Pure Evil: Sherrod Sues Susie Breitbart; Wickedness in the Age of Dishonor

Posted on Comments

As if to demonstrate the deliberate cruelty of “lawfare,” former federal official Shirley Sherrod, who filed a meritless lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart, is continuing her vindictive litigation even after his death by suing his widow. J. Christian Adams of the Election Law Center wonders who is paying the steep fees at Kirkland & Ellis:

There are plenty of leftist Sugar Daddies who would relish harassing Andrew Breitbart. Some of them are wicked enough even to harass his widow. . . . If a Sugar Daddy is funding Sherrod’s case, then Sherrod ought to say so. She ought to confess that the lawsuit is a crusade funded by outsiders, and not about justice. . . .
They might take the matter on a contingency fee. When you are finished laughing, consider the other means they can fund the lawsuit. Big Law has become notorious for helping left wing causes for free. They use the money from paying clients, like AOL, Boeing, Walgreens, Avis and others in other matters to subsidize left wing litigation. That’s how the attacks on voter ID are funded. That’s how GITMO terrorists got free representation at Covington and Burling.

Read the whole thing. Last night, while researching my defense against the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit — in which a convicted felon is suing me and four others for $1 million — I was studying the recent case in which Patterico was sued by Nadia Naffe, a frivolous lawsuit incited by Brett Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser that was subsequently dismissed. Who paid the attorney’s fees in that case?

The Left’s entitlement mentality — Shirley Sherrod seems to imagine she had a right to be employed by the federal government, and that Andrew Breitbart unjustly deprived her of that right — is at the root of this trend toward “lawfare” harassment.

Over and over during the past 17 months, while I have been repeatedly harassed and defamed by Brett Kimberlin and his supporters, my friends have often asked me why I never sued or filed criminal charges. It is one part pragmatism and one part principle.

From the pragmatic standpoint, as a journalist, it is very difficult (and certainly inadvisable) to write about a civil case in which one is a plaintiff or a criminal case in which one is a victim. In the latter case, cops will tell you not to discuss an ongoing investigation, and in the former case, no wise lawyer wishes to represent a plaintiff who won’t shut up about his litigation. (See “Nadia Naffe Won’t Shut Up, But She’ll Threaten You To Make You Shut Up,” by Ken White.)

In point of fact, I have been careful in writing about my status as a defendant in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit, even though the whole point of Kimberlin’s lawsuit is to silence me, an unrighteous purpose he cannot lawfully achieve, neither by means of his own harassment, nor by proxy through the actions of his supporters, nor by his vindictive (and laughably flawed) pro se litigation.

Even as such evil and deranged personalities as Neal Rauhauser and Bill Schmalfeldt continue lying about me, I must balance my concern for counteracting the deliberate harm they intend to inflict through their falsehoods, and my determination not to be intimidated, with a rational concern for my interests as a defendant.

Yet it is a self-evident truth that Brett Kimberlin falsely accuses me of having done to him what he is now in fact doing to me:

“Defendants . . . have conspired to engage in a pattern
of filing abusive civil suits, peace orders and
criminal charges against Plaintiff. . . . These filings have
been done with malice and without probable cause.”

I never sued Brett Kimberlin. I never filed criminal charges nor have I ever sought a restraining order against Brett Kimberlin. All I have done is to tell the truth about Brett Kimberlin, and there is nothing Brett Kimberlin hates as much as he hates the truth.

The dishonest pro se litigant Brett Kimberlin, whose false assault charge against Aaron Walker was the subject of Walker’s own 28,000-word opus that first attracted my interest as a journalist, has never cared what harm his wickedness causes to others. Nor is Brett Kimberlin guided by any principle of honor, whereas I have  striven to heed the wisdom of Andrew Jackson’s mother:

“Never tell a lie, nor take what is not your own, nor sue anybody for slander, assault and battery. Always settle them cases yourself.”

Brett Kimberlin has covered his own name in dishonor, and the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit is part of his ongoing attempt to evade responsibility for his crimes, something that was evident to another of Kimberlin’s targets, progressive blogger Seth Allen:

This whole lawsuit in and of itself was libel. I proved that in court. The only reason Kimberlin received [a $100 judgment] was because of the default judgement.
I believe Kimberlin actually believes a lot of the things he says.
But not all. I think a long time ago he wrote a script in his mind in order to explain away what happened all those years ago in Speedway, Indiana.

So said Seth Allen in December 2011, six months before I had ever even heard the name “Brett Kimberlin” and, while Seth is wrong about many things, but he was certainly correct about that. No one on the Left — not a single liberal blogger of note — would stand up for their fellow progressive Seth Allen’s First Amendment rights, and the Left’s continued silence about Kimberlin’s wickedness is consistent with their tacit support for Shirley Sherrod’s vindictive “lawfare” against Susie Breitbart, the widowed mother of four children.

