It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MAGA hat teens lawyer sends letters to 54 Political & MSM entities for potential lawsuits.

page: 11
77
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Nope total traction here.

Surely you all do not believe that people who showed pictures of some red head holding potus bloody head would somehow not be immune to a lawsuit of this caliber?

I agree with you all that it is a sad state of affairs when such vile things are accepted as norm but it is what it is. The precedent has been set and this is the norm.

Honestly it will likely take some type of congressional action to clean up the mess we find ourselves in but it certainly can not be done in the manner presented in the op for reasons i have stated numerous times as you refuse to listen to reality.

What bothers me the most is that years ago we would have got some fine comedic gold from the situation but now that seems to be against the rules.

Lemme guess your not laughing but i submit that that is much of the problem.





Word salad.




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


(b) Any person who, without lawful authority, shall enter, or attempt to enter, any public building, or other property, or part of such building, or other property, against the will of the lawful occupant or of the person lawfully in charge thereof or his or her agent, or being therein or thereon, without lawful authority to remain therein or thereon shall refuse to quit the same on the demand of the lawful occupant, or of the person lawfully in charge thereof or his or her agent, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.
Government link

Now if I didn't know any better, it would look like if you are on public property, unless there is a no trespassing sign, you have to be asked to leave... And it's not trespassing until you refuse.

Darn us and our googling ability.

Not that I haven't debunked that members claims under every parameter, including humoring that they were trespassing.

Unless someone can link a law saying the media can fabricate stories because you trespassed somewhere.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Lemme guess your not laughing but i submit that that is much of the problem


I think we're all laughing man.

You should just ask yourself where our fingers are pointing
edit on 5-2-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   
lolers...........that is a new low.


now you try to claim that trespassing is not trespassing... Does this mean that i can live in your home as long as you do not know?

You are confusing yourself very much and the readers deserve better.


If what you think you found is true then there would be no need for anyone to have a permit....seriously new low



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Bless your heart, that was the law for public property, here, I'll show you the ropes around here and provide you with the private property law as well.


(a)(1) Any person who, without lawful authority, shall enter, or attempt to enter, any private dwelling, building, or other property, or part of such dwelling, building, or other property, against the will of the lawful occupant or of the person lawfully in charge thereof, or being therein or thereon, without lawful authority to remain therein or thereon shall refuse to quit the same on the demand of the lawful occupant, or of the person lawfully in charge thereof, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both. The presence of a person in any private dwelling, building, or other property that is otherwise vacant and boarded-up or otherwise secured in a manner that conveys that it is vacant and not to be entered, or displays a no trespassing sign, shall be prima facie evidence that any person found in such property has entered against the will of the person in legal possession of the property.
same link as above

What you're trying to portray is that trespassing is something we can just say someone did without them going through the court of law.

If that wasn't bad enough, you're trying to imply you have no legal recourse to other people doing wrong doings to you even if someone on the internet said you trespassed without going to court.

Try to keep up.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Actually, on second thought, you're probably right.

Though you haven't provided any links or evidence, and I have provided plenty, I think you're right because you believe so hard that you are.

You win, I concede.

I'm sure everyone will agree with you as well, because you're slaying us with "facts".



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Nope total traction here.

Surely you all do not believe that people who showed pictures of some red head holding potus bloody head would somehow not be immune to a lawsuit of this caliber?

I agree with you all that it is a sad state of affairs when such vile things are accepted as norm but it is what it is. The precedent has been set and this is the norm.

Honestly it will likely take some type of congressional action to clean up the mess we find ourselves in but it certainly can not be done in the manner presented in the op for reasons i have stated numerous times as you refuse to listen to reality.

What bothers me the most is that years ago we would have got some fine comedic gold from the situation but now that seems to be against the rules.

Lemme guess your not laughing but i submit that that is much of the problem.

So you have given up on the "trespassing" bs?
Now you are attempting to use Kathy Griffin(a public persona) and her "trump decapitated head" as proof the Boys lawsuit will fail?
You understand the boy is not a public figure?

You poor attempt to "laugh off" the lies you spewed here is very sad.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Nope the boys were trespassing and it is kinda of telling that i have to keep reminding of this fact.




He became a public figure because the maga crowd thought they could use him to promote an agenda.



Fact is that this will go no where except a few message boards and peeps are already over the little misunderstanding.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Why the heck is everyone discussing if they had a permit or not? It is irrelevant. The case is about libel.

If they were protesting without a permit, then it is up to the capital police to issue a citation. If they are guilty, cite them. It has no bearing on the impending case!

The case is about the MSM, and certain entertainment personalities smearing this kids name in the mud, calling for him to never be accepted to a college, calling for his harm, causing others to call in death threats against him and the school, the list can go on and on... They have labeled him for life, in no uncertain terms ruining it.

They were given a chance to set the record strait, tell the world that he and his schoolmates were the ones approached, not the aggressors. Instead they doubled down to make him/them look worse, even through the whole video shows different.

Permit or no, it has no bearing on things. Move on.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical




Here is the post I made which indicated that the American Indians and the March for Life had been issued permits. No where in that post does it mention permits by the black racists.


Well. Some people actually have been on demonstrations and they happen to know their rights, right?

Here's the interesting part:


Do counter-demonstrators have free speech rights? Yes. Although counter-demonstrators should not be allowed to physically disrupt the event they are protesting, they do have the right to be present and to voice their displeasure. Police are permitted to keep two antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within the general vicinity of one another.

www.aclu.org...



Your continued assertions without anything to back them up have no weight whatsoever.


Wait. What? You couldn't find a certain document on a gubmint server to back up your own claims, careful with those rocks in this glasshouse my dear weight weighter!


The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellencies, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it.

en.wikiquote.org...




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk




Nope the boys were trespassing and it is kinda of telling that i have to keep reminding of this fact.

Your "opinion" is in no way a fact.
It is quite funny tho.




He became a public figure because the maga crowd thought they could use him to promote an agenda.

No.
Just more of your "opinion".
He is no more than a boy on a school field trip.




Fact is that this will go no where except a few message boards and peeps are already over the little misunderstanding.

"Fact is" legal papers have already been sent.
You are so far behind you think you are in the lead.
dailycaller.com...


The legal team behind Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann are sending letters to various media organizations, celebrities and politicians it says completely misrepresented the confrontation between the teenager and Native American activists last month and potentially defamed their client.




It is the first step in a potential and far-reaching libel and defamation suit that McMurtry, of the Hemmer DeFrank Wessels law firm in Ft. Mitchell, Kentucky, says would be “a significant and unique lawsuit.”


Simply more evidence that you do not know what you post of other than white kid with red hat is bad.

Spoiler alert: uneducated posters with no facts are actually worse.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The events on that day and the legality of participants are very much at the heart of any libel suit.


The saddest part of all this is that no one is teaching the boys how they were wrong and how their actions caused subsequent events in the media. They will likely sometime in the future fall prey to the same type of event they were a part of simply because no one taught them right from wrong because everyone put political gains above the boys education.

Another sad part is that it started out with such good and admirable attentions of marching for the rights of the conceived and a teacher allowed the students to fall prey to some groups with not so admirable of intent.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Nope the boys were trespassing and it is kinda of telling that i have to keep reminding of this fact.




He became a public figure because the maga crowd thought they could use him to promote an agenda.



Fact is that this will go no where except a few message boards and peeps are already over the little misunderstanding.


Do you even know the law at all? I am asking that seriously, and without malice here. Because it seems to me (and many others) that you do not, and are merely making up facts to support your own version and feelz.

In your other scenario (regarding the house metaphor), if you owned the house, then how can you trespass upon your own property? Thing is, I also own that property along with you. The only time that you would be charged for trespassing is if I filed a complaint with the police and they asked you to leave and you refused. At that point it would be trespassing. Until then, you are allowed to linger upon your own property.

It is similar rules in this case, as it is a PUBLIC space. That means, it is owned by every citizen in the United States (several hundred million people). So, in order to preserve everyone's claim to this space, and allow equal access, protesting and planned gatherings for purposes other than tourism require advanced notice and a permit to avoid conflicts of use of the space. That is the fair way to do it for the hundreds of millions of property owners for that space.

Standing around waiting for transport home, while visiting AFTER attending a permitted march that was over, is classified as tourism.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk




The events on that day and the legality of participants are very much at the heart of any libel suit.

no
the lies told because of the events of that day are what will be at the heart of a libel suit
you should research this a bit
the media were given an opportunity to retract the lies they published, when they do not the suit will go forward




The saddest part of all this is that no one is teaching the boys how they were wrong and how their actions caused subsequent events in the media.

The saddest part is how people like you are blaming children on a field trip for the despicable actions of adults, and the subsequent manipulation of the situation by the media to push an agenda.

Are you one of the Black Israelite's?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
The events on that day and the legality of participants are very much at the heart of any libel suit.


The saddest part of all this is that no one is teaching the boys how they were wrong and how their actions caused subsequent events in the media. They will likely sometime in the future fall prey to the same type of event they were a part of simply because no one taught them right from wrong because everyone put political gains above the boys education.

Another sad part is that it started out with such good and admirable attentions of marching for the rights of the conceived and a teacher allowed the students to fall prey to some groups with not so admirable of intent.


I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
So I am not in the know about these things. It sounds like you are more in tune with the law than I am.

Please explain it for me, so my small brain can understand.

If they "did" have a permit to assemble, and this exact situation took place. How would it affect the libel/defamation case?

If they "did not" have a permit to assemble, and this exact situation took place. How would it affect the libel/defamation case?

Please show me in detail how a permit changes the way lawyers and judges would look at it in terms of libel/defamation?

I truly don't understand how it would make a difference, and wait with bated breath to learn something new.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

He knows he got nothing, I think he's just trolling for attention.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UncleTomahawk




The events on that day and the legality of participants are very much at the heart of any libel suit.

no
the lies told because of the events of that day are what will be at the heart of a libel suit
you should research this a bit
the media were given an opportunity to retract the lies they published, when they do not the suit will go forward




The saddest part of all this is that no one is teaching the boys how they were wrong and how their actions caused subsequent events in the media.

The saddest part is how people like you are blaming children on a field trip for the despicable actions of adults, and the subsequent manipulation of the situation by the media to push an agenda.

Are you one of the Black Israelite's?


In addition, if the Native American protest permit was still in effect, then Phillips was in breach of that permit by LEAVING the designated area for the permit when he approached the kids with his drum. Therefore, he escalated the situation by leaving his assigned protest area to protest in an area he was not allowed to protest.

Hmmmmm.... Funny that was not mentioned at all, huh?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Muninn
a reply to: MrRCflying

He knows he got nothing, I think he's just trolling for attention.


Hey man, google is your friend. We're supposed to do the legwork to prove other people's points for them, it's unspoken code we help out the fresh meat.

It was wild though, even if I used their point hypothetically, it still didn't hold water.

Whodathunk if you never provide anything substantiating your claims, that people would call you out. Weird. 🤷‍♂️
edit on 5-2-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Muninn
a reply to: MrRCflying

He knows he got nothing, I think he's just trolling for attention.


Hey man, google is your friend. We're supposed to do the legwork to prove other people's points for them, it's unspoken code we help out the fresh meat.

It was wild though, even if I used their point hypothetically, it still didn't hold water.

Whodathunk if you never provide anything substantiating your claims, that people would call you out. Weird. 🤷‍♂️


Some other online discussion forums have a much lower burden of proof than ATS. I chalk it up to learning curve, and the chance to grow into a more respectable means of actual discussion (not that we are always held to our own standards).




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   




top topics



 
77
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join