Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Kyle Rittenhouse’s Lawyer Will Sue Biden for Libel Over False Accusations in New Ad

Kyle Rittenhouse’s Lawyer Will Sue Biden for Libel Over False Accusations in New Ad

“In the latter role, I am getting ready to teach @JoeBiden a lesson he will never forget. He falsely accused a 17-year old boy & prejudiced Kyle’s legal rights.”

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737

Lin Wood, the attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse, demanded Joe Biden’s campaign retract an ad that has a false accusation against his client.

Then Wood announced that he will sue Biden and the campaign on behalf of his client for libel.

Rittenhouse traveled from his home in Antioch, IL, to Kenosha, WI, in August to help protect businesses from looters and mobs.

He allegedly shot three men. Two of those men died and the third suffered serious injuries.

Rittenhouse faces five charges: reckless homicide, recklessly endangering safety, intentional homicide, attempted homicide, and recklessly endangering safety.

The attorneys claim Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Fuzzy wrote on August 28 that The New York Times’ reconstruction of that night makes a case for the defense strategy.

Biden’s Twitter account posted a new ad after Monday’s night debate to attack President Donald Trump’s supposed “refusal” to condemn white supremacists.

Biden wrote, “There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night.”

I refuted that claim earlier today. But I digress.

The ad includes Rittenhouse.

Wood responded that the attorneys started preparing a formal demand for a public retraction from the Biden/Harris campaign.

Wood also demanded that Biden “immediately retract his false accusation that Kyle is a white supremacist & militia member responsible for violence in Kenosha.”

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1311290152619307008

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1311349917143781376

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1311338524252176384

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1311319651947868161

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1311322300348862465

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1311316431728934913

Marina Medvin, another attorney on Rittenhouse’s team, tweeted out her response as well.

“There is no evidence of him being a ‘white supremacist,'” she wrote. “This dangerous storyline was concocted by online trolls and then promoted by mindless politicians and pundits. The flagrant defamation needs to stop. They can retract and apologize, or they can deal with Lin Wood in court. It’s their choice.”

The thread includes screenshots of videos showing Rittenhouse saying he had his medical kit so he could help anyone who had injuries.

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I guess he’s too old to just be sniffed
**********
mic drop….

Biden and his puppet masters are total dirtbags. I hope they have to back down fairly quickly.

    CountMontyC in reply to Eddie Baby. | September 30, 2020 at 2:55 pm

    The problem for Hiden Biden is that the demand is that the retraction be as public as the smear and that would be very embarrassing ahead of the election and after the election it could be considered too late. In fact Wood will likely set a deadline of no less than seven days or the lawsuit proceeds ( which would also be an embarrassment to the Hiden Biden campaign)

OwenKellogg-Engineer | September 30, 2020 at 2:20 pm

Go Lin Go!!!!!

Woohoo!!! Y-e-e-a-a-h-h baby! Let’s keep that winning streak moving!! $$$$$$ talk!

Lin Wood: “Your Honor, I call Joseph Biden to the stand.”
Joe Biden: (lifts coat lapel to his mouth ) “Testing, testing…”

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 30, 2020 at 2:47 pm

It is time we all sued the Democrats for everything.

Including the fake Dempanic…..

April
@
I concur…don’t need a vaccine for something with a 99.9% survival rate. Vaccines are for the people still wearing masks.

New York Post
@nypost
· Sep 29
Elon Musk says he won’t take coronavirus vaccine, calls Bill Gates a ‘knucklehead’ https://trib.al/Sb3en0x

He allegedly shot three men.

As Biden might say, come on, woman. Young Rittenhouse (I do not have the privilege of being on first-name terms with him) didn’t “allegedly” shoot anyone. There is no question whatsoever that he shot them, and he shot them good. The only question is whether they needed shooting, and the answer is yes, they did. He deserves a medal, not a criminal trial, but let’s not play the “allegedly” game.

Rittenhouse faces five charges: reckless homicide, recklessly endangering safety, intentional homicide, attempted homicide, and recklessly endangering safety.

That sentence is awkward because the two counts of recklessly endangering safety are listed separately; it sounds as if it’s a mistake and the same charge is being listed twice. Better to just list it once and say there are two counts. There’s also a sixth count, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

I also hereby demand that @JoeBiden immediately retract his false accusation that Kyle is a white supremacist & militia member responsible for violence in Kenosha.

