Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Anything can and will be used against you in a court of law

Andrew Breitbart is not too bright. Shirley Sharrod is suing him and he goes on television and makes statements. Maybe he's not worried because he has rich friends. Andrew was at the Koch Family sponsor private meeting they had with some of their powerful friends. Breitbart was on roller skates(I kid you not) interviewing protesters. He ask several of the people there gotcha questions about Justice Clarence Thomas. One white gentleman said that Justice Thomas should be in the fields. Breitbart said that the statement was racist. Actually that man was being kind to Justice Thomas. There's the old story that was made popular by Malcolm X of the House Negro and the Field Negro. Basically a House Negro is a Uncle Tom and the Field Negro was a rebel much like Nat Turner. The only people that would think that the statement that man made was racist would be Breitbart's audience. The man was accurate Clarence Thomas NEEDS to be in the field.

Andrew is going to get his just desserts and he won't like it. I wonder if he's getting his legal advice from the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe? If he's trying to improve his image by making television appearances, it's not working. All Mrs. Sharrod's lawyers have to do is show the statement Andrew made about her father. Andrew said that Mrs. Sharrod's father was not lynched because he was shot and beaten to death by the Klan and not hanged. I don't think that an all white jury would let Andrew slide after hearing that.

If I was Andrew I would worry a lot. Imagine if he get some African Americans on the jury. They would be familiar with how Andrew tried to destroy the NAACP. They would also be reminded about his friends James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles blackface routine as a pimp and a prostitute that destroyed ACORN. They would be reminded that he WAS friends with known cult leader Glenn Lee Beck. He calls his idol Rush Limbaugh, the man that played the "Magic Negro" song on his radio show.

Andrew just keep talking, you're making Shirley Sharrod's lawyers job easier and easier.


Darth Bacon said...


You've lapsed into utter incoherence.

What ON EARTH is the "Koch Family sponsor private meeting"?

You've gone off your trolley, homey.

Darth Bacon said...


The security word on this post is FAILPARK!!!

Fail Park certainly describes this epicenter of FAIL.

Snappy Dan's Opinions said...

Kid you are a great reason why your momma should have been taken birth control pills.

tha malcontent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary Mayhem said...

Typical, when asked a question, he does not answer the question, but points out an example of someone guilty of the same, it's the same, tired, tu quoque ad hominem fallacious logic that all politicians use...and pundits...

That being said....will Sherrod win her defamation case....I don't think she will. If my time as a paralegal has taught me anything, defamation is the hardest civil suit to win, and it's hardest to win when you might be considered a "public figure"...I say might...Breitbart's defense wil definitely make Ms. Sherrod a public figure. Either way, they have to prove (not beyond a reasonable doubt, however, just with a preponderance of evidence, so that is good for Ms. Sherrod) that Breitbart KNEW that his little stunt was NOT the truth. In this lies the paradox. As you can see, Mr. Breitbart is saying that he failed to watch the whole video; he was an irresponsible journalist, so how could he have "known" what he was reporting was an "untruth"? This will undoubtedly be his defense...Now, on to the public figure element...when a defamation case is made against a public figure, you have to go above and have to prove not only that they knew the statements or writing or whatever was false, but that it was done with there's that whole element too. Even if a jury decides, "oh he watched that whole damn tape" or "I don't care if he watched the whole tape or not, he's responsible" they must determine, did he knowingly perform his stunt, which consisted of untruth about Ms Sherrod, with malicious intent which causeed damage to Ms. Sherrod (which it did). Unless its a defamation per se case. In that case, the stunt in its self is defamatory and no damage has to be proven, but a judge decides if Mrs. Sherrod's case is eligible for defamation per the attorneys would still have to prove damages even after all of that...and didn't Ms. Sherrod resign? I don't remember...if she was forced to resign or fired, then there's your damages right there, if her reputation was severely damaged, those are most likely damages...anything else is up to a jury...

But the most important element is "KNOWINGLY" and I think Breitbart's defense will be clever enough to prove he didn't know...and there goes the whole case...You can't have a defamation case without ALL of the elements present...

kid said...

@Mary Mayhem

I think that Breitbart is screwed. A lot of Civil Rights attorneys are working for free for Mrs. Sharrod. He was trying to sabotage the Pigford case and destroy the NAACP the way they destroyed ACORN. Morris Dees the attorney for the SPLC will probably assist in some capacity. Morris Dees was the one that sued the Klan and took their headquarters and bankrupt them. She might get something for pain and suffering since Breitbart made a joke of the way her father was murdered.

Shaw Kenawe said...


This character Snappy Dan was exposed on another blog for having stolen someone else's work and passed it off as his own.

He's a fraud, and has been exposed for his cheating.

Don't pay any attention to whatever it is, he or she. Once a cheat, always a cheat.

Shaw Kenawe said...


I found the comment I left at the blog where Snappy Dan left his plagiarized comment:

Just a thought, but I think "Snappy Dan's Opinion" should actually be "Snappy Dan's AND Charles Krauthammer's Opinion," since about a third of his comment was plagiarized from Krauthammer's opinion piece.

