PDA

View Full Version : Sherrod to Sue Breitbart



YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 11:21 AM
Shirley Sherrod has announced her intention to sue Andrew Breitbart for slander/libel saying that while his intended target might have been the NAACP, that he knew he was attacking her personally as well and that he has never apologized. Breitbart has acknowledged publicly that he knew the video was an exceprt and had access to the full video, but did not check it or feel any need to check it since his only interest was in damaging the NAACP.

Should his first amendment rights allow him to publish information that is untrue about a private citizen without regard for the consequences for her? From a legal perspective, the requirements for libel are that the individual knew or should have known that the facts were false and that the false statements were made maliciously. Is it fair for Breitbart to argue, as he has, that he bears no responsibility for the negative consequences to her because the sole responsibility rests with those who acted based on the statements and inferences in the video he posted? Is it fair for him to argue that his action cannot be considered malicious toward her because his only malice was toward the NAACP? Is it OK for him to argue that he bears no responsibility for verifying the contents of the video prior to publication even though he had ready access to the full tape? All of these are arguments made by Breitbart in his interview on CNN (See http://johnkingusa.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/21/breitbart-post-ignites-race-debate/).

In the meantime, Breitbart remains as a headline speaker for a major RNC fundraiser in August (see http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/07/republican-national-committee-event-featuring-andrew-breitbart.php?page=1).

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2010, 11:30 AM
I don't think that Breitbart has a leg to stand on in the arguments he presents.

Since he knew what was in the rest of the tape, he should have divulged that at the outset. Of course, if he had done that then his attempt to indict the NAACP would also have been "empty" based on that speech. He should have found some other evidence to prove his point. This speech did NOT prove his point.

Even if the reaction of the crowd was in favor of Shirley's initial reaction to the white farmer, that does not prove that the people in that crowd represented the position of the NAACP policy.

I just wonder how come Mr. Breitbart was so dumb? First, to use the tape if he also knew about the full tape. Second, not to have the good sense to apologize if he had been snookered by whoever provided him with only the edited excerpt.

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 11:42 AM
An interesting side bit is that in the John King interview he stated that he had the tape in March and referenced portions of the tape other than what was included in the excerpt. Subsequently he stated that he knew about the tapes in March, but only received the excerpted tape a few days before posting it and didn't receive the full tape until after that. He also said he didn't prepare the tape that he posted, yet in the John King interview he says that he included the last part where Sherrod was talking about her change of perspective.

road kill
07-29-2010, 11:44 AM
An interesting side bit is that in the John King interview he stated that he had the tape in March and referenced portions of the tape other than what was included in the excerpt. Subsequently he stated that he knew about the tapes in March, but only received the excerpted tape a few days before posting it and didn't receive the full tape until after that. He also said he didn't prepare the tape that he posted, yet in the John King interview he says that he included the last part where Sherrod was talking about her change of perspective.


Do you have a law degree amongst your vast credentials??





rk

Hew
07-29-2010, 11:50 AM
Breitbart has acknowledged publicly that he knew the video was an exceprt and had access to the full video, but did not check it or feel any need to check it since his only interest was in damaging the NAACP.
Hmmm...that's not what Breitbart said in the interview you linked. He said his source sent two excerpted videos (the racism one and the one where Sherrod encouraged blacks to work for the govt. so they'd never get laid off) last weekend. Since the story broke he said his source has since sent him the entire video. Further, he said he was aware of the tapes in March (and presumably had access to them), but only ran with the story after the NAACP's hypocritial motion to label teaparty as racist came to the fore last week. That said, in hindsight he should have viewed the whole tape before airing it.



In the meantime, Breitbart remains as a headline speaker for a major RNC fundraiser in August (see http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/doc...art.php?page=1 (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/07/republican-national-committee-event-featuring-andrew-breitbart.php?page=1)).

Oh, I'm so ashamed. Now I know how you must have felt when Michael Moore sat in a toney sky box at the 2004 DNC convention waving to an adoring crowd of moonbats on the convention floor.