There’s no evidence that he’s a white supremacist, and it’s libellous to describe him as such. Nor is he responsible for any violence, in Kenosha or anywhere else. But he is a militia member. All able-bodied men between 17 and 35 are. That’s something to be proud of, not to sue for. And it should add to his defense; as a member of the USA militia he had a special responsibility to help defend the victims of violence.

Kyle went to Kenosha, WIsconsin to render medical aid as a trained ENT,

He’s an ear, nose, and throat doctor?! At his age?! That’s quite an accomplishment!

Also, if he’d gone for the purpose of rendering medical aid he wouldn’t have been carrying a rifle. While he certainly did render aid, the main purpose of his being there seems to have been to protect the victims. That’s something to be proud of, not to hide and pretend didn’t happen. He seems like a fine young man and anyone would be proud to be his parent.

    Mary Chastain in reply to Milhouse. | September 30, 2020 at 3:01 pm

    Um, we always say allegedly until they’re found guilty. Allegedly, supposedly, accused of. That’s how we do it.

      So, how many time have we seen the media say that Ofc. Chauvin “allegedly” knelt on George Floyd’s neck? It would be interesting to see the numbers there.

      Dantzig93101 in reply to Mary Chastain. | September 30, 2020 at 3:26 pm

      I am not a lawyer, but perhaps you are and hence can answer the question.

      We know that Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people. It’s on video, he says he did, and nobody contests it. What has been “alleged” is that he committed crimes by doing so. I’m not sure if the law makes such a distinction, but it seems sensible to me.

      Mind-reading Milhouse for a moment, I think that journalists tend to over-use “alleged” when there’s neither dispute nor doubt about the facts. They only omit it when a conservative is accused of something: that’s never just “alleged.”

      Well in my opinion that’s a bad policy. The purpose of such language is to protect you from lawsuit in case it turns out not to be true; therefore it’s only appropriate where some degree of doubt exists. Here there is no doubt, because not only is it all on video but Mr Rittenhouse and his legal team openly acknowledge that he did shoot those men. Nobody alleges that he didn’t. There also seems to be no question that they desperately needed shooting.

        Dantzig93101 in reply to Milhouse. | September 30, 2020 at 3:49 pm

        I agree. My main criticism of Mr. Rittenhouse is that his marksmanship is deficient.

          daniel_ream in reply to Dantzig93101. | September 30, 2020 at 4:00 pm

          I think most people, including most serving members of the military, would consider themselves blessed to have marksmanship, reflexes, and situational awareness on a par with Master Rittenhouse.

          CommoChief in reply to Dantzig93101. | September 30, 2020 at 4:15 pm

          Yeah, for a 17 year old kid with very little formal training (that we know of) his composure, trigger discipline and accuracy of fire impressed the heck out of me.

          IMO he made.an error in travelling there but that’s a totally separate debate.

          Seems adequate to the recipients…

          IMO he made.an error in travelling there but that’s a totally separate debate.

          It’s called a sense of civic responsibility. Most people wouldn’t have done it, and I admire him for not being most people.

          Not that I need to tell you this, but some people seem confused on the difference between vigilantism and stepping in to defend victims.

          CommoChief in reply to Dantzig93101. | September 30, 2020 at 5:02 pm

          Milhouse, I agree with the sentiment but IMO the first rule of self defense is to avoid a confrontation when possible.

          The kid seems to have had the best of intentions and motivation for traveling there. The fact is that if he had stayed home he wouldn’t be facing charges.

          I personally think he beats the charges now that he has raised funds to support his defense.

          CommoChief, the confrontation was already happening. It couldn’t be avoided. The only question was whether he would do the right thing and get involved, or keep himself safe and let the victims go undefended. That’s the Kitty Genovese theory.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Dantzig93101. | September 30, 2020 at 7:36 pm

          Considering Rittenhouse’s age, he performed very well, ad if he had followed double tap, the prick who survived would have been dead.

          I would prefer we not have a breakdown of law and order, but if we do, I hope that there are many people doing as well as Rittenhouse.

          henrybowman in reply to Dantzig93101. | September 30, 2020 at 8:07 pm

          He hit everybody he aimed at with every round he sent at them, and hit nobody else. If that’s “deficient,” then our police forces are criminal.

