Ousted USDA employee Shirley Sherrod says she will sue blogger Andrew Breitbart

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Good. I hope this goes to trial and makes headline news to exactly the degree his false story did.isit the link for the full news article

The only reason this could go to trial is that a "progressive" judge refuses to follow the law and lets a jury "sort out the mess." Many often do for fear of ruling contrary to popular opinion.

What is "false" about a video clip of an NAACP recording?

What is "false" or "misleading" about the accurate presentation of her statements?

As a "public official," Sherrod has to face responsibility for her own statements.

OMG! Facing responsibility for an accurate recording! Who should have to endure such a thing?

Surely not a racist, bigoted government official, so long as the racism is directed away from a "protected class."

So long as people are willing to ignore facts, and respond on emotion instead of law, we will be subject to specious claims and baseless allegations.

Any litigant MUST prove "damages."

How was Sherrod damaged by the presentation of her own words? Loss of a government job for about 28 hours? Presentation that she was willing at some point in her OFFICIAL position to take race, or class, or wealth into consideration? Statements of remorse? What DAMAGE did she suffer from being exposed as racist, other than being exposed as racist?

When did the truth become fodder for 'racist' and 'discrimination' claptrap?

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
What is "false" about a video clip of an NAACP recording?

The big white letters on blue screen at the beginning of his version of the video.

What is "false" or "misleading" about the accurate presentation of her statements?

The big white letters on blue screen at the beginning of his version of the video. The context the lines she says were placed in.

As a "public official," Sherrod has to face responsibility for her own statements.

As a liar, so does brightbart.

OMG! Facing responsibility for an accurate recording! Who should have to endure such a thing?

It is not accurate.

Surely not a racist, bigoted government official, so long as the racism is directed away from a "protected class."

Obviously you have no clue what was wrong with the video if you believe she was a racist government official.

So long as people are willing to ignore facts, and respond on emotion instead of law, we will be subject to specious claims and baseless allegations.

Like the fact that she is not a racist because she saved those white people's farm or like the fact that she was not a government official?

Any litigant MUST prove "damages."

She was fired.

How was Sherrod damaged by the presentation of her own words? Loss of a government job for about 28 hours? Presentation that she was willing at some point in her OFFICIAL position to take race, or class, or wealth into consideration? Statements of remorse? What DAMAGE did she suffer from being exposed as racist, other than being exposed as racist?

When we she exposed as a racist government official? I have not seen any such video yet?

When did the truth become fodder for 'racist' and 'discrimination' claptrap?

deny ignorance

jw

No problem with the firm grasp you have on it at the moment.

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae

Originally posted by jdub297
What is "false" about a video clip of an NAACP recording?

The big white letters on blue screen at the beginning of his version of the video.

Which provide an accurate description of her statements?

OMG! Facing responsibility for an accurate recording! Who should have to endure such a thing?

It is not accurate.

It is an absolutely accurate recording.

Obviously you have no clue what was wrong with the video if you believe she was a racist government official.

Her words speak for themselves. Spin them all you want.

Like the fact that she is not a racist because she saved those white people's farm or like the fact that she was not a government official?

No, like the fact that she made her initial decision on "race", then revised it upon "class."

Come on, if she could've done "X", but decided to do "X-1" due to race or class or wealth or poverty, she is PREJUDICED.

She was fired.

And re-hired, and lionized by the likes of you. And returned to work at 10X her previous responsibility.

How was Sherrod damaged by the presentation of her own words?

Loss of a government job for about 28 hours?

Presentation that she was willing at some point in her OFFICIAL position to take race, or class, or wealth into consideration? Statements of remorse?
What DAMAGE did she suffer from being exposed as racist, other than being exposed as racist?

I guess that's cool. So, when you apply for my job opening, and I decide on these 'criteria', you won't cry?

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Which provide an accurate description of her statements?

Not even close. How about you quote them for me and explain which parts are true. That should be easy.

It is an absolutely accurate recording.

No, it was not. We can do this all day.

Her words speak for themselves. Spin them all you want.

Her words show she was not a government official when this whole thing went down so make up your mind. Are you listening to her words or what you want to believe?

No, like the fact that she made her initial decision on "race", then revised it upon "class."

You do not understand that at all, do you? She did NOT go with the racist way of thinking and instead thought about class and realized race does not matter. Wow you are not bright.

Come on, if she could've done "X", but decided to do "X-1" due to race or class or wealth or poverty, she is PREJUDICED.