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 11:51 AM
Do you have a law degree amongst your vast credentials??





rk
Nope. I've just been sued a lot in connection with my employment during the first part of my career. That has included lawsuits for discrimination in personnel decisions (brought by a black woman), discriminatory decisions in closing hospitals (suit filed by DHHS), violation of first amendment rights (suit filed by members of the Young Lords and the Puerto Rican Liberation movement), and violation of "liberty rights" associated with allegedly libeling an employee. I won every case.

road kill
07-29-2010, 11:54 AM
Nope. I've just been sued a lot in connection with my employment during the first part of my career. That has included lawsuits for discrimination in personnel decisions (brought by a black woman), discriminatory decisions in closing hospitals (suit filed by DHHS), violation of first amendment rights (suit filed by members of the Young Lords and the Puerto Rican Liberation movement), and violation of "liberty rights" associated with allegedly libeling an employee. I won every case.


Oh, I am sure you did, did you argue them before the supreme court?


What law(s) have been broken??


Dan Rather regards,:cool:



rk

troy schwab
07-29-2010, 12:02 PM
What law(s) have been broken??





rk

While I admittedly dont know the whole story...... I agree with this statement. Just because this gentleman released the video, which apprently he did not make, does not make him the villain here. Whichever broadcasting company brought this to the mainstream would be who I would look at. There all kind of crap on blogs on the internet...... some true some not. The real problem occurred here when someone or somebody, decided that Breitbart's words had merit enough to publicize on a greater scale. They should have checked them out first....... Hindsight is always 20/20.....

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 12:06 PM
Hmmm...that's not what Breitbart said in the interview you linked. He said his source sent two excerpted videos (the racism one and the one where Sherrod encouraged blacks to work for the govt. so they'd never get laid off) last weekend. Since the story broke he said his source has since sent him the entire video. Further, he said he was aware of the tapes in March (and presumably had access to them), but only ran with the story after the NAACP's hypocritial motion to label teaparty as racist came to the fore last week. That said, in hindsight he should have viewed the whole tape before airing it.


Oh, I'm so ashamed. Now I know how you must have felt when Michael Moore sat in a toney sky box at the 2004 DNC convention waving to an adoring crowd of moonbats on the convention floor.
Breitbart actually makes conflicting statements in the video I posted.

He says he had the tapes in March.
He says he added the "exculpatory" material at the end of the excerpted segment.
He says an anonymous source provided the excerpted tape to him and that he received the full tape later.
He states that she makes more racist comments in the balance of the tape as well as urging blacks to apply for Federal jobs where they won't get laid off.
He says there is no evidence that the racist actions by Sherrod occurred years earlier except her statements (ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that she did less than she could except for her statements)Throughout the interview, he is maintaining the accuracy of the representations, and suggesting that the balance of the tape will provide even more evidence. Thus, he is supporting the accuracy of his actions while evidencing a knowledge of the full tape and claiming that he didn't have the full tape. More importantly, he argues that none of it matters because the attack is on the NAACP and that attack is justified because the NAACP attacked the Tea Party. Sherrod is imply collateral damage.

By the way, what private individual was libeled by Michael Moore using excerpts of tapes that were clearly misleading?

aandw
07-29-2010, 12:31 PM
how is she a private indivdual?
Definition. According to Black's Law Dictionary a "public official" is "[o]ne who holds or is invested with a public office; a person elected or appointed to carry out some portion of a government's sovereign powers." "Public officer" is defined in a similar way. For this research, the terms "public officials" and "public officers" are interchangeable.

While each state has taken slightly different approaches, both terms usually include persons who have been elected to an office at the state or local levels. States differ on including appointed offices, judges and state employees.
does his publishing an edited tape make what she said untrue?

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2010, 12:47 PM
1) If he had the tapes since March, had he not listened to them? If he listened to them, why did he not ask the provider for the rest of the tape? Or he could have sought it out from the NAACP (even if he didn't get it).

2) Even if he still stood by his decision to show the racism of the audience ... not racism by Sherrod, then he should have apologized to Sherrod since she had already moved beyond the racism her audience still had.

3) Surely it was easy enough to verify the time of the incident in her speech.