SDO wrote: "Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over--this is, if it ever existed."

and "Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not..."

and "The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension."


"He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into a criminal defendent."

All plagiarized (and deceitfully incorporated into "Snappy Dan's Opinion" from here.

Everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but not to stealing someone else's ideas and work and passing it off as one's own. That's dishonest.

But it appears people don't mind dishonesty so long as it agrees with their political views.

Mary Mayhem said...

Man Kid, I hope you are right...But we all know how people get screwed these days....I do like how he is going around making an ass out of himself...

Snappy Dan's Opinions said...

Shaw Kenawe, I resent what you wrote about me.
Plagiarism is unethical. Plagiarism is stealing the words that were written or said of others.
My comment was neither.
You have stretched you nonsense a bit to far.
To say that 1/3rd of my comment was found somewhere else is ludicrous.
Sorry lady but your research was in vain.
Just because you and the kid here are 2 racist's , don't try to degrade the messenger.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I stand by what I wrote.

It is factual.

Apparently Snappy Dan is a liar as well as a plagiarist.

Snappy Dan's Opinions said...

Shaw Kenawe is a plagiarist

she said "I stand by what I wrote."

"I stand by what I wrote" Can be found here:

Do you see how stupid you sound? And how stupid you are.

Snappy Dan's Opinions said...

Apparently Shaw Kenawe is a liar as well as a plagiarist.

Mary Mayhem said...

LMAO..Shaw you rock.

Unknown said...

Sherrod will lose epically. There is no case here.

Shaw Kenawe said...


Snappy Whatever is too ignorant to know the difference between a using a common phrase "I stand by what I wrote," and stealing whole passages from other writers, as he has done and which I have documented.

I refuse to discuss anything further with this charlatan. It is beneath me.

Snappy Dan is a troll who contributes nothing to any discussion here--Redneck and the Bacon dude included.

kid said...

From Jenn of the Jungle blog:

cuchieddie Not to appear to be racist or anything but Raines, (black) Waters, (black) Meeks, (black) Clay, (black) Davis (black) were all taking kickbacks as was Barnyard Barney Freak.
Was anything done to correct this corruption? Fuck no! Is Freddie Mac & Fammie Mae still in business? Unfortunately yes. If you or I did this we would be in prison but these cheating commie fucks skate away. And just so you know, this is just a teeny tiny part of our very very corrupt government. These black chimps steal from us the taxpayers who pay their salary yet they continue to play the race card against every caucasian on the planet. Fuck them and fuck their leader Barry.

Jenn of the Jungle Sadly race may play onto this as they need to pander to their voters.

@Jenn of the Jungle

Mrs. Sharrod will not lose her case. This is bigger than her. This is really about the disenfranchisement of a group of people. First ACORN was taken out now they want to get rid of America's oldest civil rights organization. They were coming for the unions next.

You quote Eric Blair but forgot that he was a Socialist. Didn't you get the memo, the POTUS is not a Socialist. Bill Sammon just lied about it.

Snappy Dan's Opinions said...

Kid you are a great reason why your momma should have been taken birth control pills.

April 21, 2011 5:10 AM


Looks like your mama DID take birth control pills. Now if you want me to get off your mama tell her to pull her skirt up the next time she's around me.

You don't want to get into a dozens contests with me.

@Shaw Kenawe

Keep up the good work.

Darth Bacon said...

If anyone of you halfwits had an inkling about how defamation suits work, you'd understand that Breitbart has the truth as his shield, and that Sharrod has not only to establish that Breitbart intentionally defamed her (sorry, he didn't), but she must also demonstrate damages.

Considering she refused to return to her job when it was offered, any competent attorney will argue her damaged were self-inflicted.

I love how you kiddies 'reason'- you wish something to be so, so it is so. More intelligent commentary comes from children.

Mary Mayhem said...

Once again, more idiocy from fat ass Darth Bacon from Philly... In a defamation per se suit (different than a defamation suit), no damages have to be proven. The defamation in itself is considered to be the damage. Second of all, she was fired, or forced to resign. Either way, there's the damages. Damages do not have to quantifiable. A jury will decide what is a reasonable amount. The fact that damages were done, and again this is only in a regular defamation suit as opposed to a defamation per se suit, in which no damages have to be proven at all, only has to be proven to a jury within a preponderance of evidence. The only thing that will possibly mess this case up for her is the element of him "knowingly" defaming her: intent. Another possible hang-up is the defense can convince the jury to believe she is a public figure, in which the plaintiff would have to prove that there was intent to defame with "malice."

Darth Bacon said...

So you've expanded on my point.

Not a public figure = no defamation.

Then there's the need to demonstrate malice.


kid said...

Andrew Breitbart declared war on the Black Community and the Black Community will declare war on him. This isn't a game anymore, this is about disrespect. This is about keeping people in servitude, wage slaves. Why is it that Andrew the Asshole never went after the Aryan Nation or Stormfront? He only wants to go after minorities because he thinks that they CAN'T fight back.