      OleDirtyBarrister in reply to Mary Chastain. | September 30, 2020 at 3:31 pm

      I am willing to bet that the de jure attorneys and legal scholars that run Legal Insurrection are smart enough not to accept legal advice or policy advice from a de facto internet expert and ersatz lawyer like Outhouse.

      Anyone disagree?

      LOL.

        Judging from the downvotes, it would appear so.

        The Friendly Grizzly in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | September 30, 2020 at 3:52 pm

        I both disagree, and find it childish to turn Milhouse’s screen name into something insulting. Doing that, you sound like a 3rd grader.

        Grow up.

          OleDirtyBarrister in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | October 1, 2020 at 11:41 am

          Do you know how many times Outhouse has told other posters that they are stupid and corrected them when he is not a lawyer either and does not know what he is talking about?

          One of the biggest problems laymen have is that they have the right to remain silent but not the ability. If I knew as little about the constitution and law as most vociferous posters do I’d remain silent to avoid espousing ignorance.

        ODB

        Unfair cheap shot at Milhouse. Look, he and I have sparred frequently because he tends to get a hold of a particular point that isn’t correct and refuses to let go. Still he does argue well and overall is valued by me for his willingness to engage.

        There are many folks here who are non attorneys. As.to your larger point I would hope everyone is wise enough not to accept any posts here as gospel in terms of legal advice.

          OleDirtyBarrister in reply to CommoChief. | October 1, 2020 at 11:43 am

          See my post above regarding how many times Outhouse has insulted other posters and called them “stupid”. I have seen it and know it happened.

          Think38 in reply to CommoChief. | October 1, 2020 at 1:43 pm

          Feel free to call him out for bad behavior. So far, in this thread, there is none from Milhouse.

        Most people I know consider criticism from a dirty lawyer to be a badge of honor!

      Allegedly suggests there’s no proof. In the case of Rittenhouse, there’s ample proof.

      Sorry, no. With all respect. Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t allegedly shoot three people. He shot three people, killing two and leaving the third individual celibate until he learns to use his left hand as Mr. Rittenhouse blew the guy’s right bicep off.

      Tatiana Ruta, of the “Caravan4Justice” #BLAM affiliated group, didn’t allegedly drive into a crowd of Trump supporters. She drove her car into a crowd of Trump supporters.

      There is no question they committed those acts. The only question is if they are guilty of the crimes they are charged with.

      Kyle Rittenhouse has IMHO a good chance of being acquitted given his surviving attacker has stated that he “wanted to kill that kid.” When armed individuals are attacking an innocent party with intent to kill, the innocent party can use deadly force to defend his/her life.

      I have no idea what possible defense Tatiana Ruta has available to xer, since xe, entirely unprovoked, drove xer car into a crowd that wasn’t mobbing it or blocking it Antifa/#BLM style.

      But it makes about as much sense to say these two “allegedly” took the actions that they certainly took as for me to say the sun “allegedly” rose this morning.

      After all, this morning’s sunrise hasn’t been adjudicated in a court of law so apparently nobody can speak with certainty about it?

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | September 30, 2020 at 3:49 pm

        Kyle Rittenhouse has IMHO a good chance of being acquitted given his surviving attacker has stated that he “wanted to kill that kid.” When armed individuals are attacking an innocent party with intent to kill, the innocent party can use deadly force to defend his/her life.

        The attacker’s intent is irrelevant, since, first of all, the victim is not a mind-reader, and second of all an intent to kill the victim does not put the victim in any danger, so he is not entitled to use deadly force to defend himself from it.

        All the victim has to go on is the attacker’s actions, and those are what either put him in danger or don’t. Even if the victim knows with certainty that the attacker doesn’t intend to kill him, if the victim reasonably believes that he’s likely to actually do so if not stopped then the victim is entitled to defend himself.

        (This is why abortion to save the mother’s life is justified. The baby certainly doesn’t intend to kill the mother, but he’s killing her nonetheless, and he needs to be stopped. If the only way to do so is to kill him then unfortunately that needs to be done.)

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | September 30, 2020 at 6:45 pm

          Quit your silly word games, Milhouse. When attacker indicate through verbal threats and/or actions their intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to their target, and the attackers are armed with deadly weapons (at least one with a handgun in this case) the threat has become mortal and imminent.

          I don’t know what the three Antifa scum might have been yelling at the 17 y.o. at the time, but the fact the one who survived stated later that he wanted to “kill the kid” shows however his attackers communicated their intent Kyle Rittenhouse correctly and clearly understood what they were trying to do.