I'm disappointed in Sherrod insofar as she has ignored the unfairness of her boss in asking for her resignation without the courtesy of getting her side of the story. If a private employer had done that, there would have been hell to pay. If her boss had any respect for Sherrod, he would have given her that courtesy.

troy schwab
07-29-2010, 01:10 PM
I'm disappointed in Sherrod insofar as she has ignored the unfairness of her boss in asking for her resignation without the courtesy of getting her side of the story. If a private employer had done that, there would have been hell to pay. If her boss had any respect for Sherrod, he would have given her that courtesy.

Very good point......

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 01:19 PM
1) If he had the tapes since March, had he not listened to them? If he listened to them, why did he not ask the provider for the rest of the tape? Or he could have sought it out from the NAACP (even if he didn't get it).

2) Even if he still stood by his decision to show the racism of the audience ... not racism by Sherrod, then he should have apologized to Sherrod since she had already moved beyond the racism her audience still had.

3) Surely it was easy enough to verify the time of the incident in her speech.

I'm disappointed in Sherrod insofar as she has ignored the unfairness of her boss in asking for her resignation without the courtesy of getting her side of the story. If a private employer had done that, there would have been hell to pay. If her boss had any respect for Sherrod, he would have given her that courtesy.
In her public comments she actually raked the OBAMA administration and her boss over the coals for leaping to conclusions, harassing her into resigning, and for giving her no opportunity to defend herself at all. Given that she did resign, it would be hard for her to sue them. They also, like the NAACP, did apologize quickly and attempt to make amends for their own stupidity.

Edit: I corrected by error in calling the Obama administration the Bush administration. Thank you Buzz.

Buzz
07-29-2010, 01:23 PM
Jeff, me thinks you're too used to typing the word Bush.

Am I right?;-)

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 01:33 PM
Jeff, me thinks you're too used to typing the word Bush.

Am I right?;-)
Fixed. Thank you.

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2010, 01:40 PM
In her public comments she actually raked the OBAMA administration and her boss over the coals for leaping to conclusions, harassing her into resigning, and for giving her no opportunity to defend herself at all. Given that she did resign, it would be hard for her to sue them. They also, like the NAACP, did apologize quickly and attempt to make amends for their own stupidity.

Edit: I corrected by error in calling the Obama administration the Bush administration. Thank you Buzz.

Her public statements of them pressuring her to resign should make a basis for a suit?

(That would have been taking "Blame it on Bush" to an extreme ;-);-))

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 01:46 PM
Oh, I am sure you did, did you argue them before the supreme court?


What law(s) have been broken??


Dan Rather regards,:cool:



rk

Under Federal law, Sherrod could sue for violation of Liberty rights. However, this would probably be the least rewarding. Under Georgia law she could sue for libel and slander. You can find a definition of Georgia provisions at http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jul/1/128248.html. Given that the crime itself was posted on the Internet, Sherrod would be able to choose a number of different jurisdictions in which to sue.

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 01:58 PM
how is she a private indivdual?
Definition. According to Black's Law Dictionary a "public official" is "[o]ne who holds or is invested with a public office; a person elected or appointed to carry out some portion of a government's sovereign powers." "Public officer" is defined in a similar way. For this research, the terms "public officials" and "public officers" are interchangeable.

While each state has taken slightly different approaches, both terms usually include persons who have been elected to an office at the state or local levels. States differ on including appointed offices, judges and state employees.
does his publishing an edited tape make what she said untrue?
Libel standards, both under Federal law and state laws, differentiate between a public person who has sought to be widely known and is therefore deemed to have given up some degree of privacy, from a "private" person who is not deemed to have given up inherent rights to privacy. First amendments rights are generally deemed to protect those making statement about public persons to a much greater degree than in the case of private persons. FindLaw notes:


