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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?"

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.

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
:

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?

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
assets to lose.

On 7/30/10 4:32 PM, wrote:
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
assets to lose.

The strange thing is, it will be the media that ends up supporting
Breitbart. They don't want the precedent that an edited tape is
slander no matter what the motive is.
TV news is all edited tape. They will take a 40 minute speech and
cherry pick out one line that makes the speaker look stupid, simply as
what they do.


There you go with that moral equivalency again. Breitbart's edited tape
made a woman who was talking about the need for reconciliation into a
racist.