          Kyle Rittenhouse’s use of deadly force in self-defense was reasonable.

          I included all these elements in my earlier comment, the one you needlessly replied to because apparently your ego drives you to prove you’re always the one who’s right.

          Not in this case pal. Take the L and leave it alone.

          MajorWood in reply to Milhouse. | September 30, 2020 at 10:38 pm

          Did you miss the failed kick to the head and the swing and a miss of the skateboard? Even Helen Keller could see the intent there. Given that player #2 even grabbed the barrel, thus guiding the shot to the ten ring, one of these could be considered assisted suicide.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 1, 2020 at 12:19 am

          I don’t see how I could have been any clearer, but MajorWood seems somehow to have read some other comment and not the one I wrote.

          I can only repeat myself:

          The right of self-defense depends only on whether (1) the victim believes he is likely to be killed if he does not act; (2) that belief is objectively reasonable; (3) the defensive act does no more damage than is necessary to stop the attack.

          The attacker’s intentions, even if known are completely irrelevant. Even if the victim knows for certain that the attacker has no intention of killing him, that does not affect his right to defend himself. And in many cases the attacker’s intentions are unknowable, and thus doubly irrelevant.

          So the fact that the surviving attacker has admitted that he had murder in his heart is irrelevant. What matters is that Rittenhouse at the time had a perfectly reasonable fear that if he didn’t shoot he would suffer grievous bodily harm. That this fear has turned out to have been correct is just a bonus; the law would be the same had it turned out that it was all an awful misunderstanding.

          AskSeekKnock in reply to Milhouse. | October 1, 2020 at 12:20 pm

          Millhouse, I like to read your posts though I don’t always agree. I don’t know why you brought in abortion as an example. I’m not a lawyer but would hope there were better ways to make the point

          Think38 in reply to Milhouse. | October 1, 2020 at 1:29 pm

          “The right of self-defense depends only on whether (1) the victim believes he is likely to be killed if he does not act; (2) that belief is objectively reasonable; (3) the defensive act does no more damage than is necessary to stop the attack.”

          Subsequent statements are relevant for element #2, as they tend to substantiate Rittenhouse’s perceptions and beliefs at the time. You are correct that a belief or fear can be reasonable, even though it is wrong (the other party did not have intent). The opposite though, supports it. Showing the other person in fact had intent to harm, coupled with the means to commit harm, supports the reasonableness of the fear.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | October 1, 2020 at 2:00 pm

          First rules of holes, Milhouse. When you’re in one, stop digging.

          “The attacker’s intentions, even if known are completely irrelevant. Even if the victim knows for certain that the attacker has no intention of killing him, that does not affect his right to defend himself.”

          This particular case concerns a fatal shooting. And you’re talking about knowing “for certain” that the attacker has absolutely no intention of killing his intended victim?!?! I realize it’s possible to get a concealed handgun license for self-defense in NYC if you’re rich enough or politically well connected enough (the two usually going together). So let’s game out how this will play out in front of a jury:

          Billionaire with powerful friends: “I knew for certain my attacker had no intention of killing me, but I decided to shoot anyway.”

          We’ll write you in prison, Milhouse.

          “And in many cases the attacker’s intentions are unknowable, and thus doubly irrelevant.”

          I think this bit of philosophizing might end up getting you a sentencing enhancement as an aggravating factor.

          Usually the certainty thingy goes the other way. No U.S. jurisdiction requires that you have absolute certainty that your attacker intends to kill you. To establish absolute certainty would involve absorbing a few rounds, which I consider counterproductive in a self-defense situation. But these factors are also involved in many cases of animal attack as well. Killing an elephant, Rhino (yes, it’s legal in some African countries), lion, etc., W/O A LICENSE is a very big and very risky proposition which most hunters go to great lengths to avoid. Many of these animals, such as elephant, will bluff charge to enforce their personal space. The problem is if you wait too long to try to discern it’s only a bluff charge it can turn into the real deal and by then it’s too late. But on the other hand if you don’t lose a limb or something the board of inquest will rule you shot too soon. There was a case out of Norway, where Polar Bears aren’t on license but a big revenue generator as a tourist attraction, a couple of years ago. Some armed guards (required on the Norwegian island of Svalbard due to the Polar Bear danger) were charged with illegally killing a bear. They were acquitted, but only just:

          https://polarbearscience.com/2020/09/05/criminal-charges-dropped-in-case-of-polar-bear-shot-by-cruise-ship-guards-in-2018/#:~:text=The%20guards%20from%20a%20cruise%20ship%20who%20shot,of%20the%20bear%20automatically%20triggered%20a%20criminal%20investigation.

