Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Vampires: Shirley Sherrod Lawyers Seek to Sue Widow of Andrew Breitbart

October 8th, 2013 - 6:14 pm

Shirley Sherrod, the self-described one-time racialist who was caught on video admitting that she initially denied federal benefits to a white farmer because of his race, is seeking to add the widow of Andrew Breitbart to her lawsuit against the deceased new-media pioneer.

In a 2010 speech before an NAACP awards dinner, Sherrod admitted that she was initially unwilling to help a white farmer because he was white.  Sherrod said she did not give him the help she could have, and instead took him to a white lawyer. She called the white lawyer “one of his own kind.”

Andrew Breitbart’s website posted a two minute clip of Sherrod’s admission.  In the video, Sherrod’s story of refusing benefits to a white farmer is met by laughter and statements of “that’s right” from those in the NAACP audience.  Later in the video, Sherrod reversed her position and provided a story of redemption.

No applause or laughter came from the NAACP audience at the conclusion of Sherrod’s story when she described how she realized race was not an appropriate factor in her behavior.

After Andrew Breitbart posted a video clip of Sherrod’s statement, she resigned from the United States Department of Agriculture.

In February 2011, Kirkland & Ellis sued Andrew Breitbart and others for defamation, false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In February 2012, after weathering the pressure of the lawsuit for a year, Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure.  He left a wife and four children.

One might have thought that would be the end of the matter.

Not content to have hounded Andrew for a year before he died, Shirley Sherrod’s lawyers are now seeking to add Susie Bean Breitbart as a defendant to Sherrod’s lawsuit.  Andrew’s widow has been described as the nicest woman in Los Angeles.  She had nothing to do with Andrew’s work at Breirtbart.com, save for perhaps putting up with his endless hours on the phone.  She certainly had nothing to do with Shirley Sherrod.

A decent person might have ended the whole matter after Andrew’s death.

But Sherrod’s lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis filed this pleading seeking to drag Susie into the lawsuit.  They are trying to bore into her own personal estate, the estate which will be used to raise her four fatherless children.  The pleading coldly notes:

Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Mr. Breitbart was timely filed, survives his death, and may be continued against his successor. See D.C. Code § 12-101; . . . .(“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.

Kirkland & Ellis lawyers Thomas Yannucci and Michael D. Jones shamefully top the complaint, and the effort to drag Susie into the case.

Yannucci (L) and Jones (R)

Yannucci (L) and Jones (R)

Given Kirkland’s exceedingly high hourly rates, one can safely assume that Sherrod’s lawsuit is probably being bankrolled by a third party, or by Kirkland & Ellis itself.

Sherrod should disclose who is paying for the high-dollar litigation against a conservative news outlet. If it is Sherrod, she should say so.  Or, is it other clients of Kirkland & Ellis, such as Starwood Hotels, Walgreens or Avis/Budget Car Rentals, through their fees in other matters subsidizing Kirkland lawyers working for Sherrod pro bono?  Perhaps it is an unseen third party?  Either way, if it isn’t Sherrod paying the bills, she ought to disclose to the media who is paying them.

If nothing else, the media ought to start asking.

Better yet, perhaps Sherrod should go back to being an unrepentant racialist.  It would be more respectable than her current endeavor of hounding widows.

Related: Lawfirm Attacking Breitbart’s Widow Also Attacking NC Voter ID… for Free

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
No, you can't have your own facts. So stop trying. Breitbart did not "edit" the video. He included a continuous section of the speech -- which was not edited. In professional parlance, an "edit" is a change or alteration in the order or sequence of spoken or visual images/words. An "edit" is what NBC did to George Zimmerman's 911 call when they removed an intermediate section, joining front and tail sections to change the meaning and interpretation of the words.

All major media news outlets truncate or excerpt sections of speeches. It is standard practice. That is all Breitbart did. Moreover, the clip was NOT by definition defamatory as it included Sherrod's change-of-heart realizations in her own words. Breitbart also included a narrative account of the ENTIRE speech, and provided a link to the full video of the speech (something major media outlets do NOT do).

In addition, Breitbart's story was ONLY about the racist reaction of the NAACP audience which applauded the unfair treatment of the white farmer. It wasn't even about Sherrod. It was the Obama administration who didn't listen to the tape and unfairly fired Sherrod. The lawsuit should be against them.

Attached is a legal analysis of the tape and the issue by Prof. William Jacobson, plainly illustrating how the tape was not deceptively or libelously edited and the claims against Breitbart were false and defamatory in themselves.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/the-myth-of-andrew-breitbarts-deceptively-edited-shirley-sherrod-tape-lives-on-at-slate-co/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sherrod should certainly be able to pay her own legal bills. After all, she and her late husband received one of the largest settlements in the Pigford case.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This excrement sucking pig needs to be in jail for the Pigford scam..
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (45)
All Comments   (45)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Shirley Pigfart...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So can't we strike back? Every comment should be, "the purpose of the video was to show how thorughly racist the NAACP has become, as they are now a branch of the Democratic party, the party that brought us the Klan.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Especially by guests on talk shows.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This law suit isn't going anywhere because Sherrod was a public official. Under Sullivan, they are not protected under defamation laws. They might get lucky and sucker some partisan judge into ruling for them, but it won't get beyond the appeals court.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The discovery in this case could be very interesting, that is assuming it get past the motion to dismiss. Sherrod will be toast.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The time is now to remove these racist scum from our government.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This woman's racism and greed know no bounds. How much has she profited from public employment? It's infuriating that she is living on a lifetime pension courtesy of you and me, the taxpayers. And how many millions were illegally redistributed to unqualified Pigford recipients on racial grounds?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here's the really sad part. Her attorney knows the case hasn't got a snowball's chance of succeeding. He won't tell HER that because she's money in the bank. He ought to be disciplined under Rule 11, but he won't be.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I read the Sherrod saga in real time on Breitbart's site, and it was very clear to me that Breitbart was indicting the NAACP, not Ms. Sherrod. He actually included the part where she redeemed herself by admitting that she wasn't helping the gentleman because he was white and then offered to get him some help. The crickets from the NAACP crowd at her admission that she realized she was judging the man by the color of his skin was the damning piece of evidence. I came away, at the time, with a positive impression of Ms. Sherrod. That opinion has changed by her actions, not by what Breitbart posted.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
so a shortened version of a video is grounds for lawsuit?? ROMNEY?? hear that?? 47% quote when THEY did you like that was not an issue---no permission to tape vs Ms Sherrod KNEW she was being taped ......world's biggest hypocrites and liars - at it again- one rule for them another for YOU-
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"If nothing else, the media ought to start asking."

They have proven by decades of bias to NOT ask when is serves their agenda.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
and silly me I always thought the thrust of having that video was to show the racism of the NAACP.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All