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

  2. By “Sullivan buzzsaw” I assume you mean: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

    You can suspect that all you like but the problem is Andy was sitting on an unedited version of the video.

    So explain how, in your estimation, that this wouldn’t pass the actual malice standard?

  4. Perhaps. Are you threatening my life? As an associate of Brett Kimberlin, a convicted bomber/domestic terrorist you make that threat? Are you trying to “chill” my free speech? I do believe that the operators of this blog report all threats to the FBI … are you sure you want to make that comment? BTW, all the information I have (and it is considerable) has been passed to third parties in case your buddies (and now by this comment, you as an accessory) cause me harm.

  6. 1) Truth is an absolute defense to libel. She admitted to refusing to help the farmer because of his race.

    2) The original point was the reaction of the audience.

  7. Hmmm… made a mis-step there didn’t you Willie?
    This has hit Twitter and the FBI … as I said in my comment the oter day about your crew trying to dox or discredit me: Fuck you, #WAR

  14. And how does the claim against Andrew translate into a claim against his wife rather than his estate? She might be acting as executor, but the law suit would still be against Andrew, not her personally.

  15. 1) Yes it is, however Sherrod’s speech in full was that she thought about not helping this white farmer but in the end decided to do the right thing.

    Also, this incident happened before she took the post at USDA

    2) No, it wasn’t. That would have been the smart move to point that out but Andy didn’t do that – he instead accused her of practicing racism as a federal employee.

  17. Exactly, if the case had been settled in the plaintiff’s favor, the defendant’s estate would have to pay, not necessarily the defendant’s widow.

    Please out your vast legal knowledge, give us a case where it was considered appropriate to sue a widow personally for something the spouse had done during the course of his work.

  21. “If the case has been settled…”

    The case hasn’t been settled.

    “the defendant’s estate would have to pay”

    One more time:

    On September 4, 2013, Mr. Breitbart’s former counsel served a letter on Plaintiff’s counsel stating that “[w]e have confirmed with counsel for Mr. Breitbart’s widow, Ms.Susannah Breitbart, that ***no estate has been opened for or with regard to Mr. Breitbart; and, thus, no executor, trustee, successor, or other legal representative has been appointed to administer***

    Mr. Breitbart’s post-mortem affairs.” The letter further provided that the “heirs of / successors to” Mr. Breitbart are Ms. Susannah Breitbart and her four minor children.

    Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Mr. Breitbart was timely filed, survives his death, and
    may be continued against his successor.

    In other words, Andy doesn’t have an estate and the case can go against Susie.

  22. On September 4, 2013, Mr. Breitbart’s former counsel served a letter on Plaintiff’s counsel stating that “[w]e have confirmed with counsel for Mr. Breitbart’s widow, Ms.Susannah Breitbart, that ***no estate has been opened for or with regard to Mr. Breitbart; and, thus, no executor, trustee, successor, or other legal representative has been appointed to administer***

    Mr. Breitbart’s post-mortem affairs.” The letter further provided that the “heirs of / successors to” Mr. Breitbart are Ms. Susannah Breitbart and her four minor children.

    Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Mr. Breitbart was timely filed, survives his death, and
    may be continued against his successor.

    In other words, Andy doesn’t have an estate and the case can go against Susie.

  23. Heh. I’ll not allow Kimberlin or “by proxy through the actions of his supporters” (as Stacy wrote above) you or anyone of the Team Kimberlin Pedo-Pals silence me, threaten me into inaction or chill my free speech.
    Fuck you, #WAR

  27. If this is the case, then why isn’t she also suing the four children, since they are Andrew’s heirs/successors just as much as his wife according to what you quote, and therefore just as culpable as the wife.

    Or would suing children just look a little too evil?

  28. Hah! Looks like stacy’s comments section wound up with an infestation of roaches.

    Roaches hate light like liars hate truth…

  30. As he said in response to you, he did stand up for a number of years, too bad it appears he has since fallen and can’t get up.

  31. Probably because you can’t legally sue a minor unless the minor is emancipated?

    Your mileage may vary.

  34. Shirley Sherrod made millions off of Pigford. She can afford to pay the lawyers if she wanted, but she’s just a figurehead. But, what this means is that a judge has been found, and has already agreed on the outcome of the case. The Left never brings something to court unless they’ve guaranteed the outcome.
    In a time when the government is keeping people from recreating at gunpoint, Americans don’t want to hear about the trough that is Pigford, or the destruction of a widow in the name of spite when Army widows are being given the big middle finger. That might be the straws that destroy the Dems in the 2014 election.

  35. It’s not called “stand up” when you fall flat on your face. It’s called failure, much like your attempt to form a cogent thought process.

Comments are closed.