          “The polar bear guards went ashore first. Shortly after disembarking, the first two polar bear guards were sent out into the terrain to check for polar bears on the other side of a bank. The area was visible and appeared clear. However, it turned out that a polar bear was staying in a dump, so it was not visible from the boat or the beach. One polar bear guard went after the bear, who in cash attacked him.

          The polar bear guard suffered head injuries after the attack, but survived. The polar bear was first shot at with frightening agents without reacting visibly to this, and without wanting to end the attack on the polar bear guard. Then three shots were fired that killed the polar bear…”

          One of the guards had head wounds and the Norwegians still charged the guards and cruise ship line criminally.

          Fortunately in this country, whether dealing with man or beast, no one is required to demonstrate that amount of certainty to justify an act of self-defense.

      CommoChief in reply to Mary Chastain. | September 30, 2020 at 4:39 pm

      Mary,

      Agree with Milhouse. Rittenhouse’s attorneys put out a video displaying the events chronologically. The attorneys stipulated that Rittenhouse did fire his weapon and did kill his assailants in self defense. It was on T Carlson several weeks ago.

      Killing the assailants may be a homicide but not every homicide is a murder.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to CommoChief. | September 30, 2020 at 7:50 pm

        I would rather characterise this as scum-icide, and I believe ending scum is best referred to as a termination.

        People who intentionally put other at great risk, by rioting, looting, assaulting burning, they are scum.

      Arminius in reply to Mary Chastain. | October 1, 2020 at 5:08 pm

      Mary, an obvious point that mitigates against the use of alleged in this case. So obvious that it flew under my personal radar. It was clear that Kyle Rittenhouse intended to assert that he fired in self-defense. In order to claim self-defense his attorneys have to confirm that Rittenhouse intentionally fired his weapon and justifiably so.

      This sort of thing doesn’t fly in court.

      1. I didn’t mean to shoot.
      2. It was an accident.
      3. I acted in self-defense.

      His attorneys are correctly confirming that Rittenhouse shot three men deliberately. Nothing alleged about that part. Now they have to prove he’s innocent because he acted in accordance with the laws of self-defense.

      Another case, an extremely unpleasant one, that will help me illustrate the correct vs. incorrect use of alleged.

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/india-gang-rape-balrampur-woman-dies-from-alleged-attack-as-protests-spread/ar-BB19BuTH?ocid=uxbndlbing

      “India gang rape: Balrampur woman dies from alleged attack as protests spread

      By Jessie Yeung and Esha Mitra, CNN 50 mins ago

      A 22-year-old woman died of severe injuries in India after being allegedly gang raped on Tuesday, according to authorities — the same day another 19-year-old woman died from a separate gang rape incident, prompting nationwide outrage and growing protests.”

      India, unfortunately has a very high incidence of rape,* especially gang rape. The doctors there aren’t shoddy enough to mistake the injuries of a brutal rape or gang rape for anything else. When a woman is brought into a hospital with those unmistakable injuries then we can be certain there was an actual attack. No one dies from an alleged attack. To say the “22-year-old woman died of severe injuries in India after being allegedly gang raped on Tuesday” tortures the language (as does saying the “alleged” gang rape happened on Tuesday; she died on Tuesday, having been gang raped prior to that but I expect sloppy language from reporters). Notice CNN didn’t play the “alleged” word game when mentioning the second attack.

      But in the two cases mentioned in the article the police haven’t identified suspects let alone arrested anyone for these attacks. When they identify suspects then it would be appropriate to use the word alleged. As in:

      “Suspect A was arrested on Saturday for allegedly taking part in the brutal gang rape of 22 year old Jane Doe of Balrampur. Jane Doe later died of her injuries.”

      The fact the unfortunate young woman was gang raped is a certainty. Whether suspect A played a role in it is not.

      *Whenever the OECD or some other international organization ranks the 20 worst countries or so in the world for women and girls in terms of educational opportunities, economic opportunities, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, etc., India is the only country that makes the list that isn’t a Muslim majority country.

