Why Breitbart is TOAST (New Court Docs from Shirley Sherrod)

[kpete]

TWITTER Statements by Breitbart and O’Connor are in use in Sherrod lawsuit. Breitbart’s TWITTER Taunting is apparently now part of the Sherrod case. And oh baby, is he still DUMB. In a Twitter exchange months ago I warned him to shut his big fat mouth, but NO. Instead he called my wife a racist and blocked both of us. He calls nearly everyone a racist before he blocks them. His special way of saying, “Kiss my ring.”

Sherrod’s lawyers take no prisoners:

INTRODUCTION

“When Plaintiff first filed her lawsuit in February 2011, Defendants Andrew Breitbart and Larry O’Connor each issued public statements taunting Mrs. Sherrod to “Bring it On,”1 suggesting that Defendants were interested in defending the merits of their defamatory statements. Now, however, several months later, they have thrown up a series of removal, transfer, and dismissal motions, each designed to impose a procedural artifice delaying or preventing an on-the-merits defense of their statements, and each designed to play games with the jurisdiction and venue of the federal courts. Most troubling, however, is the fact that Defendants’ various submissions to this Court demonstrate a consistent pattern of misstating the applicable legal standards and authorities—and also the facts alleged in the Complaint.”

First, Defendants have filed a Special Motion to Dismiss under the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010, an act that—by their own admission—did not become effective until March 31, 2011, nearly a month and a half after the Complaint in this case was filed. To compound this obvious problem, Defendants fail entirely to explain how the Act could possibly have any retroactive effect; instead, they merely conclude it is retroactive in a footnote with a cursory citation to a case that was limited and distinguished by the D.C. Court of Appeals just last year. Moreover, Defendants offer no explanation for why their motion is not procedurally defaulted by the plain language of the statute they are attempting to employ—given that they filed more than two weeks after the statutory deadline had passed. With all of these (and other) fatal flaws, Defendants’ “special” motion fails as a matter of law and should be summarily rejected.

WAY MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/20/977849/-Why-Breitbart-is-TOAST-%28New-Court-Docs-from-Shirley-Sherrod%29?via=siderec

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. .

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YZ1o3x5HS-M/TIJoPlXbqCI/AAAAAAAAD20/hSLUcQOtWNY/s1600/nelson-muntz+haha.jpg

[JDPriestly]

2. Breitbart and friends are just stalling.

[66 dmhlt]

27. Hell, the Shit-on-a-Shingle - errr, Breitbart-on-Toast ...

Is worth the look-see alone at the Link:

[EFerrari]

3. Breitbart is still dumb?!

[chervilant]

4. Please,

folks, give the poor guy a break--he probably needs a dictionary and a thesaurus to wade through the court documents.

[Mopar151]

5. Where he's going, they don't like his kind.......

Punk-ass liar. A common thread, among prospective jailhouse punks - they cannot conceive that: Anyone remembers what they did last week, or could find out. Cops, judges, and most other folks can tell bullshit from brilliance. Lies get found out. Truth matters, and lots of folks can figure it out. Getting snot-hangin' drunk is a poor excuse. Not everyone is a pathalogical liar, or smarter than them. And video lasts about forever.

[SaveAmerica]

6. I saw her speak recently, Breitbart didn't know who he was messing with!

She has a history of not taking anything without giving her all; her conviction to fight for the underdog (this time herself) is contagious. I hope she wins and wins big.

Her family's history is heartbreaking and is why she won't give up the fight for what's right.

[stevenleser]

14. Me too, I think we were at the same place? Lower manhattan? and I agree

No way this lady backs down on anything for a second. Better to take on a dozen wolverines.

[SaveAmerica]

21. Heh heh, that is so true! No, it was in NC

[madrchsod]

7. breitbart=loser

if it was`t for fox news he`d be another homeless guy mumbling to himself

[immoderate]

8. He was on C-SPAN last week.

Interviewed by Armstrong Williams, plugging his book for an hour.

Appalling and disgusting what C-SPAN has become.

--imm

[RebelOne]

9. I saw that also.

Breitbart said that he had done a lot of drinking in college. The host than asked him about his current drinking habits and he got very upset, so he must have something to hide.

[sabrina 1]

17. His raving rants on Twitter about Ted Kennedy's death

eg, were the rantings of someone who was either drunk or so filled with hatred no respectable news outlet would have him on their shows. Yet, he is treated with respect, not just by Fox, but by CNN also. However, Color of Change has succeeded in at least getting MSNBC to tell the truth about him if they ever have him on again.

Good for Shirley for doing what should have been a long time ago with these weasels.

