You are hereBlogs / FZ's blog / Why Breitbart is STILL TOAST. (New court doc analysis by Symbolman)

Why Breitbart is STILL TOAST. (New court doc analysis by Symbolman)


By FZ - Posted on 05 June 2011

-Blogged by TBTM Julie  on the Daily Kos

June 4, 2011- Posted on behalf of Symbolman:

Takebackthemedia.com dissects the latest Breitbart filings in Sherrod’s case against Breitbart for Defamation. His lawyers respond to Sherrod’s lawyers re: Change of Venue, plus Defendants are all SLAPP-HAPPY, which is looking like it’s designed to extend legal wrangling, and put off the dreaded Discovery.

But... but... Breitbart exclaimed he was all FOR Discovery! He tweeted, “BRING IT ON!” Yeah, well, maybe he’s not so hot for it, after all. Would You put his ass on the witness stand? (In the end I hope to hell they do, though I would suspect Breitbart would settle long before that.) Is he using KOCH Brother’s money? Soros? Is Breitbart one of the greatest democratic moles of all time? America wants to KNOW, baby.)

And Please, please please, dear Judge, just use the federal court where we DON’T want to be to get us to California and use California law IN the federal court because it’s way better, see?

They also tell us all about how if the dog hadn’t stopped to lick his ass, he would have caught the rabbit. Something about Sherrod didn’t say “Simon Says” or some such legal bullshit.

So it goes:

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTI-SLAPP ACT OF 2010 BY DEFENDANTS ANDREW BREITBART AND LARRY O’CONNOR
‡I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Shirley Sherrod’s opposition papers do not defend or even address her statements that Andrew Breitbart is “one person that I’d like to get back at” and how it would be a “great thing” if his website was shut down – the very statements that define her case as a classic SLAPP suit. Sherrod does not raise any substantive arguments that the claims asserted in the Complaint are not directly implicated by the language of the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010. To the contrary, she seeks damages against a journalist as a result of his commentary on a speech given by a high- ranking government official. This is a classic SLAPP suit and precisely the situation the statute was intended to address.

Instead of responding on the merits, Sherrod contends that the statute should not be applied at all on a variety of procedural grounds. These arguments have been asserted against anti-SLAPP statutes in other jurisdictions and have been uniformly rejected.

Gosh! That evil person wants to SHUT Breitbart UP, and SHUT down his site. Him. That loving, caring man devoted to rooting out racism. See? That makes it a SLAPP suite.

Oops. No, it doesn’t, said the Plaintiff in their last glorious filing. Red Meat for the winners, which had us laughing so hard we weren’t able to post, but you can read those HERE.

Basically, Sherrod’s lawyers were standing on Breitbart’s head and having a relaxing smoke, maybe talking football, while Breitbart struggled and bubbled, and whined. Sherrod’s team sewed it all up nice and neat, either Defendants DIDN’T File in time, or they did and it was a joke, and even if they didn’t MEAN TO, either way they needed to PAY for court costs for being frivolous and not handing out party hats to everyone. So now Breitbart is walking around with a piece of toilet paper stuck to his heel and hoping no one will notice. Doesn’t look like they’ll be able to pull it off, but then again, I’m neither a lawyer nor a Judge. Guess we’ll see.

FULL STORY HERE:

Partners

Democrats.com
Mark Crispin Miller
Progressive Democrats of America