Kyle Rittenhouse solicits donations, so he can sue CNN and NYT

Resetset

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2022
826
647
93
This picture is after Captain America legally defended himself. Not much of a bicep to begin with.
pauam45icly71.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dirtyharry555

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,495
123,731
113
Yeah the reality is that this going nowhere just like the bogus Trump legal pursuits.

''Anthony Huber’s father, John Huber, also alleged that Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors. ''

This is a true conspiracy theory lol........
Some of the Trump cases will get somewhere. Most are political stunts. The lawsuit against Rittenhouse will go nowhere and is a political stunt.

But what happened to the Rittenhouse mega lawsuit against CNN that you formerly posted about repeatedly? You know, the lawsuit that was going to destroy the "Radical Left" and make the "Hive" weep and sob?

You posted about that a whole bunch, Orry. Whatever happened to that?

Did you give Kyle the Man some of your money, so you could look forward to the inevitable Day of Triumph?.... If I was to suggest to you that the little fucker cheated you and whole bunch of other people out of their bank balances, would you agree with me now?
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,495
123,731
113
Oh man,lol.......That's going to stir the hive up.
Actually, no. The Hive is too busy laughing about the obvious grifting and cash-scamming that Rittenhouse and his handlers have done ever since he shot those 3 dudes and how we think that you and some of the other righties on here might have actually given Kyle your savings.

Why would us hivers be smarting when we're chuckling?
 
  • Like
Reactions: silentkisser

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
18,944
5,384
113
Lewiston, NY
Actually, no. The Hive is too busy laughing about the obvious grifting and cash-scamming that Rittenhouse and his handlers have done ever since he shot those 3 dudes and how we think that you and some of the other righties on here might have actually given Kyle your savings.

Why would us hivers be smarting when we're chuckling?
It does chap my ass that that little shit stain Rittenhouse escaped any real justice, but it's OK to be smug about the money...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knuckle Ball

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
17,845
8,984
113
He can file any horseshit he wants. It may get a settlement that is barely worth the name, or get dismissed on a pre trial motion as legal nonsense. But he gets to file it and it lives in the court files for a little while. Yup.
Is it really horseshit though? You're a lawyer right, if a client walks in your office and tells you he gets acquitted of murder and wants to go after media personalities that called him a murderer on air....would you flat put tell a potential trial client t he has no case? Bias aside... it's a no?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
101,753
28,713
113
Some of the Trump cases will get somewhere. Most are political stunts. The lawsuit against Rittenhouse will go nowhere and is a political stunt.

But what happened to the Rittenhouse mega lawsuit against CNN that you formerly posted about repeatedly? You know, the lawsuit that was going to destroy the "Radical Left" and make the "Hive" weep and sob?

You posted about that a whole bunch, Orry. Whatever happened to that?

Did you give Kyle the Man some of your money, so you could look forward to the inevitable Day of Triumph?.... If I was to suggest to you that the little fucker cheated you and whole bunch of other people out of their bank balances, would you agree with me now?
Why don't you think this case will succeed?
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
7,732
4,052
113
Is it really horseshit though? You're a lawyer right, if a client walks in your office and tells you he gets acquitted of murder and wants to go after media personalities that called him a murderer on air....would you flat put tell a potential trial client t he has no case? Bias aside... it's a no?
I would say No. With the Freedom of the Press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment media outlets can say pretty much anything they like without consequence.

Plus…in this instance KR was indeed charged with Murder and many people feel he should have been convicted. Calling him a Murderer seems within the realm of fair comment.

No legit lawyer would take this case; the only lawyers that would take this on are grifters, kooks, or those with a political agenda. They are the Rudy Giulianis and Lin Woods is the legal profession.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,495
123,731
113
Is it really horseshit though? You're a lawyer right, if a client walks in your office and tells you he gets acquitted of murder and wants to go after media personalities that called him a murderer on air....would you flat put tell a potential trial client t he has no case? Bias aside... it's a no?
US libel law protects the speaker pretty heavily.

But the case was frequently announced as "about to happen", inevitably linked to a new "urgent" fund-raising campaign to "pay for our lawyers". And this happened several times. And then the case was never filed. So it was a clear fraud and scam, simply to get cash for Kyle and his handlers and hangers-on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knuckle Ball

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
4,641
5,978
113
Because it's horseshit.

KR has a pretty strong self-defence claim and that works in civil law as well.
But the burden of proof is so much lower in a civil case. In criminal, you need to prove without doubt someone is guilty. In the civil, you just need to have more than half of the doubt (or something...). That's why OJ won his criminal trial but lost the wrongful death. Self-defence could work, but at the same time you could make a reasonable argument that Rittenhouse coming to the city with a rifle led to the confrontations and shootings...A self fulfilling prophecy that there would be a need to use that gun....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,495
123,731
113
But the burden of proof is so much lower in a civil case. In criminal, you need to prove without doubt someone is guilty. In the civil, you just need to have more than half of the doubt (or something...). That's why OJ won his criminal trial but lost the wrongful death. Self-defence could work, but at the same time you could make a reasonable argument that Rittenhouse coming to the city with a rifle led to the confrontations and shootings...A self fulfilling prophecy that there would be a need to use that gun....
I don't think it makes a difference. The big advantage in civil cases usually happens when there's a "he said / she said" defence. In criminal cases, ANY REASONABLE DOUBT has to cause an acquittal. The standard Canadian self-instruction for trial judges in a criminal case is to recite that "even if the court believes the complainant, if the accused's evidence causes any reasonable doubt at all, I must acquit".

In a civil cause it's just "balance of probabilities" - is something more likely than not. So usually the judge believing the complainant means the civil defendant loses the case automatically.

But when there's an actual technical, legal defence (like self defence), it plays in both civil and criminal cases. It's hard not to accept that KR was fighting for his life that night. The differing standards of proof don't really have an impact.
 

dirtyharry555

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2011
2,833
2,312
113
Toronto Escorts