But she didn't did she? She ended up doing X+1+1+1+1+1 until she saved them white folks farm.

And re-hired, and lionized by the likes of you. And returned to work at 10X her previous responsibility.

When was she re-hired?

How was Sherrod damaged by the presentation of her own words?

Loss of a government job for about 28 hours?

Loss is loss.

Presentation that she was willing at some point in her OFFICIAL position to take race, or class, or wealth into consideration?

You really have no clue what you saw in that video and this explains why you INSIST it was accurate. SHE WAS NOT WORKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY AT THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Statements of remorse?
What DAMAGE did she suffer from being exposed as racist, other than being exposed as racist?

Why do the white folks at the center of that story insist she is not a racist? You know better than them?

I guess that's cool. So, when you apply for my job opening, and I decide on these 'criteria', you won't cry?

Sure. When I come to you looking for a job, use any criteria you like.

deny ignorance

jw

You got a big ol' bear hug on it there pal.

reply to post by Adevoc Satanae


Shirley Sherrod may have made her STATEMENTS after her authority expired.
She made her DECISIONS while clothed with authority.

Whether based on race, class or wealth, she violated the proscripts of the program she administered at that time.

The videos of her statements were 100% accurate; even she and the NAACP do not try to deny this. Instead, they try to explain them away, or qualify them by later "confessions."

Too little, too late.

Try as you like, you cannot change an accurate recording from becoming admissible evidence.

The only 'predicate' questions are:
"Is this an accurate recording of the events presented;"
"Do they fairly and accurately represent the events as they transpired?"

Please check your Federal Rules of Evidence and Rules of Procedure before you attempt to offer slanted scripts of what is or what will transpire.

Sherrod must face the facts if she wants "justice."

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Adevoc Satanae

 

Shirley Sherrod may have made her STATEMENTS after her authority expired.
She made her DECISIONS while clothed with authority.

No.

No!

NO!!!!!!!!!!

You need to at least watch the video once. She explains it all in "her own words!"
You are just so far off on this it is scary. Not one thing that happened with that farmer had to do with any official anything.

Whether based on race, class or wealth, she violated the proscripts of the program she administered at that time.

Actually, she technically did not and if you listen to "her own words" you will see that. She had to call herself on what she thought was a moral injustice because there were no violations to stop her. Jesus, did you even try listening to it?

The videos of her statements were 100% accurate; even she and the NAACP do not try to deny this. Instead, they try to explain them away, or qualify them by later "confessions."

That is 100% BS. She is suing because of this!!!!!!!!!!

Too little, too late.

Try as you like, you cannot change an accurate recording from becoming admissible evidence.

Dude, you do not even know what any version of the video said so you should just stop right now.

The only 'predicate' questions are:
"Is this an accurate recording of the events presented;"
"Do they fairly and accurately represent the events as they transpired?"

Not even close. Just look how much you are getting wrong and the corrections are even in the edited versions.

Please check your Federal Rules of Evidence and Rules of Procedure before you attempt to offer slanted scripts of what is or what will transpire.

Sherrod must face the facts if she wants "justice."

jw

You need to get some facts. How about we start with the official capacity you insist she was working with. What was her job title at that time and who did she report to?

reply to post by jdub297


Are you an attorney? I'm not.

I read the information at the link and other places where attorneys say she has a very good case for defamation. She appears to be being advised by many.

As you say, it will be up to the judge (whichever label she gets) and maybe a jury to decide.

[edit on 8/3/2010 by ~Lucidity]

jdub, are you actually familiar with the timeline and the information about this case? No offense, but it doesn't seems so.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Yes, I am. I worked against the Federal "allotment" system for many years insofar as it affected rural peanut, grass and fruit producers throughout the 90's. I've successfully challenged discriminatory and prejudiced senses of "entitlement" for more than 20 years.

Sherrod was one of many in the South who viewed their little pots of money as treasures for the intended recipients to contest against each other to get their dribbles, regardless of Federal standards of qualification.

Sherrod adhered to the same principles by which she will see her comeuppance: [s]he who controls the 'gold' makes the rules.

Face it, her words are clear; they reflect her mindset.

Deny it and give up your credibility.

She can "qualify" and "explain" all she wants; but, the statement speaks for itself!

jw

Originally posted by jdub297


She can "qualify" and "explain" all she wants; but, the statement speaks for itself!

jw

Apparently not because you think she was working for the government or the USDA or some office in particular when she explains in her own words the reality.