      Here’s how bad things are in India, rural India in particular. If a young man or a father is accused of rape in a rural village, a common punishment meted out by the village council of elders is to order that the men in the offended family may publicly rape the offender’s sister/daughter. It’s illegal; the basic injustice of the act, that the girl is the one who suffers the weight of the punishment, is or should be obvious to everyone. But apparently not to these traditional villagers. It never seems to occur to them that the punishment is far more horrific for the girl who has to endure this atrocity then for the men in the offender’s family who are forced to watch.

      The girl’s are mere commodities. One of the men in the family “ruined” the value of a girl in the other family. Raped girls don’t fetch much of a bride price if at all. So the men in the other family get to “ruin” a girl in the offender’s family.

      I (sarc on) highly recommend (sarc off) that college girls/young women indoctrinated to believe that the U.S. is the worst Patriarchal rape culture in the history of the universe EVAH!!! to take a trip to rural India or really any Muslim-majority country in North Africa, the M.E., or South Asia and wander around in shorts and a T-shirt.

    I would assume that it was supposed to be “EMT”, not ENT

    DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | September 30, 2020 at 3:52 pm

    “Also, if he’d gone for the purpose of rendering medical aid he wouldn’t have been carrying a rifle.”

    When going anywhere for any lawful purpose, one need not surrender any other right, including the rights to arms and to self defense, in order to go to that place. (This includes those places from which we have been unconstitutionally barred from bearing arms, in and at which our ability to defend ourselves has likewise been seriously degraded because of the afore-mentioned bar.)

    As Rittenhouse himself explained in a video made earlier in the evening, he was there to help, but had the rifle to protect himself, in recognition of the fact that anywhere people may be inured by others is obviously a dangerous place to be. Turns out Rittenhouse was absolutely, 100% correct.

    henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | September 30, 2020 at 7:26 pm

    “Also, if he’d gone for the purpose of rendering medical aid he wouldn’t have been carrying a rifle.”

    Says who? This was a riot, not a theatre subject to the Geneva Convention.

    It’s worth noting that the final fellow Rittenhouse shot was wearing a cap that said “medic,” yet was also armed with a handgun (illegally, as he was a convicted felon). Rittenhouse didn’t have the option to carry a concealed handgun, due to federal law, as he was underage. (Presumably he was unaware that unlike his home state, Wisconsin law had an age limit for long guns.)

      ecreegan in reply to henrybowman. | October 1, 2020 at 1:17 pm

      Wisconsin has a minimum age of 18 for weapons in general. There is an EXCEPTION for long arms, with conditions that make it clear this is intended for hunting but don’t actually restrict it to hunting. Kyle Rittenhouse met those conditions.

        henrybowman in reply to ecreegan. | October 1, 2020 at 3:39 pm

        I don’t know enough about Wisconsin law, so I’ll let the lawyers argue that one out. It’s the only point on which I can see even the possibility of Rittenhouse having overstepped either propriety or the law. Even if he did, it’s at most only a misdemeanor.

    MajorWood in reply to Milhouse. | September 30, 2020 at 10:46 pm

    Perhaps allegedly applies to the three soy boys, who were not “men” in my book.

    gospace in reply to Milhouse. | October 1, 2020 at 2:46 am

    But he is a militia member. All able-bodied men between 17 and 35 are.

    And this is only the second time I’ve seen that point made. Well, actually, only the second person I’ve seen mentioning it. I’ve pointed it out several times, here, on Facebook, and on other blogs.

    Kenosha is an example of the unorganized militia self organizing when law and order aren’t being enforced by the power of the state.

    bullhubbard in reply to Milhouse. | October 1, 2020 at 9:54 am

    You say “he is a militia member. All able-bodied men between 17 and 35 are. That’s something to be proud of, not to sue for. And it should add to his defense; as a member of the USA militia he had a special responsibility to help defend the victims of violence.”

    Do you refer to draft (“selective service”) registration?

      Milhouse in reply to bullhubbard. | October 1, 2020 at 10:53 am

      No, I refer to the unorganized militia of the United States. All able-bodied men between 17 and 35 are automatically members.

OleDirtyBarrister | September 30, 2020 at 3:28 pm

If Rittenhouse sues Joe Brains it will be a difficult case even if he is correct. The holdings of SCOTUS in Butts, Gertz, Sullivan, etc. on defamation and the First Amendment make it hard to prevail.

