Rittenhouse hit by another Lawsuit

[Zincwarrior]

better you tell me what laws says that instead of making an ass of yourself,,

Again, look up Federal law, straw purchases, BATF etc. Put in the work bro.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I think Ritt is sitting on something like 200 million and has more coming.

I think I have one trillion in my checking account.

 

[Auld Phart]

In disagreeing with my post, Hugo Furst, what are you disputing exactly?

Do you deny that the Second Amendment is the law?

Do you deny that as part of the Constitution is the highest law in this country, and that as part thereof, the Second Amendment itself is higher than, and takes precedence over any other law that contradicts it?

View attachment 760113

do you deny that the 10th Amendment is ALSO part of the Constitution?

and gives states the right to make laws they otherwise couldn't?

If the Second is sacrosanct, WHY are there over 20,000 laws infringing on it?

 

[MisterBeale]

Bottom line is that Grosskreutz is not going into this proceeding with clean hands.
That will carry a lot of weight.

What strikes me as perhaps, just as concerning, is perhaps the folks that are bank-rolling this civil suit.

I somehow doubt, given the background of this character, that he has the means to hire the attorneys.

And, as I had posted, this case involved a lot of players, many of them civic authorities with very deep pockets. This is not lawfare intended to bankrupt Rittenhouse, this is primarily a PR stunt.

He won't win.just paying legal expenses will bankrupt him forever.

So we can clearly conclude, it isn't about this. It will be impossible, to bankrupt, collectively, the defendants. And though we may never find out who is funding this suit? We must assume they have nearly infinite resources.

Yes, I would imagine, it would probably go back to either the Open Society foundation, or, more than likely, Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety organization. This is more Bloomberg's pet project, and he is the one with the bottomless pockets on this cause.

After the death of George Floyd, and the initiation of the BLM chaos in 2020, there were a dozen and half deaths, cops and security guard's included. There were many, many things done wrong, by politicians, institutions, and the press, that contributed to these deaths, on both sides of the melee. And yet? For some reason, THIS, is the one our corporate and government media seem to want to focus on. . . They want to tell the public that you can't have a gun to defend yourself against chaos.



I sense a much larger agenda, that has nothing to do with Rittenhouse, or Gaige Grosskreutz.

Unless we can follow the money, we won't really know for sure.

This is more about how it will play out in the press, and the consequences that will reverberate back on taxpayers, I suspect. . .

 

[Auld Phart]

Its not my fault Russobots can't search the internet for federal regulation of firearms.

I've posted a link twice to Wisconsin's statue on straw purchases.
He's stupid enough to believe the 2nd overrules it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you want to run a hypothetically, we can do that...but this thread is about an actual trial with real life events.

We should stick to that in this thread.

It's not a Hypothetical.

We either agree that using deadly force is justified because someone pointed a firearm at you, or we don't.

Do we?

It's a messy situation. And preventable. Don't deputize the armed child, for starters.

 

[Slade3200]

you made the claim i claimed it. I didn’t

Wrong I said sounds like you. I wasn’t saying it was you. Idiot

 

[Slade3200]

i didn’t understand the point of your post

Kyle was guaranteeing a claim in one breath and then saying he doesn’t know for sure in the next. It made me laugh and reminded me of the way you make unfounded claims

 

[progressive hunter]

Again, look up Federal law, straw purchases, BATF etc. Put in the work bro.

me buying a gun from a drunk neighbor in an alley doesnt violate that,,

 

[Zincwarrior]

me buying a gun from a drunk neighbor in an alley doesnt violate that,,

I would reply but you have to be intentionally trolling to that obtuse. but, to follow Meister, I will restate - please look up the relevant laws and don't do what you are saying.

 

[struth]

Wrong I said sounds like you. I wasn’t saying it was you. Idiot

Are you now saying you never said I claimed Soros is funding this lawsuit?

I don't see how Kyle and I sound a like....I said "likely funded" - he said was...and he was right, that DA was supported in his campaign by Soros funded PACs

 

[struth]

Kyle was guaranteeing a claim in one breath and then saying he doesn’t know for sure in the next. It made me laugh and reminded me of the way you make unfounded claims

What claimed did I make that was unfounded?

 

[progressive hunter]

I would reply but you have to be intentionally trolling to that obtuse. but, to follow Meister, I will restate - please look up the relevant laws and don't do what you are saying.

maybe next time you dont jump in the middle of a conversation without seeing what they are talking about first,,

 

[Slade3200]

Are you now saying you never said I claimed Soros is funding this lawsuit?

That was prior to my Rittenhouse post. You said sounds like soros, I asked for proof, you said “it’s true”. Do you deny saying that or do I need to post the quote again?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

do you deny that the 10th Amendment is ALSO part of the Constitution?
and gives states the right to make laws they otherwise couldn't?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

The Second Amendment explicitly denies the power to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Nothing in the Tenth Amendment can rationally be construed as overriding this prohibition. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that is explicitly reserved to the people, not to the state nor federal governments, and neither the state nor federal government has any legitimate power to infringe this right; any more than any part of government has any legitimate authority to violate any other explicitly-affirmed Constitutional right.

If the Second is sacrosanct, WHY are there over 20,000 laws infringing on it?

Because government has long been infested with criminals who refuse to obey the law. Every one of those 20,000 laws is an act of corruption and malfeasance on the part of the criminals who enacted them, and the judges who upheld them.

 

[struth]

That was prior to my Rittenhouse post. You said sounds like soros, I asked for proof, you said “it’s true”. Do you deny saying that or do I need to post the quote again?

proof of what? "likely...." is that a hard word for you to grasp?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I've posted a link twice to Wisconsin's statue on straw purchases.
He's stupid enough to believe the 2nd overrules it.

Which takes legitimate precedence: The Constitution of the United States established as this nation's highest body of law, or a much lower state law?

 

[progressive hunter]

I would reply but you have to be intentionally trolling to that obtuse. but, to follow Meister, I will restate - please look up the relevant laws and don't do what you are saying.

if you were thinking kyle and not me,, well he didnt violate that law either,,

 

[Slade3200]

proof of what? "likely...." is that a hard word for you to grasp?

Well yeah, you can make a case for why you think it’s likely. Show the facts that lead you to that conclusion. Or are you just making shit up? That’s the discussion

 

[Zincwarrior]

if you were thinking kyle and not me,, well he didnt violate that law either,,

Again research the law, not your opinions.