There is a continuing federal standard which applies to all states with respect to statements about public figures, based on the notion that politicians and other persons who choose to become widely known voluntarily subject themselves to public scrutiny and thereby forfeit a certain degree of privacy. However, the federal courts have deferred to state law in recent years with respect to claims involving private figures. Under Georgia law, a private figure can recover damages for defamation upon a showing of simple fault or negligence. This is contrasted with claims against public figures who must make a showing that the statements alleged to be defamatory were known to be false or made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.
Being a public person has nothing to do with being a public official. Public persons are people like elected politicians, media "stars", and others that actively seek publicity for their activities. Thus, Andrew Breitbart is a pubic person and would face higher standards in prosecuting someone for slander, while Shirley Sherrod, prior to the attack on her by Breitbart, was not a public person. It could be argued that Sherrod has now become a public person by virtue of her public activities since the attack. By the way, I would be surprised if a lawsuit against Breitbart did not also name Fox News as a defendant since they rebroadcast the video without any evident effort to verify its authenticity.

road kill
07-29-2010, 02:27 PM
Under Federal law, Sherrod could sue for violation of Liberty rights. However, this would probably be the least rewarding. Under Georgia law she could sue for libel and slander. You can find a definition of Georgia provisions at http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jul/1/128248.html. Given that the crime itself was posted on the Internet, Sherrod would be able to choose a number of different jurisdictions in which to sue.

So you, in your fervent desire to discredit Breitbart, think she has a suit based on him showing what SHE said out of context???

My attorney wants to know what your smoking.
(he and I smoked a Rocky Patel at lunch)
He says it won't fly.
He says she may have a suit against the administration for forcing her resignation without a good cause, but we wouldn't want that now would we??:D



rk

Pals
07-29-2010, 02:32 PM
Oh, I'm so ashamed. Now I know how you must have felt when Michael Moore sat in a toney sky box at the 2004 DNC convention waving to an adoring crowd of moonbats on the convention floor.


I don't care who you are-that right there is FUNNY!!!!!


Hew-I hope someday to get the chance to meet you at one of these dog games and thank you for all the times you made me laugh out loud.

cleaning soda out of the keyboard regards,

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 02:37 PM
So you, in your fervent desire to discredit Breitbart, think she has a suit based on him showing what SHE said out of context???

My attorney wants to know what your smoking.
(he and I smoked a Rocky Patel at lunch)
He says it won't fly.
He says she may have a suit against the administration for forcing her resignation without a good cause, but we wouldn't want that now would we??:D



rk
Had Breitbart stuck with simply showing Sherrod speaking without showing the parts before and after, your friend might be right. However, the title slides included in the video explicitly stated that she was guilty of racial discrimination/racism in her capacity as an official of the USDA as proven by the comments she made in her speech. That was repeated at both the beginning and end of the video. Even without that, there would probably be a case based on the obvious selectivity of the edits made to distort the meaning of her comments. However, I would agree that the case would be dramatically weaker. Of course, without a title saying that this was a video of Sherrod's racism, and title slides that emphasized that she was a racist, I suspect no one would have paid any attention to the video.

Roger Perry
07-29-2010, 03:12 PM
Do you have a law degree amongst your vast credentials??





rk

I believe Yardley was asking question not stating a legal sttement

road kill
07-29-2010, 03:21 PM
I believe Yardley was asking question not stating a legal sttement


I see, you are his legal aide??




rk

Hew
07-29-2010, 03:43 PM
By the way, what private individual was libeled by Michael Moore using excerpts of tapes that were clearly misleading?
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Pretty much everything that comes out of Michael Moore's fat pie hole is a clearly misleading distortion of the truth.

aandw
07-29-2010, 03:44 PM
Libel standards, both under Federal law and state laws, differentiate between a public person who has sought to be widely known and is therefore deemed to have given up some degree of privacy, from a "private" person who is not deemed to have given up inherent rights to privacy. First amendments rights are generally deemed to protect those making statement about public persons to a much greater degree than in the case of private persons. FindLaw notes:


