Breaking News: Sandmann lawyer joins Rittenhouse team, says Zuckerberg a 'top' target of numerous 'solid' lawsuits

[Jarlaxle]

Same reason why MOST cases are settled out of court. Litigating them becomes too expensive.

If Smirky McBitchslap had a good case, his lawyers wouldn't have settled for "Go away" money and an NDA.

People who win REAL settlements scream it from the rooftops, like the lady who won the harassment suit against O'Reilly. (Whatever happened to that guy?)

You have no idea how much Sandamann got. Claiming you do is a lie.

Oh, that trial was a clusterfuck. From the idiot judge not admitting evidence unfavorable to Shittenhouse to the inept civil servant who didn't have a well-organized case.

Zuckerburg isn't going to hire a crappy lawyer... you think Rittenouse was weeping like a little bitch in the criminal trial, wait until a civil attorney gets ahold of his flop sweaty ass.

View attachment 654102

Joey...you're not a lawyer. She is. Shut your trap.

 

[westwall]

Same reason why MOST cases are settled out of court. Litigating them becomes too expensive.

If Smirky McBitchslap had a good case, his lawyers wouldn't have settled for "Go away" money and an NDA.

People who win REAL settlements scream it from the rooftops, like the lady who won the harassment suit against O'Reilly. (Whatever happened to that guy?)

But YOU CLAIMED he would never get a dime.

Looks like as well as being a liar you are stupid as a fence post.

DURRRRR

 

[ColonelAngus]

Lets get this straight.

Sandmann got a settlement from the media that lied about him, but the cult refuse to believe what the media admitted they lied about.

The cult is so real.

 

[KissMy]

As for proving damages, McMurtry told Fox News Digital he knows "for a fact that [Rittenhouse] can prove that his job prospects are permanently diminished."

​

"Not to mention what they call perpetual reputational harm, which means that Kyle is never going to have an interaction with anybody where they don't know who he is.​

Defamation? - LOFL!

Kyle Rittenhouse was never famous prior to all the negative media attention. Then the facts cam out & making him a Legendary Hero Written into History for all Time. His prospects have massively increased & branched out to every country.

The media did the opposite of defamation, they made Kyle Rittenhouse a famous household name.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Oh, that trial was a clusterfuck. From the idiot judge not admitting evidence unfavorable to Shittenhouse to the inept civil servant who didn't have a well-organized case.

Zuckerburg isn't going to hire a crappy lawyer... you think Rittenouse was weeping like a little bitch in the criminal trial, wait until a civil attorney gets ahold of his flop sweaty ass.

View attachment 654102

People like YOU who have no empathy at all in you who have no idea what it is like to be under a media microscope being lied over many times which generate a LOT of stress.

 

[JoeB131]

You have no idea how much Sandamann got. Claiming you do is a lie.

Actually, Ditchweed, you can tell he didn't get much by the simple fact he isn't bragging on how much he got, nor has he moved into a mansion, which is what I would have done if I got an 8 figure windfall.

People like YOU who have no empathy at all in you who have no idea what it is like to be under a media microscope being lied over many times which generate a LOT of stress.

You are right. I have very little sympathy for a wannabe cop who shot two unarmed people to death.

 

[JoeB131]

Lets get this straight.

Sandmann got a settlement from the media that lied about him, but the cult refuse to believe what the media admitted they lied about.

The cult is so real.

Sandmann got go-away money.

The media didn't lie about anything. We have tape of this little punk smirking at a Native American veteran while his Chad buddies are yelling ethnic slurs.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Actually, Ditchweed, you can tell he didn't get much by the simple fact he isn't bragging on how much he got, nor has he moved into a mansion, which is what I would have done if I got an 8 figure windfall.

The settlement is almost certainly confidential, and he might just be smarter than you. (Which is a low bar.)

 

[JoeB131]

The settlement is almost certainly confidential, and he might just be smarter than you. (Which is a low bar.)

What's the point of having all that money if you don't enjoy yourself?

The settlement is confidential because he's probably too embarrassed to admit how little he got.

 

[skews13]

This is great news for Rittenhouse, especially, but also for those of us disgusted by the orchestrated attempt of political hacks in news media, social media, and government to lie and subvert the law in order to destroy an innocent young man's life. McMurtry is an expert in libel and defamation law and represented Nicholas Sandmann. The reason I'm so jazzed about this news is because I was exasperated with all the talk about going after talking heads only, while the leading target, in my opinion, should be Mark Zuckerberg for the reasons reported in this article. I remember what Facebook and Instagram did. The former even slapped a warning on one of my posts about its outrageous behavior. McMurtry is on the case, and Facebook is in his crosshairs.

Talk about deep pockets!

