? wrote:
In ,
says...

On 7/31/10 3:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Harry wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
reimbursed? The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated
%. Sorry if you don't like it.


You no comprende English?



--
Me


You stupid? Si!



Stupid is only the beginning of his problems. Imagine, if you can, being
such a loser that you have to post here with someone else's ID.

Then quit doing it, spoofer.


The ID Spoofer apparently doesn't realize how lame his spoofing makes
him look.

Well, what would you expect from LimpDick Jim, the retired navy paint
chipper.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"Harry?" wrote in message
...
: In article ,
: says...
:
: On 7/31/10 3:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
:
: "Harry ?" wrote in message
: ...
: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message
: ...
:
: The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
: plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,
:
: Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
: reimbursed? The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a
negotiated
: %. Sorry if you don't like it.
:
:
: You no comprende English?
:
:
:
: --
: Me
:
:
: You stupid? Si!
:
:
:
: Stupid is only the beginning of his problems. Imagine, if you can, being
: such a loser that you have to post here with someone else's ID.
:
: Then quit doing it, spoofer.

My brother is quite perturbed by all of you guys using similar monikers.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

On 8/2/10 8:28 AM, Harry? wrote:
In ,
says...

On 7/31/10 3:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Harry wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
reimbursed? The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated
%. Sorry if you don't like it.


You no comprende English?



--
Me


You stupid? Si!



Stupid is only the beginning of his problems. Imagine, if you can, being
such a loser that you have to post here with someone else's ID.

Then quit doing it, spoofer.


The ID Spoofer apparently doesn't realize how lame his spoofing makes
him look.

Well, what would you expect from LimpDick Jim, the retired navy paint
chipper.

Actually, spoofer, you are bringing up a good point. People spoof the
real me because I'm such a lying, insulting, nasty piece of thrash and I
don't even realize it.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

jps wrote in :

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?"

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

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

jps wrote in
:

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?"


"Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute
this."

Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you
know what you're talking about.