[EFerrari]

13. Lamb played that segment over and over

and even had it in their special "featured books" list.

[immoderate]

30. C-SPAN is a joint venture of The Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute

"All the news that FOX"


--imm

[progressoid]

15. Armstrong Williams?

Haven't heard that name in a while. :puke: Kind of thought he'd gone into early retirement.

[druidity33]

19. The plagiarizer? nt.

[progressoid]

20. The 'getting paid a quarter of million dollars to shill for "No Child Left Behind" '.

What an ass.

[druidity33]

29. Ah, THAT guy. He sure is an ass. nt.

[spooked911]

12. same for a lot of the FoxNews promoted wingnuts, I suspect

:)

[keroro gunsou]

39. we have a winner!

DUzy!

[comtec]

10. as long as bill maher gives him real time on his show....

Can anyone explain to me why bill did that... TWICE!?!?!?

i can understand once, morbid curiosity, but to do it twice and NOT RIP HIM TO SHREDS makes no sense to me.

even someone who was A-political (maher claims to be liberal) would hate this asshole for the lying evil piece of shit that he is.

HOW does he get on real time more than once, and not be TORN ASUNDER?!?!

[ctsnowman]

16. Sometimes Bill is just

high. I don't get it either.

[sabrina 1]

18. Or CNN or MSNBC! It shows the level our media has sunk to.

[alfredo]

25. Bill likes to have controversial people on, just to spark a lively conversation.

[JoeyT]

11. Wait, they tried to use an anti-SLAPP law

to get it dismissed? But I thought right wingers hated anti-SLAPP legislation and opposed it whenever it came up.

[Avant Guardian]

22. His, 'Neener, neener, neener,' tack is backfiring?

"But your honor, it was just hijinks!'

[Doctor_J]

23. You really think this is going to stop him?

:eyes:

the wingers laugh at our feeble pushback

[naaman fletcher]

24. Bretbart will get off fine

All he did was selectivly edit a tape. He didn't fire her, the Obama administration did

[Shining Jack]

26. Yep.

And it was done in a very disturbing way. She was told to pull over and resign via her BlackBerry.

[The Wizard]

28. Is Pox News a defendant?

They broadcast Breitbart's crap without vetting. The again Pox isn't news. It's Republican propaganda. But that's where the real money is. If Liberace could successfully sue the National Enquirer for calling him a homosexual, everyone harmed by Pox should be able to take Murdoch's ill gotten money.
Of course Bush stacked the courts with hacks, so justice is a non factor now.

[naaman fletcher]

31. What law exactly

do you think that Breitbart or fox news broke? there is none. There is nothing illegal in any way about selectively editing a tape. nothing. It happens every day on every news show. Sure Breitbart and Fox are assholes, but Fox is not the only group that played the selectively edited tape, and neither Fox nor Breitbart fired her from her job. The obama administration did.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Defamation, libel, slander...

[naaman fletcher]

34. Nope

None of that happened.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. Yep.

[naaman fletcher]

41. Nope :)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. Of course.

Thank you for conceding.

I'm honored by your perspicacity.

[The Wizard]

33. Civil damages

are not based on violations of the law. She was damaged by Pox and Breitbart. Breitbart deliberately edited the tape to cause her damage and Pox ran with Breitbart's deliberate attempt to cause damage. The amount to which she can prove damages with a preponderance of evidence will determine the amount she receives. Pox has the deep pockets.

[naaman fletcher]

35. Nope

The damages she incurred were because of a rash decision by the Obama administration.

[The Magistrate]

36. You Are Incorrect, Sir

The firing is simply a demonstration of the damage done to her reputation by statements that were published with malicious intent, and knowledge they were false. That is a tort, for which compensation can be got from the person who published the statements. Ms. Sherrod is not a public personage, and so the more stringent standard applied in cases of defaming a person running for public office do not apply.

[naaman fletcher]

37. There were no false statements published.

It was a clip out of context, and that happens 1,000 times per day in the US media.

[The Magistrate]

38. A Court Will Decide, Sir, And Most Likely Against Breitbart

The thing was not only edited with intent, it was characterized by its publisher as proving wrongful acts.

[hifiguy]

43. Great. Piss off the judge

That will work every time. :eyes:

I worked for trial court judges for more than three years. Lie to a judge or mislead them ONCE and you are walking into his/her court with a bullseye on your back for the rest of the time that judge is on the bench. The first judge I clerked for told me to "always go over anything filed by firm XYZ with a fine toothed comb" because attorneys from that firm had tried to pull a fast one on him years before.