FIRST ON FOX – The lawyer who represented Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann during his defamation cases has joined Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal team, and says there will be "at least 10" defamation lawsuits against prominent figures and companies for comments against the teenager.​

​

"I’ve been hired to head the effort to determine whom to sue, when to sue, where to sue," Todd McMurtry, who now represents Rittenhouse, told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Thursday morning. "We're going to look at everything that's been said, determine which of those comments are legally actionable and proceed from there."​

​

McMurtry said it’s "pretty much assured that there's probably 10 to 15 solid" cases against "large defendants" . . .​

​

. . . Though the legal process for potential defamation cases is just beginning, McMurtry singled out Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook for a "factually false" designation on the platform that listed the Kenosha shootings as a "mass murder" incident. The designation resulted in Rittenhouse’s social media accounts being pulled down and restricting positive comments about the teenager.​

​

"Let's just use for an example what Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg said about [Rittenhouse]. They said that he was involved in a mass murder incident," McMurtry explained. "This was not a mass murder incident. It was clearly factually false."​

​

"To call somebody a mass murderer is seriously defamatory. And then to use the power of social media to basically … censor any views that would take opposition to that mass murderer statement is a serious effort to destroy his character. And it was seriously mistaken and seriously defamatory."​

​

Outrage erupted after Facebook and Instagram designated the shooting during the Kenoohsa riot a "mass murder incident" before a trial or verdict, with the Wall Street Journal's editorial board arguing in 2020 that such a designation hurt the teenager's shot at due process and called the move an "alarming resort to censorship." ​

​

Meta, Facebook's parent company, ultimately reinstated Rittenhouse's social media accounts after his acquittal last year and lifted other restrictions. ​

​

McMurtry added that Zuckerberg is "certainly going to be at the top of your list" when examining what potentially false statements are legally actionable "because he has an outsized voice."​

​

"Facebook has an outsized voice, they can do a lot of damage, as compared to somebody maybe who has a small blog with 100 subscribers. But we're going to look at everything that we have access to and that's been published, and decide which ones are actionable," he added. ​

​

Facebook did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the matter. ​

​

McMurtry represented Nicholas Sandmann after the media lambasted him over a confrontation at the 2019 March for Life in Washington, D.C., resulting in numerous settlements with media companies such as NBC-Universal, CNN and the Washington Post.​

​

Speculation has mounted in recent months that Rittenhouse would file similar lawsuits, especially after Sandmann advised last year that though filing such suits is a personal matter, Rittenhouse should sue media outlets he believes defamed his character.​

​

McMurtry said he didn’t want to "necessarily tie the cases together," but pointed out similarities between Sandmann and Rittenhouse, as both were minors during the incidents and were "were falsely wrongfully condemned by the media and social media."​

​

Rittenhouse said in February that he was launching an initiative to combat news organizations for the "lies" they have published, and explained he had a "list" of people that could face legal action.​

​

"Well, right now, we're looking at quite a few politicians, celebrities, athletes, Whoopi Goldberg's on the list," Rittenhouse said on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" in February. "She called me a ‘murderer’ after I was acquitted by a jury of my peers. She went on to still say that."​

​

As for proving damages, McMurtry told Fox News Digital he knows "for a fact that [Rittenhouse] can prove that his job prospects are permanently diminished." ​

​

"Not to mention what they call perpetual reputational harm, which means that Kyle is never going to have an interaction with anybody where they don't know who he is. And this is going to follow him around for the rest of his life."​

​

"Everybody's going to prejudge him in every new interaction that he has with everybody for the rest of his life, and that's called perpetual reputational harm. … The social media hysteria caused all this because people can't act reasonably and rationally in certain circumstances," McMurtry said.​

MSN

No, it was a mass murder event, and Facebook is going to lose.

And Rittenhouses' lawyer better hope there are deep pockets that pay the countersuit Facebook is going to win.

You going to pitch in a few bucks loser?

 

[JoeB131]

No, it was a mass murder event, and Facebook is going to lose.

And Rittenhouses' lawyer better hope there are deep pockets that pay the countersuit Facebook is going to win.

You going to pitch in a few bucks loser?

I think you meant Rittenhouse is going to lose.

The problem Rittenhouse has with suing Facebook is Facebook already has immunity on what its members post under Section 230...

 

[Ringtone]

No, it was a mass murder event, and Facebook is going to lose.

And Rittenhouses' lawyer better hope there are deep pockets that pay the countersuit Facebook is going to win.

You going to pitch in a few bucks loser?

You're delusional.

 

[Ringtone]

I think you meant Rittenhouse is going to lose.

The problem Rittenhouse has with suing Facebook is Facebook already has immunity on what its members post under Section 230...