There is a continuing federal standard which applies to all states with respect to statements about public figures, based on the notion that politicians and other persons who choose to become widely known voluntarily subject themselves to public scrutiny and thereby forfeit a certain degree of privacy. However, the federal courts have deferred to state law in recent years with respect to claims involving private figures. Under Georgia law, a private figure can recover damages for defamation upon a showing of simple fault or negligence. This is contrasted with claims against public figures who must make a showing that the statements alleged to be defamatory were known to be false or made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.
Being a public person has nothing to do with being a public official. Public persons are people like elected politicians, media "stars", and others that actively seek publicity for their activities. Thus, Andrew Breitbart is a pubic person and would face higher standards in prosecuting someone for slander, while Shirley Sherrod, prior to the attack on her by Breitbart, was not a public person. It could be argued that Sherrod has now become a public person by virtue of her public activities since the attack. By the way, I would be surprised if a lawsuit against Breitbart did not also name Fox News as a defendant since they rebroadcast the video without any evident effort to verify its authenticity.

public person vs. public official, sounds like an opinion to me. i'm not going to split hairs over it. you can if you like. even though the tape was edited, she still said what she said. i do not support breitbart, didn't even know who he was. i do believe he should have shown the whole tape or none of it.
but he has said why he released it, you can choose to believe him or not. i don't really care. but it is clear on the tape that some of the audience responded as if they supported her for not helping the white farmer. there was also support when she said it wasn't about color but about poor people. can't remember the exact quote but that is the jist. i applaud her for telling the story and how it changed her life and having the courage to stand up and tell it.
how do you sue fox? they reported what was released.

Hew
07-29-2010, 03:46 PM
Hew-I hope someday to get the chance to meet you at one of these dog games and thank you for all the times you made me laugh out loud.
Thank you for the kind words. I've actually met a lot of RTF folks. They usually come away disappointed. :)

road kill
07-29-2010, 03:54 PM
public person vs. public official, sounds like an opinion to me. i'm not going to split hairs over it. you can if you like. even though the tape was edited, she still said what she said. i do not support breitbart, didn't even know who he was. i do believe he should have shown the whole tape or none of it.
but he has said why he released it, you can choose to believe him or not. i don't really care. but it is clear on the tape that some of the audience responded as if they supported her for not helping the white farmer. there was also support when she said it wasn't about color but about poor people. can't remember the exact quote but that is the jist. i applaud her for telling the story and how it changed her life and having the courage to stand up and tell it.
how do you sue fox? they reported what was released.


My buddy says she does have legal grounds for litigation for what she claims was said to her by the Obama administration people.
You know the standard knee jerk "throw them under the bus before we have the facts" routine.

Let's see if the Sister sues the Brother!!:rolleyes:




rk

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 04:00 PM
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Pretty much everything that comes out of Michael Moore's fat pie hole is a clearly misleading distortion of the truth.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all public persons as that term is used for libel law. That means that first amendment rights would trump personal rights in the absence of serious malicious fraud. That is why, for example, Obama cannot sue the "birthers", Fox News, or a number of Republican members of congress, or even a number of people on this forum for statements that would be considered slander if directed against a private citizen.


public person vs. public official, sounds like an opinion to me. i'm not going to split hairs over it. you can if you like. even though the tape was edited, she still said what she said. i do not support breitbart, didn't even know who he was. i do believe he should have shown the whole tape or none of it.
but he has said why he released it, you can choose to believe him or not. i don't really care. but it is clear on the tape that some of the audience responded as if they supported her for not helping the white farmer. there was also support when she said it wasn't about color but about poor people. can't remember the exact quote but that is the jist. i applaud her for telling the story and how it changed her life and having the courage to stand up and tell it.
how do you sue fox? they reported what was released.
Go through the tape and read the title screens. The statements made in the title screens are pure fabrication not supported by the statement in her video or in the balance of the tape.

dnf777
07-29-2010, 04:00 PM
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Pretty much everything that comes out of Michael Moore's fat pie hole is a clearly misleading distortion of the truth.

You're right. Cheney isn't REALLY Darth Vader. Darth is from a galaxy far, far, away. There's NO WAY he could be the real Darth! Damn Liar!

aandw
07-29-2010, 04:01 PM
if she would have refused to resign, it probably wouldn't even go to court. and she could buy her own farm in georgia.

troy schwab
07-29-2010, 04:02 PM
Cmon RK,
you KNOW that wont happen......... there might be a check cut..... but we certainly wont hear about that..... heck, he might even offer her a position......... LOL Wouldnt surprise me one bit...... but she will play the race card as long as she can..... get whitey!!!!! And, in my opinion...... she will lose that litigation. There is crap all over the internet that could be labeled slander or libel....... its called freedom....... get over it. The problem occurred when a major broadcasting company decided to report it as fact, which they obviously didnt verify.