We all know what would have happened to his fat ugly ass if he went after real racist.

Darth Bacon said...

Gee, maybe Breitbart isn't interested in White Power groups because, yanno, they have NOTHING to do with anything at all.

Or, perhaps it's because White Power groups aren't in the streets demanding permanent subsidy at the expense of others.

Or, maybe it's because White Power groups can't get a President elected, while minorities can.

Maybe one day, you'll take off the training wheels Reverend Wright keeps you in, and become a man.

Men control their own destiny.

You're a mewling baby, and you're an insult to anyone who has ever pulled themselves up from nothing by their own wits and willingness to put off for later, the things they want so they may have the things they need.

You see someone living better than you, and you think "No fair! They're holding me back! I want that NOW!", instead of what people thought 40 years ago, which was "I want that life for my kids, so I'm going to work my ass off till they can earn it for themselves."

It's not only sad, and sleazy, but it's not going to last much longer. You Thefties won't learn that demanding 49% of us pay for what the 51% of you want is killing the Golden Goose.

Soon, you still won't have what you want, but there won't be anyone left for you to vote for taxing to death.

Then who will you mooch from?

kid said...

@Darth Bacon
Well we already know who you're going to mooch from? US.

Now about Rev. Wright he served at first in the Navy and then in the Marines. President Johnson gave him a commodation for saving his live. He got a Pilot out of Syria. What type of shit does a black man got to do before you treat him AS A AMERICAN?

Limbaugh's fucked up lazy ass didn't go in the service because he had a boil on his ass. Judge Limbaugh son and Grandpa Judge Limbaugh's grandson can just walk into a place with "white privilege" and get a announcing job in baseball. Sean Klannity can walk into a studio with racist Bob Grant and get a job. Tom Joyner "The Flyjock" has to fly to two different cities and do two radio shows a day. If anyone is lazy it's your white racist LAZY ass.

You mother fuckers have been "mooching" OFF OF EVERYBODY FOR MORE THAN 500 YEARS!

Affirmative Action WAS ended in the 80's by Ronald Reagan and his BITCH Clarence Thomas, THE LAST BENEFICIARY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

You are a little punk ass bitch. If you were black for 1 minute, you blow your mother fuckin"' pea brain out.

Blacks and Hispanics work and for a lot less than your punk childish bitch ass.

Right now to those Union workers Socialism, Communism, and Marxism look a lot better than a Plutocracy. You can't link what's going on with the Unions to black moochers anymore. The moochers are the Koch Brother, the guy that 's going to bring Socialism to America faster than anyone thought.

See bitch I know you're a punk because you pick on women and their children. That's the Republican Party for you BIG RICH GROWN WHITE MEN ATTACKING white women and their little children. That's you to a "T" ain't it?

kid said...

You really want to know what Black people want Darth? They want to be left alone.

In 2004 when I went to the polls George Bush bitch, J. Kenneth Blackwell made everybody in Cleveland go to work 3 hours late. No we didn't have voting problem because we're stupid, we had them because this it the most heaviest Democratic county in the state. When people went to work, their supervisors DIDN'T SAY SHIT! They were afraid to GET THEIR ASS KICKED. The newsmedia documented this.

Why do you keep moving the goal post and putting your thumb on the scales?

Because you can't win any other way.

People aren't falling for your bullshit anymore. You can pay for Jesse Lee Peterson to hate blacks or Malkin to attack Immigrants, or Tammy Bruce to go after Gays, but sooner or later you're going to run out of people to lie for and to you.

You can pay a prostitute or a minority Republican for anything but the truth.

If you throw this President out, the world WILL NEVER TRUST AMERICA AGAIN.

Trump wants to cheat China.

Palin thinks that all Muslims pray to the Devil.

Fox keep putting out the lie that Mexico wants to invade America.

With all this xenophobia and bullshit who would want to do business with America?


Mary Mayhem said...

Not what I said at all Darth, but you can continue arguing for arguments sake...I said If Breitbart's attorneys want to make it into a public figure case, then they will add the extra element of malice for Sherrod's people to have to prove. If they do not, Ms. Sherrod's people do not have to prove malice at all. The decision of whether to try to make Ms. Sherrod out to be a public figure is up to the defense. They will have to decide if this is advantageous to their case and then file a motion. Now, whether she will actually be considered a public figure in the trial is up to the Judge; they approve or deny the motion made by the defense. Think The People v. Larry Flynt.

All Ms. Sherrod's team has to prove is intent, untruth passed to a third party (the actual defamatory part), and damages. And in a Defamation per se case, which the plaintiff may file a motion for, damages don't have to be shown or proven at all, the defamation is declared to be damaging in itself.

My take it, Breitbart is such a batshit crazy liar, it will be hard to get a jury to believe he knowingly, and with intent, passed along false information.

You can argue with me about this until you are blue in the face Darth, but THIS is one thing THAT I ABSOLUTELY know a paralegal, I have billed HOURSSSSSSS drafting and preparing these stupid suits....and this one isn't even that complex......