Once again, we see that you routinely fail to inform yourself about the actual nature of things. The angle has nothing to do with what users posted but with what Facebook posted and did:

From the article:

. . . Though the legal process for potential defamation cases is just beginning, McMurtry singled out Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook for a "factually false" designation on the platform that listed the Kenosha shootings as a "mass murder" incident. The designation resulted in Rittenhouse’s social media accounts being pulled down and restricting positive comments about the teenager.​

"Let's just use for an example what Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg said about [Rittenhouse]. They said that he was involved in a mass murder incident," McMurtry explained. "This was not a mass murder incident. It was clearly factually false."​

"To call somebody a mass murderer is seriously defamatory. And then to use the power of social media to basically … censor any views that would take opposition to that mass murderer statement is a serious effort to destroy his character. And it was seriously mistaken and seriously defamatory."​

Outrage erupted after Facebook and Instagram designated the shooting during the Kenoohsa riot a "mass murder incident" before a trial or verdict, with the Wall Street Journal's editorial board arguing in 2020 that such a designation hurt the teenager's shot at due process and called the move an "alarming resort to censorship." ​

​

​

 

[JoeB131]

Once again, we see that you routinely fail to inform yourself about the actual nature of things. The angle has nothing to do with what users posted but with what Facebook posted and did:

From the article:

Actually, Facebook also pulled down negative material about Rittenhouse. For instance, in the days after the incident, there was a posting about his criminal record. It was actually another IL resident with the same name. Facebook pulled it down and dinged anyone who shared it.

Rittenhouse doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Actually, Ditchweed, you can tell he didn't get much by the simple fact he isn't bragging on how much he got, nor has he moved into a mansion, which is what I would have done if I got an 8 figure windfall.



You are right. I have very little sympathy for a wannabe cop who shot two unarmed people to death.

He shot them in justifiable self defense as the JURY and the Video's make clear.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Doesn’t matter.

Actually, it DOES matter in a court of law. Why do you think the families of the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse's ambulance chasing out-of-state attorney hasn't filed a lawsuit? It's because he has no chance for a favorable verdict. The law is entirely on Rittenhouse's side, he was clearly defamed by very public persons and the media both before AND after the verdict.

 

[AZrailwhale]

OJ has a ruling saying he is acquitted. Rittenhouse has a ruling saying he was acquitted. That is it. The ONLY ruling was “not guilty”.

No OJ had a verdict of not guilty for murder. Rittenhouse has a verdict that ruled his actions SELF-DEFENSE. They are two very different things. Not guilty of a murder can still be a wrongful killing, self-defense is a justified killing.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Funny he quickly loses a Civil court case when the rule of evidence is better for the plaintiff.

The Media lied many times against Rittenhouse calling him a White Supremacist, a killer of two black men (they were all white) and more here:

NY Post with supporting links

10 heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked: Devine​

If OJ had been tried in the Beverly Hills Courthouse where he should have been due to the location of the crime AND his residency, he would have been convicted in a heartbeat. Beverly Hills is used to dealing with rich and celebrity defendants. The judges there aren't starstruck like Lance Ito was and would have reined in the antics of the defense team. The jury would have been drawn from Beverly Hills, Beverly Wood, Bel Air, West LA and Santa Monica, all affluent areas with an educated jury pool. You wouldn't have had jurors so ignorant that they would say "I don't know no DNA, DNA just means OJ gots blood". That's a direct quote from one of the jurors who was interviewed after the trial.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Actually, the Jury said there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him guilty. There's a difference in the law between "not guilty" and "innocent".





Here's the thing. The evidence that he was a white supremecist was kept out of the Kenosha courtroom.

In a civil suit, that all comes back in. His meetings with the Proud Boys, the video where he wishes he could shoot a black man running out of a CVS, the video where he beats up a 14 year old girl- all of it.

You mean the video where he hits a 14-year-old bully who was attacking his sister? That would reinforce his character, not detract from it.

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, Facebook also pulled down negative material about Rittenhouse. For instance, in the days after the incident, there was a posting about his criminal record. It was actually another IL resident with the same name. Facebook pulled it down and dinged anyone who shared it.

Rittenhouse doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Once again, Rittenhouse's complaint will not be predicated on what others said of him on Facebook per Section 230. It will be predicated on what Facebook claimed about the incident and about Rittenhouse himself by association. As for the misinformation regarding Rittenhouse's identity, as for Facebook taking that misinformation down: I anticipate that Rittenhouse's attorneys will argue that Facebook demonstrated a conscious understanding of what constitutes libelously harmful disinformation. Hence, it knew better than to intentionally mischaracterize Rittenhouse's actions.

We shall see if the argument holds up, and there are plenty other targets.