Shirley Sherrod resigned. She is not suing Tom Vilsack, nor is Shirley Sherrod suing Vilsack’s boss, Barack Obama. Somebody should ask the President what he thinks about this, but there is not one honest reporter in the White House press corps.

We live in an age of wickedness, injustice and dishonor. You can do something genuinely good by mailing a check today:

Breitbart Children’s Trust
149 S. Barrington Ave, #735
Los Angeles, CA 90049.

UPDATE: Linked by my alleged co-conspirator John Hoge — thanks! — and also by Doug at Daley Gator:

Simply awful. Going after the families of those who you disagree with? Really?

Yes, really. Remember when Bill Schmalfeldt threatened my wife? Remember all the evil Schmalfeldt did to Lee Stranahan’s family? And the Lonely Conservative speaks the gospel truth:

More and more I’m beginning to believe that there are very few people on the left who are decent. . . .
I really don’t know these rotten leftists sleep at night. They really are evil.

Amen, sister! Preach it!

 

252 comments

  1. How on earth can Ms. Sherrod sue Susie Breitbart? What on earth does the Sherrod lawyer imagine the cause to be? I don’t understand this, it’s just stupid.

  2. I read in some of the reports, that under certain circumstances, spouses may be liable for their deceased spouse’s debts in California. In my jurisdiction, that’s limited to very specific contract situations, such as paying for the last illness of the decedent. It’s certainly never applied to tort claims, but as stated, I don’t know what California law says about it. Perhaps, the plaintiff is alleging a joint venture or agency theory to justify potential liability, but I haven’t seen the pleadings to know.

  4. It’s probably just harassment, plain and simple, since we know that the left loves to go after spouses and children who have/had nothing to do with the matter at hand (see the Palin girls). If enough families are harmed, they hope the rest of us will shut up, simply to save our loved ones, even if we won’t shut up to save ourselves.
    I would hope (but do not know as IANAL, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night) that Mrs. Breitbart would have grounds for a counter suit against either S Sherrod, or her law firm.

  5. Harrassment of political opponents is the main tactic of Democrats today.

    We can only be thankful that Sherrod was not at the IRS …

  6. I’m asking my friends to read this column for no other reason to see paranoic rambling in the disguise of “journalism”.

  7. At long last, Bobby, you are a drunken fool.

    But I repeat myself.

    You have never told the truth about Brett Kimberlin. Ever.

    Shirley Sherrod has every right to sue Bretibart and his estate for defamation now that courts have green-lit the case. This is simply how things are done outside of Blog Court.

    I suggest you spend less time blogging about the way you think things ought to be and more time preparing for what’s to come – namely, your impending day in court.

  9. A new troll. And who might you be?
    Just because a court green lights something doesn’t mean it has any merit. And when you sue an estate, you sue an estate, not the widow.
    A dollar to a donut it’s for harassment.

  10. So says the cyber stalker who alternatively claims that Hoge, Akbar, and Worthing are the heads of a massive conspiracy, and who joins journalism clubs to make him seem like a journalist instead of a guy who sits at home and reports AP stories.

  13. Wow, Stacy, this piece sure was good troll bait, but I thought that the Cabin Boy had been banned here at The Other McCain.

    I notice that another member of the Team Kimberlin crew, Very Ordinary Seaman Ferguson, has popped in as well. The two of them must have tired of talking to themselves with essentially no audience on Twitter and come over here for some attention.

  14. Well, isn’t this just chock full of stupid!

    See D.C. Code § 12-101; Sinito v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 176 F.3d 512, 516 (D.C. Cir. 1999);

    McSurely v. McClellan, 753 F.2d 88, 98-99 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (holding spouses of decedents were “proper parties” for substitution);

    see also Cal. Probate Code § 13550 (“Except as provided in Sections 11446, 13552, 13553, and 13554, upon
    the death of a married person, the surviving spouse is personally liable for the debts of the deceased spouse chargeable against the property described in Section 13551 to the extent
    provided in Section 13551.”);

    Estate of Bonanno v. Connolly, 165 Cal. App. 4th 7, 20 (2008) (“[A] surviving spouse who receives a decedent’s property without administration becomes
    personally liable or decedent’s debts chargeable against such property, within limits.”).
    As for the rest of your tripe, Nickelamateur, your opinion isn’t worth a warm bucket of piss.

  15. Actually she has no claim against Britbart’s wife. She is not suing his estate, she is suing his WIFE. Big difference that I thought big time journalists like you would spot.

  16. Dude, they’re journalists, lawyers, ob-gyns and orthopedic surgeons. Show some respect! Why, just yesterday, BS felt something pop in his knee, diagnosed himself on the spot, and has confined himself to a wheelchair for life. Me, I would have gone to my doctor and explored surgery or PT. But, he’s an expert, and very conveniently will be making court appearances in a wheelchair.

Comments are closed.