I think the entire video speaks for itself. And for her. But I do understand where you're coming from now

reply to post by Adevoc Satanae

When you grow up, have an adult explain to you what it means when a government official has the power to control money allocations, loans and grants.

Even if that person moves on to future wealth and rewards, her decisions have affected those against whom she discriminated.

Facts are facts.

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Adevoc Satanae

 

When you grow up, have an adult explain to you what it means when a government official has the power to control money allocations, loans and grants.

When you grow up, have an adult explain to you that Shirley was NOT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL!!!!!!!!!

Even if that person moves on to future wealth and rewards, her decisions have affected those against whom she discriminated.

Who? Someone you just made up? The person in question was not a government official.

Facts are facts.

deny ignorance

jw

The fact is you are ignoring the fact that she was not a government official. You are not even acknowledging it has been pointed out to you. You are just blindly plowing on with your false belief that she was working for the government when this happened.

You are wrong. It is really simple.

reply to post by Adevoc Satanae

As much as I hate to use wiki-anything as "authority, a simple "Google" search proves that you have no legs to stand on:

On July 19, 2010, Shirley Sherrod was forced to resign from her position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture

en.wikipedia.org...

Do you think she spoke before the NAACP just because she was an idiot? No! She was an idiot with power.

Get a life.

jw


[edit on 6-8-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by jdub297


None of that changes the fact that she

WAS

NOT

A

GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL!!!!

She was working with a nonprofit charitable orginisation when all this went down. Post any other arbitrary offshoot you like but the facts are going to remain the same. Sorry. She did not start working for the USDA until after all this went down. You do know the story took place decades ago, right? Maybe you missed that in your rush to not really watch the tape.

reply to post by Adevoc Satanae


Who cares WHEN she made the statement?

She is a bigotted racist; regardless of her job, title,or wealth.

Clothe her with authority, or take it away, she is still the same person! Give her a title and a budget, and she is dangerous.

jw

The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod

By RON WILKINS

www.counterpunch.org...

Imagine farm workers doing back breaking labor in the sweltering sun, sprayed with pesticides and paid less than minimum wage. Imagine the United Farm Workers called in to defend these laborers against such exploitation by management. Now imagine that the farm workers are black children and adults and that the managers are Shirley Sherrod, her husband Rev. Charles Sherrod, and a host of others. But it’s no illusion; this is fact.

www.nlpc.org...

Originally posted by jdub297


She is a bigotted racist; regardless of her job, title,or wealth.

You never actually saw the full video, I'm assuming?

You obviously only saw the out-of-context clip.

The whole point of her story was that the white farmer was the first one she ever had to deal with (again, she had never dealt with any white farmers before), and initially she thought he was trying to act superior to her.

That is where the out-of-context clip ended. (Clearly implying she had racist intent.)

The part you never got to hear reveals that she realized race had nothing to do with it, and she went out of her way to help the man. She and the man even became good friends in the process.

Here is what the farmer himself had to say:

Roger Spooner said on CNN that Sherrod is not a racist, that Sherrod did everything she could for his family, and over twenty years later, he and Sherrod remain friends.[28] The Spooners credit Sherrod with helping them save their farm: "If it hadn't been for her, we would've never known who to see or what to do," Roger Spooner said. "She led us right to our success."

Spooner Family's Account


Obviously, this woman is not a racist. Even the white farmer she supposedly showed prejudice towards testifies to that.







Now, on topic, the definition of Defamation as it applies to US law is:

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
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.

In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

expertlaw.com

Now, clearly she has a very strong case against the blogger.

The blogger created a derogatory video claiming she was racist, showed an out-of-context clip of her speaking, was willfully negligent in the representation of that clip (the text at the beginning of the video), and the release of that video caused measurable damage to Sherrod (she lost her job and was publicly humiliated).

The final nail in the coffin is that Breitbart published the material on his blog.

From simply a legal standpoint, the charge of libel would most likely hold up in court.

reply to post by drwizardphd
Wherever you get your law from, the simple fact is that libelous and slanderous statements require 1 thing: falsehood.

It does not matter the "context" in which a statement is made, the position of the speaker or the status of the listener.

When you make a statement, and it comes back to you, it is still YOUR statement.

She may try to qualify her decisions upon "class," or "wealth," or anything but color; but anything other than merit does not cut it.

Shirley Sherrod was, and is, a bigotted racist.

jw

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Explain how this relates to the Breitbart incident being discussed here please.

Thank you.