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. D’err. How inventive and clever, a lame attempt to twist words. Why bother to reply when you only show yourself to be a mental incompetent?

  8. Actually, I take back #1 somewhat…truth isn’t always an affirmative defense to libel.

    Noonan v. Staples – as of 2009.

    It will be interesting to see where this goes.

  9. Yes, what is there to take from someone living in mommy’s basement, and using her laptop? Perhaps your mother can be sued for spawning ilk such as yourself.

  10. I’m no lawyer, but as we’ve learned from Hoge, Walker, et al, Shirley Sherrod is going to find out that discovery is a real bee eye itch.

    Godspeed to the lawyers form Andrew’s widow. Countersuit is my guess.

  11. Mrs. Sherrod was slandered and placed in false light. The “estate” of Breitbart is what is being sued and the “owner” of that estate is Mrs. Breitbart. This is pretty standard substitution of party doctrine

  12. Typical leftist thinking: exposure equals slander.

    It’s the same when they try to do math. No wonder they think we can borrow more money from China.

  13. not to mention the weird conjoining of the lawsuit against Stacy, which probably is frivolous, and the lawsuit against the Breitbart estate, which is described as “meritless,” but which has survived two attempts to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For that reason alone, we know a Court has already found the claim has merit, but has determined if Mr. Pollack and Mr. Breitbart were liable

  14. They re-invent history by the hour so they can live in their fantasy worlds. That’s why arguing with them is futile. At noon they are declaring war with East Asia, by 1pm they have never been at war with East Asia, by 3pm they have always been at war with East Asia.

  15. There is no estate. The filing states that unequivocally. His surviving wife and children exist at a very low level. Breitbart did not really have a fortune and what he did
    have/leave to his wife has been swallowed by taxes, bills and funeral
    expenses. Going after Susie is a tactic to try and secure a windfall
    from Susie’s father’s estate at a future date (her dad is Orson Bean) as well as a blatant attempt to chill free speech rights of other bloggers.

  16. actually, surviving the 12.b6 challenges sort of proves she has stated a claim with merit. Now, whether she can meet that standard in Court is another matter.

    As for the other issue, I just substituted the spouse of one of my deceased clients in a Court claim. Substitution of party is governed by Federal rules and is pretty typical in this sort of Federal lawsuit

  17. Playing a video of her speech is not slander. And she was fired by a cowardly administration (which surely knew about that speech), not by Breitbart, and Mrs. Breitbart had nothing to do with it.

    What a silly argument!

  18. Truth is a positive defense to an allegation of slander. Since Ms. Sherrod admits to her racism both prior to her employment by the federal government as well as during her employment there, there is no possibility of a win in an unbiased court.

  19. Noonan, even if it survives does not control. The plaintiff was not a public figure in that case, unlike Sherrod.

  20. Do you seriously think it’s even vaguely sensible for Sherrod to sue Mrs. Breitbart?! There’s no estate; Andrew Breitbart is dead. What a stupid, petty, useless thing to do!

  22. You’re right, it doesn’t.

    However, Sherrod being a public figure can sue for defamation/libel provided she’s jumped through the appropriate hoops.

    It appears she has.

  23. Maybe I’ve just read to much dystopian literature as well as European news items (though I repeat myself), and children seem to be held responsible for a lot of things that you’d think they wouldn’t be old enough for.

    Given that in this instance, the minors are as responsible for the broadcasting of the Sherrod tape as the wife is, why shouldn’t they be as responsible financially to Sherrod also.

    The law YOU quoted said that minors could stand in as heirs and successors, so if they are standing in for an adult, why can’t they be sued like the adult?

  24. Sensible? Probably not, but that’s not the issue.

    Ms. Sherrod believes, as do the courts, that’s she’s been defamed and she is seeking legal remedy.

    I support her right to do so as much as I would support your right to seek remedy for defamation even if it comes down to you suing the widow of your defamer.

  25. So, can we assume that if any of the children were over 18, you would support them being sued as well as the widow? Because they are just as responsible for releasing the Sherrod tape as the widow was.

  27. You may have given him leeway RSM, but I say if he violates the “methinks” rule you should burn him down with maximum prejudice.

  28. Tough shit. Her dead scumbag husband ruined Sherrod’s career by showing that clip out of context and then doubled down on his bullshit story when he got caught lying. I’m happy Sherrod is pissing on his grave. We reap what we sow, scumbag. Maybe if he let up on the booze and toot he woudn’t have dropped dead of heart disease at 42 years old either, leaving his wife to clean up his mess?

  31. She may not like all the attention. Suing Andrew’s widow wasn’t a particularly smart move, especially when their are enough people that will assist her in any way they can. She wanted a lawsuit, she got a #WAR

  33. Because it was her own words?

    Really, the whole notion of a suit seems ridiculous, and suing the widow of the person one was suing is ludicrous.

  34. How on earth do you defame someone by playing a video of a speech? Especially since the point was the audience’s reactions?

    Seriously, it’s not Breitbart’s fault that the administration is populated with panicky cowards.

  39. The truth about Brett Kimberlin?

    Are we talking about the Brett Kimberlin who was convicted of impersonating an official, document forgery, and perjury in court? Brett Kimberlin and his allies have an established pattern of lying. A pattern proven in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt. Just as it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Brett Kimberlin set several bombs in the infamous speedway terrorism case. Just as it was proven by preponderance of evidence that Brett Kimberlin was responsible for the death of Carl Delong.

    This is the truth about Brett Kimberlin, who with his friends have a pattern of asserting a lie as though it’s truth to suit their frauds and harm to good people. We saw this with Aaron Worthing, when Brett claimed he was knocked to the ground and viciously beaten by Aaron before video proved that this was an attempt to frame an innocent man who had criticized Brett Kimberlin. Aaron’s explanation was so long that I doubt 99% of those who began it ever read it all, but just watch the video and read Brett’s lies about the attack and it is inescapable that he attempted to frame an innocent man for serious crimes.

    I’m not familiar with your name. Perhaps you had to change from your last handle because you were caught lying and have no credibility? This is the pattern of many who have defended Brett. There are precious few Qritiqs and Ron Brynaerts who actually continue using their handles after their attempts to defend Brett are laughed out of the room. But any defender of Brett Kimberlin starts out in a position of needing overwhelming evidence for any truth that they claim would help Brett. Where is your evidence?

  40. That may be the purpose: to stretch resources, and lay legal traps. For example, and I am no lawyer: Patterico can’t be a party to a lawsuit, and then prosecute the the complainant who sued him for using the courts to harass him. If he comments on it in a later blog, the complainants (or whatever they call the person bringing the suit) can use the courts to go after him. Rather like Team Kimberlin is doing.
    The other thing to consider is misdirection, with Mrs. B as the bait. If so, is she willing to become, as they say in the IT world, a honey trap?
    BTW, these animals will keep after her children until one of them is turned against their father.

Comments are closed.