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****.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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!

"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

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.