Julie R.
07-29-2010, 04:14 PM
Being a public person has nothing to do with being a public official. Public persons are people like elected politicians, media "stars", and others that actively seek publicity for their activities.


Hmmm....How would accepting speaking engagements to national organizations NOT be considered seeking publicity? How much would you like to bet Ms. Sherrod has a publicist now?

aandw
07-29-2010, 04:14 PM
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all public persons as that term is used for libel law. That means that first amendment rights would trump personal rights in the absence of serious malicious fraud. That is why, for example, Obama cannot sue the "birthers", Fox News, or a number of Republican members of congress, or even a number of people on this forum for statements that would be considered slander if directed against a private citizen.


Go through the tape and read the title screens. The statements made in the title screens are pure fabrication not supported by the statement in her video or in the balance of the tape.

what could obama sue fox news for? rumsfield was an appointed official just like her. granted a more "public" position, but he was appointed not elected. so it goes back to what i said earlier it sounds like an opinion, on what is a public person.
i can't go through the tape at work, some kind of block. can't view at home computer died. i have not seen the whole tape, just the part where she made the racist remarks and where she told of how it changed her outlook on race. what could she sue fox for?

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 04:17 PM
Hmmm....How would accepting speaking engagements to national organizations NOT be considered seeking publicity? How much would you like to bet Ms. Sherrod has a publicist now?
As I stated, I believe that Sherrod has moved from private figure to public figure by virtue of her own public activities subsequent to Breitbart's actions against her. However, speaking at a small NAACP conference with public television coverage paid for fully by the NAACP doesn't quite qualify.

david gibson
07-29-2010, 04:37 PM
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all public persons as that term is used for libel law. That means that first amendment rights would trump personal rights in the absence of serious malicious fraud. That is why, for example, Obama cannot sue the "birthers", Fox News, or a number of Republican members of congress, or even a number of people on this forum for statements that would be considered slander if directed against a private citizen.


Go through the tape and read the title screens. The statements made in the title screens are pure fabrication not supported by the statement in her video or in the balance of the tape.

you are kidding, right?

so what should we do about alGores "an inconvenient truth" ??? and a host of other leftist distortions - oh no, your side doesnt ever do that....

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 05:21 PM
you are kidding, right?

so what should we do about alGores "an inconvenient truth" ??? and a host of other leftist distortions - oh no, your side doesnt ever do that....
I'm sorry. Who did Gore slander?

M&K's Retrievers
07-29-2010, 07:05 PM
When it's all said and done, my guess she will sue the NAACP, FOX News, Bill O. and The Federal Government in addition to Breitbart. She's set for life. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the speech her husband gave.

Ken Bora
07-29-2010, 09:06 PM
Breitbart……
Hmmmm what do I know? I do not know if he should be taken to court. I don’t know is he has a defendable case.
What do I think?
I think, that people who set out to do a task, any task. And the only purpose of the task is to make somebody or some group look bad. Even if it is not true.
Are the type of people I do not like.
And that is all I know about that.



.

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2010, 09:16 PM
Breitbart……
Hmmmm what do I know? I do not know if he should be taken to court. I don’t know is he has a defendable case.
What do I think?
I think, that people who set out to do a task, any task. And the only purpose of the task is to make somebody or some group look bad. Even if it is not true.
Are the type of people I do not like.
.

Ditto. Regardless of the letter of the law, what Breitbart did was just wrong. He has had the opportunity to defend his actions publicly, and nothing he has presented comes through as "valid" to me.

On top of that he did a disservice to the very group(s) he sought to defend; he certainly gave Sherrod a bad few days (or more); and he impugned any credibility he might have built for himself prior to this.

I don't have much sympathy for the NAACP or those who demanded Sherrod's resignation because they failed in their responsibilities just as much as Breitbart.