Wood lost a case at trial against Musk on the “Pedo Man” statements, so even if you get to trial, it is not easy to win when the defendants can spin about opinion, sarcasm, parody, political rhetoric, “no reasonable person would take such statements seriously”, etc.

Further, Wood has enough litigation and stress as it is. Just read the complaint filed against him by his unhappy junior partners and associated.

https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/defense-attorney-for-kyle-rittenhouse-sued-for-fraud-and-breach-of-contract-by-former-colleagues/

    Lin Wood seems to thrive on stress so that is probably a non issue. And remember he has won, and recently, in massive ways against News Organizations (forcing them to settle is a major win). In this case I think he has a shot.

    In general what you say is correct, but in this case I think he has a solid case. Biden and his campaign were very careless in how they phrased this ad, and seem to me to have jumped all the hoops, crossed all the Ts, and dotted all the Is necessary to make a case against them.

    “no reasonable person would take such statements seriously”

    When it says upfront, “I’m Joe Biden, and I approve this message,” this Joe Biden guy is screwed.

    I thought Sullivan was about defaming a public figure, and not a public figure person defaming an unknown. We have enough problems with public figures without giving them automatic defamation immunity.

      Milhouse in reply to MajorWood. | October 1, 2020 at 12:20 am

      Yes, Sullivan is irrelevant here. The other decisions are not, but I think this is the rare case where none of the usual defenses will work.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | October 1, 2020 at 11:45 am

    Wonderful, we have the great legal scholar Outhouse here giving us his opinion on the merits of a defamation case and how things would go.

    Outhouse lawyer, you have never litigated a case in your life and certainly never a defamation case. Quit being a poseur.

You don’t mess with my children, my pup, or my clients.
Lin Wood sounds like the female version of John Wick

Falsely accused. Another Democrat witch hunt, 16 trimesters and in progress.

“When I take @JoeBiden deposition on cross-examination, no wire or computer contact lenses will save him.

“I will rip Joe into shreds. Ask witnesses who have had the misfortune of sitting across the table from me under oath.

“You don’t mess with my children, my pup, or my clients.”

What a pompous asshole! Let’s take Lincoln up on his invitation and ask Musk about Lin’s deposition skills and ferocity. Musk seemed to have survived the ordeal.

    In my personal experience all lawyers have a streak of asshole that they can call upon when necessary for a purpose. For some it is a normal mode. It doesn’t matter in either case. If he uses the ‘asshole rhetoric’ to accomplish a good end for his client then he’s done his job.

      MajorWood in reply to kyrrat. | September 30, 2020 at 10:30 pm

      As I like to put it, “not only is my brother a lawyer, he is also a prick.”

      I will be impressed if Lin can teach Joe a lesson he won’t forget because remembering isn’t reputed to be one of Joe’s fortes these days.

    dmacleo in reply to Geologist. | September 30, 2020 at 5:16 pm

    man up or man out.
    report back to us with how you fared.

Obama had done pretty much the same thing. As President of the US.
Biden is just doing his usual stealing of ideas and claiming them to be his own.

Other than the sniffing.

That is pure Dementia Joe.

“Rittenhouse traveled from his home in Antioch, IL, to Kenosha, WI, in August to help protect businesses from looters and mobs.”

No.

Rittenhouse traveled from his home to work his regular day job as a pool lifeguard, and only after that chose to accompany a friend (who armed him) to protect a local business at their request.

I’m very surprised and impressed with the IL DA refusing to extradite Kyle. I’m not sure if he’s in jail or not and am not qualified to comment on the legalities but might the IL guys be holding out for a downward reduction of the charges before turning him over? Also “Lefty” Greusskrantz if he was a convicted felon in possession why has he been given a pass? He went public with the regret that he didn’t kill Kyle. Put him away now before he hurts the next person he accosts.

    henrybowman in reply to JimWoo. | October 1, 2020 at 3:49 pm

    The Wisconsin DA won’t do that, for the same reason that the St. Louis DA recently declined to prosecute the McCloskey trespassers for trespassing and menacing — because it would help justify the McCloskeys and Rittenhouse to be able to point to the criminal acts of their alleged “victims.”

It appears that the Biden tweets picturing Rittenhouse as a white supremacist are gone. Wonder why?

We need lawsuits and/or criminal conspiracy charges against all civil right violations by those who do not support people using their Constitution Rights.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend