independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 21st Sep 2019 2:56am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Charlottesville Victim Sues White Nationalist Groups and Leaders
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 05/21/19 5:25pm

poppys

Charlottesville Victim Sues White Nationalist Groups and Leaders



https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/crime-and-courts/2019/05/20/james-alex-fields-charlottesville-victim-sues-white-nationalist-groups/3742847002/

An Athens, Ohio man injured in the 2017 Charlottesville attack is suing white nationalist organizations and leaders in federal court.

Bill Burke says he was struck by the car driven by James Alex Fields Jr. on Aug.17, 2017 during the violence that broke out during the "Unite the Right" events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Named in the lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court, are Fields, Jason Kessler, Richard Spencer, Matthew Heimbach and the Daily Stormer.

"They are neo-Nazis, Neo-Fascist, Klansmen, white supremacists and white nationalists," the suit states. "They embrace and espouse racist, anti-Semitic, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic ideologies."

Along with the website Daily Stormer, its founder Andrew Anglin and his father Gregory Anglin, as well as several associated businesses based in Worthington, Ohio, are named...


He also says he was threatened after the incident via text message after he commented on an online post. He said the phone number the text was sent from is associated with the Honorable Sacred Knights.

Burke wants a protective order against the organization, which he calls a paramilitary wing of the Ku Klux Klan. Screenshots of the text message exchange were included in the lawsuit showing texts that say "back off and stop spreading rumors."

"We have eyes everywhere. Let him know that we are you doctors lawyer police neighbors [sic]," the message says. "We don't do Jew social media. But we do see."

[Edited 5/22/19 7:33am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 05/21/19 5:31pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

he will have a very hard time wining and collecting... the killer was not part of the demonstration. The people in the demonstration to keep the statues up were there legally as were the counter demonstrators.


That is other than Fields... the killer, driver. His defence may be that his car was struck (and it was) but it is clear he was there looking for trouble.

[Edited 5/21/19 17:33pm]

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 05/23/19 8:39am

KoolEaze

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

he will have a very hard time wining and collecting... the killer was not part of the demonstration. The people in the demonstration to keep the statues up were there legally as were the counter demonstrators.


That is other than Fields... the killer, driver. His defence may be that his car was struck (and it was) but it is clear he was there looking for trouble.

[Edited 5/21/19 17:33pm]

So he´s saying it was an accident?

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 05/23/19 10:35am

poppys

I no longer address that poster directly KoolEase, but we got loads of the same denial on the original Charlottesville threads. Here's a short slo mo video of what that monster Fields accomplished.




[Edited 5/23/19 10:42am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 05/23/19 10:47am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

he will have a very hard time wining and collecting... the killer was not part of the demonstration. The people in the demonstration to keep the statues up were there legally as were the counter demonstrators.


That is other than Fields... the killer, driver. His defence may be that his car was struck (and it was) but it is clear he was there looking for trouble.

[Edited 5/21/19 17:33pm]

Whining? The guy suffered physical and psychological trauma due to the actions of Fields. Fields posted instagram messages way before he committed the act (see pic). And he was part of the demonstration in so far as he was wearing the uniform of a far right party and carrying a Vanguard America shield. The man who has submitted the lawsuit was threatened after the event by members of far-right organisations, who told him people were watching him. Yep, just whining and collecting rolleyes .


If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 05/23/19 10:50am

maplenpg

avatar

poppys said:

I no longer address that poster directly KoolEase, but we got loads of the same denial on the original Charlottesville threads. Here's a short slo mo video of what that monster Fields accomplished.




[Edited 5/23/19 10:42am]

Yes, Poppy, but look at the people striking the car! Obviously people are just whining and collecting! I mean, if she hadn't been in the road... rolleyes

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 05/23/19 1:41pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

poppys said:

I no longer address that poster directly KoolEase, but we got loads of the same denial on the original Charlottesville threads. Here's a short slo mo video of what that monster Fields accomplished.




[Edited 5/23/19 10:42am]

I hope the law suit is successful because that was no accident, and from what I understand no remorse for the killed or injured.

"Families are torn apart, men women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find their parents have gone missing." - Anne Frank
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 05/23/19 1:45pm

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

If people really believe it if the killer says it was an accident then they need their eyes checked.

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 05/23/19 3:05pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:

I no longer address that poster directly KoolEase, but we got loads of the same denial on the original Charlottesville threads. Here's a short slo mo video of what that monster Fields accomplished.




[Edited 5/23/19 10:42am]

i see you did not include the first clip where his car was hit BEFORE he hit anyone. but i have never once deafened him.... stating facts is not necessarily a defence. But you seem to live in a one sided world.

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 05/23/19 3:08pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

If people really believe it if the killer says it was an accident then they need their eyes checked.

I do not believe that and i have never once suggested that. nor did a blame the victim... but some dishonest types will say I did... When I did mention facts about her actions I also said that was not of no help to the killer.

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 05/23/19 3:14pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

poppys said:

I no longer address that poster directly KoolEase, but we got loads of the same denial on the original Charlottesville threads. Here's a short slo mo video of what that monster Fields accomplished.




[Edited 5/23/19 10:42am]

I hope the law suit is successful because that was no accident, and from what I understand no remorse for the killed or injured.

but he is suing people with zero liability... the only case is against the driver. Not anyone else. And NONE of you really want him to win. If he does then if upheld then anyone hurt during any protest will have case law on their side.

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 05/23/19 4:57pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

If people really believe it if the killer says it was an accident then they need their eyes checked.

I'm for all racists assholes like Fields being sued and/or thrown in jail. wink

"Families are torn apart, men women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find their parents have gone missing." - Anne Frank
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 05/24/19 6:50am

poppys

DiminutiveRocker said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

If people really believe it if the killer says it was an accident then they need their eyes checked.

I'm for all racists assholes like Fields being sued and/or thrown in jail. wink


Going after people like Kessler, Spencer, Heimbach and the Daily Stormer founders is understandable. They organized/supported this hate-fest. Whether they are found "legally" responsible or not, including them in the suit is puts them in the hot seat. What they promote is indefensible.


[Edited 5/24/19 9:50am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 05/24/19 2:20pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

poppys said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

I'm for all racists assholes like Fields being sued and/or thrown in jail. wink


Going after people like Kessler, Spencer, Heimbach and the Daily Stormer founders is understandable. They organized/supported this hate-fest. Whether they are found "legally" responsible or not, including them in the suit is puts them in the hot seat. What they promote is indefensible.


[Edited 5/24/19 9:50am]


Exactly.

"Families are torn apart, men women and children are separated. Children come home from school to find their parents have gone missing." - Anne Frank
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 05/24/19 10:50pm

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



DiminutiveRocker said:




poppys said:


I no longer address that poster directly KoolEase, but we got loads of the same denial on the original Charlottesville threads. Here's a short slo mo video of what that monster Fields accomplished.





[Edited 5/23/19 10:42am]




I hope the law suit is successful because that was no accident, and from what I understand no remorse for the killed or injured.




but he is suing people with zero liability... the only case is against the driver. Not anyone else. And NONE of you really want him to win. If he does then if upheld then anyone hurt during any protest will have case law on their side.


What about the threats made to the victim after the event? Yes, I agree that liability for the injuries to the person bringing the lawsuit was the driver himself, but the threats afterwards? They sure as hell weren't made by Fields. The white supremacist group he belonged to, are they at no fault at all for encouraging his mindset, knowing he was planning to kill or injure? In case you need reminding this quote is from a successful lawsuit bought againt the right-wing militia present on that day:

"In its amended Charlottesville complaint, ICAP, joined by local counsel MichieHamlett, recounted how much of the violence and mayhem that unfolded during the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville had been carefully arranged in advance. The complaint documented more than a month of planning among alt-right organizers and participants through social media, often using private channels. According to the complaint, the rally’s organizers—Jason Kessler and Elliott Kline, the latter of whom last month entered into a consent decree resolving the case against him—solicited alt-right attendees to form military-style shield walls, invited private militias to provide security for the rally, held group-wide planning calls, and circulated an instructional document entitled “General Orders.” All the while, attendees encouraged one another to “prepare for war.”"

I was reminded of the lawsuit bought after the murder of Michael Donald, which the family won. I think there are similarities. Not exactly the same before you play semantics, but similar. I quote:

"But Donald didn’t think her son’s killers should be the only people held accountable for Michael’s murder. In 1984, three years after her son’s lynching, she got in contact with Morris Dees, a civil rights attorney who co-founded the Southern Poverty Law Center in 1971. Dees had a track record suing the KKK, and understood its inner workings. The murderers, he felt, had been given their marching orders by the KKK and were acting as a matter of institutional policy. They filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit against the United Klans of America, one of the country’s largest Klan organizations, that sought to hold the organization and its members liable for the murder".

And to address your other post that says you never defended Fields - bullshit. If you weren't defending him then you were outright trolling with some vile, vile shit. The only final option is that you believed what you wrote, which honestly makes you worse than a troll if you can't see the wrong in continually victim blaming. Let's be clear, no-one deserves to be murdered, or deliberately mowed down. I don't care about your flimsy fucking bullshit that you still spout excusing him. Did you see the instagram posts? How do you defend them? Trust me, your views on Charlottesville are not something to be proud of, remember this one? : "She was playing in the street and she got run over... those are harsh, heartless facts!"
[Edited 5/25/19 1:15am]
[Edited 5/25/19 1:36am]
If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 05/25/19 6:32am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:


What about the threats made to the victim after the event? Yes, I agree that liability for the injuries to the person bringing the lawsuit was the driver himself, but the threats afterwards? They sure as hell weren't made by Fields. The white supremacist group he belonged to, are they at no fault at all for encouraging his mindset, knowing he was planning to kill or injure? In case you need reminding this quote is from a successful lawsuit bought againt the right-wing militia present on that day: "In its amended Charlottesville complaint, ICAP, joined by local counsel MichieHamlett, recounted how much of the violence and mayhem that unfolded during the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville had been carefully arranged in advance. The complaint documented more than a month of planning among alt-right organizers and participants through social media, often using private channels. According to the complaint, the rally’s organizers—Jason Kessler and Elliott Kline, the latter of whom last month entered into a consent decree resolving the case against him—solicited alt-right attendees to form military-style shield walls, invited private militias to provide security for the rally, held group-wide planning calls, and circulated an instructional document entitled “General Orders.” All the while, attendees encouraged one another to “prepare for war.”" I was reminded of the lawsuit bought after the murder of Michael Donald, which the family won. I think there are similarities. Not exactly the same before you play semantics, but similar. I quote: "But Donald didn’t think her son’s killers should be the only people held accountable for Michael’s murder. In 1984, three years after her son’s lynching, she got in contact with Morris Dees, a civil rights attorney who co-founded the Southern Poverty Law Center in 1971. Dees had a track record suing the KKK, and understood its inner workings. The murderers, he felt, had been given their marching orders by the KKK and were acting as a matter of institutional policy. They filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit against the United Klans of America, one of the country’s largest Klan organizations, that sought to hold the organization and its members liable for the murder". And to address your other post that says you never defended Fields - bullshit. If you weren't defending him then you were outright trolling with some vile, vile shit. The only final option is that you believed what you wrote, which honestly makes you worse than a troll if you can't see the wrong in continually victim blaming. Let's be clear, no-one deserves to be murdered, or deliberately mowed down. I don't care about your flimsy fucking bullshit that you still spout excusing him. Did you see the instagram posts? How do you defend them? Trust me, your views on Charlottesville are not something to be proud of, remember this one? : "She was playing in the street and she got run over... those are harsh, heartless facts!" [Edited 5/25/19 1:15am] [Edited 5/25/19 1:36am]

Again, in this case, there is no known connection between the killer and the organizers of the actual demonstration or of the counter-demonstration. For that reason, the other case seems to be irrelevant to this one.

And threats made after the fact did not lead to the injury.

Now if he can show who made the threat ( as a civil case the threshold is lower than a criminal case) he may have a case.

This is a bit like that case where that fake Vite Nam vet accosted those kids... now the kids are suing news agencies and may go after a number of individuals for "calls to action" against the children.


As the last part: You seem to confuse feelings with facts. When I mention facts, sometimes there are not all that comfortable. Once I did that, I did say that was not going to help the killer in his defence. To pretend otherwise would be foolish for any lawyer on either side of this case.

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 05/25/19 6:51am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:


What about the threats made to the victim after the event? Yes, I agree that liability for the injuries to the person bringing the lawsuit was the driver himself, but the threats afterwards? They sure as hell weren't made by Fields. The white supremacist group he belonged to, are they at no fault at all for encouraging his mindset, knowing he was planning to kill or injure? In case you need reminding this quote is from a successful lawsuit bought againt the right-wing militia present on that day: "In its amended Charlottesville complaint, ICAP, joined by local counsel MichieHamlett, recounted how much of the violence and mayhem that unfolded during the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville had been carefully arranged in advance. The complaint documented more than a month of planning among alt-right organizers and participants through social media, often using private channels. According to the complaint, the rally’s organizers—Jason Kessler and Elliott Kline, the latter of whom last month entered into a consent decree resolving the case against him—solicited alt-right attendees to form military-style shield walls, invited private militias to provide security for the rally, held group-wide planning calls, and circulated an instructional document entitled “General Orders.” All the while, attendees encouraged one another to “prepare for war.”" I was reminded of the lawsuit bought after the murder of Michael Donald, which the family won. I think there are similarities. Not exactly the same before you play semantics, but similar. I quote: "But Donald didn’t think her son’s killers should be the only people held accountable for Michael’s murder. In 1984, three years after her son’s lynching, she got in contact with Morris Dees, a civil rights attorney who co-founded the Southern Poverty Law Center in 1971. Dees had a track record suing the KKK, and understood its inner workings. The murderers, he felt, had been given their marching orders by the KKK and were acting as a matter of institutional policy. They filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit against the United Klans of America, one of the country’s largest Klan organizations, that sought to hold the organization and its members liable for the murder". And to address your other post that says you never defended Fields - bullshit. If you weren't defending him then you were outright trolling with some vile, vile shit. The only final option is that you believed what you wrote, which honestly makes you worse than a troll if you can't see the wrong in continually victim blaming. Let's be clear, no-one deserves to be murdered, or deliberately mowed down. I don't care about your flimsy fucking bullshit that you still spout excusing him. Did you see the instagram posts? How do you defend them? Trust me, your views on Charlottesville are not something to be proud of, remember this one? : "She was playing in the street and she got run over... those are harsh, heartless facts!" [Edited 5/25/19 1:15am] [Edited 5/25/19 1:36am]

Again, in this case, there is no known connection between the killer and the organizers of the actual demonstration or of the counter-demonstration. For that reason, the other case seems to be irrelevant to this one.

Erm...according to the link in the OP, he was said to be wearing the uniform of the white-nationalist group Vanguard America as well as carrying a Vanguard America Shield. Needless to say he was also a member of their organisation.

And threats made after the fact did not lead to the injury.


No, but they were threats that were designed to shut him up. That adds to his psychological trauma. Also part of the lawsuit is against the white nationalist groups who were shown to encourage and provide support for acts of terrorism before the Charlottesville rally.

Now if he can show who made the threat ( as a civil case the threshold is lower than a criminal case) he may have a case.

Given that he's named them, I should say he knows who it is.

This is a bit like that case where that fake Vite Nam vet accosted those kids... now the kids are suing news agencies and may go after a number of individuals for "calls to action" against the children.

Geez. Can you really see no difference rolleyes What I will say is that death threats against anyone is wrong.

As the last part: You seem to confuse feelings with facts. When I mention facts, sometimes there are not all that comfortable. Once I did that, I did say that was not going to help the killer in his defence. To pretend otherwise would be foolish for any lawyer on either side of this case.

Whatever. #theproofisinyourposts #peoplewillmakeuptheirownminds

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 05/25/19 7:03am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

If you say a connected was established... I tend to be leery of a one sided story as this one is... what I recall was he had read about the demonstration and went out there to see what he could do...


and again I do often point out inconvenient truths of cases...

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 05/25/19 7:27am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

If you say a connected was established... I tend to be leery of a one sided story as this one is... what I recall was he had read about the demonstration and went out there to see what he could do...


and again I do often point out inconvenient truths of cases...

I've worked with people where an inconvenient truth has got them released from a life sentence. Trust me, when someone randomly mows someone down because of their political ideals, it is terrorism. No defence lawyer in their right mind would use the plea that she should have stayed at home if she didn't want to die that day.

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 05/25/19 7:43am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

If you say a connected was established... I tend to be leery of a one sided story as this one is... what I recall was he had read about the demonstration and went out there to see what he could do...


and again I do often point out inconvenient truths of cases...

I've worked with people where an inconvenient truth has got them released from a life sentence. Trust me, when someone randomly mows someone down because of their political ideals, it is terrorism. No defence lawyer in their right mind would use the plea that she should have stayed at home if she didn't want to die that day.

that is where reading comprehension comes in, as you seem to ignore where I expressly said, her acts do not offer a defence. But both legal teams WOULD absolutely 100%--if they are at all any good that is-- take those aspects into consideration--at least behind the scenes.

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 05/25/19 7:54am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

I've worked with people where an inconvenient truth has got them released from a life sentence. Trust me, when someone randomly mows someone down because of their political ideals, it is terrorism. No defence lawyer in their right mind would use the plea that she should have stayed at home if she didn't want to die that day.

that is where reading comprehension comes in, as you seem to ignore where I expressly said, her acts do not offer a defence. But both legal teams WOULD absolutely 100%--if they are at all any good that is-- take those aspects into consideration--at least behind the scenes.

So basically you agree that being somewhere when a terrorist act takes place is not a defence. No problems with my reading comprehension mate. The bold is bullshit.

[Edited 5/25/19 7:56am]

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 05/25/19 8:16am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

that is where reading comprehension comes in, as you seem to ignore where I expressly said, her acts do not offer a defence. But both legal teams WOULD absolutely 100%--if they are at all any good that is-- take those aspects into consideration--at least behind the scenes.

So basically you agree that being somewhere when a terrorist act takes place is not a defence. No problems with my reading comprehension mate. The bold is bullshit.

[Edited 5/25/19 7:56am]

1) that is what i've been saying


2) except you did not seem to grasp where I said 'such acts do not offer a defence?

3) lol lol lol lol lol lol Yes they do... if this case goes to court the question "why were you there?" "what were you doing?" "where were you standing/walking?" Will be asked.

now I do not know who is who but that person that runs up and smashed the car's window... if that is the plaintiff.... He may have some problems... he took action when he knew there was a danger. He had no legal reason do that, it was not self defence and the most likely result was to make matters worst.

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 05/25/19 8:44am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

So basically you agree that being somewhere when a terrorist act takes place is not a defence. No problems with my reading comprehension mate. The bold is bullshit.

[Edited 5/25/19 7:56am]

1) that is what i've been saying


2) except you did not seem to grasp where I said 'such acts do not offer a defence?

3) lol lol lol lol lol lol Yes they do... if this case goes to court the question "why were you there?" "what were you doing?" "where were you standing/walking?" Will be asked.

now I do not know who is who but that person that runs up and smashed the car's window... if that is the plaintiff.... He may have some problems... he took action when he knew there was a danger. He had no legal reason do that, it was not self defence and the most likely result was to make matters worst.

Given that Fields was found guilty of first degree murder and eight other charges including aggrevated malicious wounding, and that his plea of self-defence was thrown out, I think it's safe to say that the points you repeatedly make in no 3 did not play a part.

Bill Burke, the plaintiff, was mown down suffering serious head and brain injury, I doubt it was him. Even so, Fields was lucky to have not been seriously hurt IMO after what he did. A broken window is nothing.

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 05/25/19 8:51am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

Given that Fields was found guilty of first degree murder and eight other charges including aggrevated malicious wounding, and that his plea of self-defence was thrown out, I think it's safe to say that the points you repeatedly make in no 3 did not play a part.

Bill Burke, the plaintiff, was mown down suffering serious head and brain injury, I doubt it was him. Even so, Fields was lucky to have not been seriously hurt IMO after what he did. A broken window is nothing.

1) Again it is something they would consider... I am not sure why you are so triggered over this... but I am done with it.


2) Bill has a case against the killer/driver... and even if that was him again it will be an issue but not a major one. But the killer has no money so it is a waste of time. I do agree the killer was lucky he was not pulled out and dealt with.

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 05/25/19 8:51am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

If you say a connected was established... I tend to be leery of a one sided story as this one is... what I recall was he had read about the demonstration and went out there to see what he could do...


and again I do often point out inconvenient truths of cases...

Here he is wearing Vanguard America uniform at the rally. Vanguard America are not complying therefore the plaintiffs are seeking sanctions against them for failing to cooperate and turn over digital evidence. From a different article (source):

Today's motion for sanctions argues that VA’s non-compliance is in bad faith; that there is substantial circumstantial evidence that VA conspired to commit racially-motivated violence and coordinated with defendant James Fields, Jr.; and that VA is attempting to withhold evidence of their communications, which the plaintiffs believe would corroborate the circumstantial evidence.

"Here we are again: another day, another Defendant flouting discovery obligations. But VA’s abject defiance of all Court orders and processes sets it apart from the other non-compliant Defendants: VA’s own lawyer finds its conduct in discovery indefensible. Counsel for VA said it best: 'Vanguard is a problem'," the filing states. "As a primary organizer of the events in Charlottesville, and the Defendant who marched in lockstep with James Fields on August 12 up to the moment he drove his car through a crowd of people, VA has the most to lose in this case, and therefore the most to hide."


“Unfortunately, Defendants’ contempt for the legal process, the Court, and its rulings has become all too familiar. But Vanguard America surely leads the pack in disobedience, presumably because the evidence we have sought from them would have shown their connections to convicted murderer James Fields (who marched with them and wore their uniform on August 12) and thus the breadth of the conspiracy that led to violence and death in Charlottesville," said co-lead counsel Roberta Kaplan.

Inconvenient truth?




If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 05/25/19 9:05am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

If you say a connected was established... I tend to be leery of a one sided story as this one is... what I recall was he had read about the demonstration and went out there to see what he could do...


and again I do often point out inconvenient truths of cases...

Here he is wearing Vanguard America uniform at the rally. Vanguard America are not complying therefore the plaintiffs are seeking sanctions against them for failing to cooperate and turn over digital evidence. From a different article (source):

Today's motion for sanctions argues that VA’s non-compliance is in bad faith; that there is substantial circumstantial evidence that VA conspired to commit racially-motivated violence and coordinated with defendant James Fields, Jr.; and that VA is attempting to withhold evidence of their communications, which the plaintiffs believe would corroborate the circumstantial evidence.

"Here we are again: another day, another Defendant flouting discovery obligations. But VA’s abject defiance of all Court orders and processes sets it apart from the other non-compliant Defendants: VA’s own lawyer finds its conduct in discovery indefensible. Counsel for VA said it best: 'Vanguard is a problem'," the filing states. "As a primary organizer of the events in Charlottesville, and the Defendant who marched in lockstep with James Fields on August 12 up to the moment he drove his car through a crowd of people, VA has the most to lose in this case, and therefore the most to hide."


“Unfortunately, Defendants’ contempt for the legal process, the Court, and its rulings has become all too familiar. But Vanguard America surely leads the pack in disobedience, presumably because the evidence we have sought from them would have shown their connections to convicted murderer James Fields (who marched with them and wore their uniform on August 12) and thus the breadth of the conspiracy that led to violence and death in Charlottesville," said co-lead counsel Roberta Kaplan.

Inconvenient truth?




Even so the group is not responsible for the killers acts...

and not turning over evidence right away is a solid legal tactic--they have right to appeal or question the request and its scope. It happens all the time... I suspect your main issue with its use has more to do with how you feel about this case.


one thing I do is a try to remove how i feel and focus on the facts... if you were here during the Martin case you would have seen me doing that and being attacked and mocked over it but damn near everything I said would happen, happened. And many did not like that... I was accused of defending his killer. That was a lie. Same here... I have not defended the killer... not once not ever.

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 05/25/19 9:16am

jjhunsecker

avatar

In the Martin case, I (along with several others on here and elsewhere) said the exact same thing- that Zimmerman would walk free. I guess we're all "legal experts "....
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 05/25/19 9:26am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

In the Martin case, I (along with several others on here and elsewhere) said the exact same thing- that Zimmerman would walk free. I guess we're all "legal experts "....

was your prediction based on cynicism of the system or on the bases of him being charged for something he was not guilty of?

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 05/25/19 9:26am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

and I do not believe I have ever claimed to be a legal expert unless it was clearly said in jest...


2 other cases I nailed were

the ACA Mandate! I said they would only win if it is deemed a tax....

the reporter that got kicked out of the white house: I said it would fail on a 1st amendment claim and it was.


[Edited 5/25/19 9:30am]

If "Assault" rifles are banned... COPS first! If they want to TRY to take them from the PEOPLE they should set the example!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 05/25/19 9:40am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

Here he is wearing Vanguard America uniform at the rally. Vanguard America are not complying therefore the plaintiffs are seeking sanctions against them for failing to cooperate and turn over digital evidence. From a different article (source):

Today's motion for sanctions argues that VA’s non-compliance is in bad faith; that there is substantial circumstantial evidence that VA conspired to commit racially-motivated violence and coordinated with defendant James Fields, Jr.; and that VA is attempting to withhold evidence of their communications, which the plaintiffs believe would corroborate the circumstantial evidence.

"Here we are again: another day, another Defendant flouting discovery obligations. But VA’s abject defiance of all Court orders and processes sets it apart from the other non-compliant Defendants: VA’s own lawyer finds its conduct in discovery indefensible. Counsel for VA said it best: 'Vanguard is a problem'," the filing states. "As a primary organizer of the events in Charlottesville, and the Defendant who marched in lockstep with James Fields on August 12 up to the moment he drove his car through a crowd of people, VA has the most to lose in this case, and therefore the most to hide."


“Unfortunately, Defendants’ contempt for the legal process, the Court, and its rulings has become all too familiar. But Vanguard America surely leads the pack in disobedience, presumably because the evidence we have sought from them would have shown their connections to convicted murderer James Fields (who marched with them and wore their uniform on August 12) and thus the breadth of the conspiracy that led to violence and death in Charlottesville," said co-lead counsel Roberta Kaplan.

Inconvenient truth?




1. Even so the group is not responsible for the killers acts...

2. and not turning over evidence right away is a solid legal tactic--they have right to appeal or question the request and its scope. It happens all the time... I suspect your main issue with its use has more to do with how you feel about this case.


one thing I do is a try to remove how i feel and focus on the facts... if you were here during the Martin case you would have seen me doing that and being attacked and mocked over it but damn near everything I said would happen, happened. And many did not like that... I was accused of defending his killer. That was a lie. 3. Same here... I have not defended the killer... not once not ever.

1. Encouraging and inciting violence? They may not have put their foot on the gas, but did they play some part in enabling him to think he'd be a hero? Time will tell.

2. Same as Trumps tax returns...if you have nothing to hide, and it exonerates you, just hand it over.

3.Maybe you think that...I think by blaming (sorry, stating the 'facts' about) Heather for being in the road, or blaming (sorry, stating the 'facts' about) Trayvon, you are defending the killer. I guess it's my reading comprehension skills again. Guess my first class degree in linguistics, and my years teaching English Language were for nothing rolleyes

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Charlottesville Victim Sues White Nationalist Groups and Leaders