M&K's Retrievers
07-30-2010, 02:20 PM
Seems the Sherrods have a history of suing and racism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/real_sherrod_story_still_untol.html

troy schwab
07-30-2010, 02:30 PM
Seems the Sherrods have a history of suing and racism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/real_sherrod_story_still_untol.html

WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED......... Disgusting.....

YardleyLabs
07-30-2010, 02:37 PM
Seems the Sherrods have a history of suing and racism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/real_sherrod_story_still_untol.html
Actually, the law suit is well known and was based on a pattern of systematic discrimination that was pervasive throughout the USDA as documented by the USDA's own investigations. The benefits that were sued for were routinely given to white farmers and corporate farmers but were routinely denied to black farmers. The Sherrod's clearly benefited from the settlement of that litigation, although the payments were held up for nine years after a settlement was agreed to by the government. What is your basis for saying the the Sherrod's were guilty of racism? Are you referring to the litigation, or to Charles Sherrod's statement that with a community owned radio station there will be a way for blacks to get out the word when whites mobilize to prevent election of a black candidate? If the latter, are you suggesting that no white station has done such a thing?

M&K's Retrievers
07-30-2010, 02:42 PM
Actually, the law suit is well known and was based on a pattern of systematic discrimination that was pervasive throughout the USDA as documented by the USDA's own investigations. The benefits that were sued for were routinely given to white farmers and corporate farmers but were routinely denied to black farmers. The Sherrod's clearly benefited from the settlement of that litigation, although the payments were held up for nine years after a settlement was agreed to by the government. What is your basis for saying the the Sherrod's were guilty of racism? Are you referring to the litigation, or to Charles Sherrod's statement that with a community owned radio station there will be a way for blacks to get out the word when whites mobilize to prevent election of a black candidate? If the latter, are you suggesting that no white station has done such a thing?

Jeff, I said what I said. Nothing more. His statements were racist. I offered no observations on anything else.

troy schwab
07-30-2010, 03:43 PM
Actually, the law suit is well known and was based on a pattern of systematic discrimination that was pervasive throughout the USDA as documented by the USDA's own investigations. The benefits that were sued for were routinely given to white farmers and corporate farmers but were routinely denied to black farmers. The Sherrod's clearly benefited from the settlement of that litigation, although the payments were held up for nine years after a settlement was agreed to by the government. What is your basis for saying the the Sherrod's were guilty of racism? Are you referring to the litigation, or to Charles Sherrod's statement that with a community owned radio station there will be a way for blacks to get out the word when whites mobilize to prevent election of a black candidate? If the latter, are you suggesting that no white station has done such a thing?

Yardley,
So you dont feel that the litigation was perpetuated or abused by famer's of color???? You feel that the judgement was correct? Just putting some words in your mouth. like you did to M&K........

shoe on the other foot regards.........

YardleyLabs
07-30-2010, 04:11 PM
Yardley,
So you dont feel that the litigation was perpetuated or abused by famer's of color???? You feel that the judgement was correct? Just putting some words in your mouth. like you did to M&K........

shoe on the other foot regards.........
From what I have read on the subject, which is not exhaustive, the judgment appears more than justified. The internal audit report documented systematic racial discrimination against non-whites in handling farms loans and crop subsidy payments. Non-white farmers were routinely forced into bankruptcy by delayed payments and the USDA often turned around and then arranged sale of the properties to white farmers. Had the government been a private company engaging in the same behavior, damages would have been paid long ago.

gman0046
07-30-2010, 04:59 PM
It's unbelievable that SLUGS like the Sherrods can bilk the Federal Government out of millions of dollars.

Gerry Clinchy
07-31-2010, 08:57 AM
Can't comment on whether the Sherrods were, or were not, entitled to a settlement. However, seems like there must have been SOME of those 86,000 claims from 40,000 black farmers that were not valid. So, I'd like to know more about who did that paperwork!

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 10:31 AM
Can't comment on whether the Sherrods were, or were not, entitled to a settlement. However, seems like there must have been SOME of those 86,000 claims from 40,000 black farmers that were not valid. So, I'd like to know more about who did that paperwork!A fair question. I also suspect that the 86,000 and 40,000 numbers are not quite what they seem.