Kyle Rittenhouse 12mins defense team vid - epic - FightBack.law - [PEACE]

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Thu Nov 18 02:42:30 PST 2021


The Rittenhouse Case Proves The Establishment Wants To Bring Back Star
Chamber Tyranny

https://alt-market.us/the-rittenhouse-case-proves-the-establishment-wants-to-bring-back-star-chamber-tyranny/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0DSTV7XT1E
https://www.doj.state.wi.us/news-releases/update-kenosha-officer-involved-shooting-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WZeT9vr2-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-jury-sees-fatal-shooting-drone-video/
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/11/joseph-rosenbaum-sex-offender/
https://www.newsweek.com/rittenhouse-prosecutor-claims-defendant-lost-right-self-defense-bringing-gun-1649396
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial
https://www.foxnews.com/media/don-lemon-judge-kyle-rittenhouse-case-treatment-defendant

One of the most interesting stories from the early days leading up to
the American Revolution involves the events surrounding the Boston
Massacre. On March 5th, 1770 the Stamp Act had just been repealed but
British Soldiers were ever present in Boston as a show of force
against the “rowdy” colonists. The British government, in order to
save face, implemented the Townshend Acts instead as a means to
continue taxing the colonies (without representation, of course).
Anger was growing in the streets.

The presence of the Red Coats in the city added to the public fury and
protests were sparked. One such protest was raging in front of the
Custom House on King Street over a disagreement between wig maker
Henry Knox and a soldier. The argument grew into what was later
described as a riot. Allegedly, the crowd became violent and started
throwing objects at the soldiers. One of the soldiers let off a shot
and then someone yelled “Fire!”, causing all the Red Coats to shoot
into the crowd killing five of them and injuring others.

The colonial justice system could have chosen to use their position to
railroad the soldiers in question and make an ideological example out
of them. Instead, in the first trial of Captain John Preston, ample
legal representation was given (the lawyer was John Adams, who would
later become the 2nd President of the US), along with a fair trial.
Adams’ position that the soldiers believed they were under imminent
danger of bodily harm convinced the jury and a not-guilty verdict was
given for the majority of the soldiers, with manslaughter charges for
two of them.

Adams felt that his victory in the defense of the British soldiers was
actually a victory for the colonies and ultimately the Revolution. You
see, the British looked upon the colonials as “insurrectionists” and
barbarians. They did not think that a fair trial for a soldier in the
colonies was even possible. By proving them wrong with grace, logic
and objectivity, Adams and the jury destroyed a common lie perpetuated
by the monarchy and the British establishment. The colonies had more
honor than the British did.

This lack of honor among the British establishment became evident
before and during the Revolutionary War when the “Star Chamber” became
the defacto law of the monarchy in the colonies.

The Star Chamber was an elitist-operated “justice system” or tribunal
originally designed so that the British aristocracy was assured a fair
trial whenever they actually faced a criminal charge. In other words,
it was a special court for the power elites that was separate and
superior to the courts used for average peasants. Publicly, it was
also presented as a means for commoners to redress grievances against
aristocrats, but it was well understood that the Star Chamber would
rarely go against the nobility UNLESS they had also offended the king.
If they went against the king, they would be black-bagged like anyone
else.

During the unrest in the colonies, however, the Star Chamber was used
in a different manner; it became a weapon to crush dissent among
subjects that spoke out against the empire and sowed the seeds of
“sedition”.

The dreaded court was highly secretive and the public was often
obstructed from its proceedings. Its rulings were overseen by the
establishment rather than a jury and in many cases those people being
charged were never given a chance to defend themselves. They were
sentenced before they ever entered a courtroom, if they entered a
courtroom at all. Silence was often considered an admission of guilt
rather than a right of the accused. Punishments were brutal, including
torture and imprisonment under the worst possible conditions.

The death penalty was not allowed, but the court would instead place
defendants in conditions so horrible that they tended to die on their
own.

All of this was justified under the claim that every person charged
was treasonous, and therefore they did not deserve a fair trial among
their peers. After the war was over and the British were defeated, the
Founding Fathers drafted large portions of the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights in order to counter and prevent the same abuses they
saw under the Star Chamber. The 5th Amendment in particular was
directly inspired as a way to stop Star Chamber-like abuses of court
power.

But lets leap ahead to current day, where we find that the Kyle
Rittenhouse trial, now nearing its end, has beyond anything else
revealed a vicious intention by the establishment to bring back the
oppression of the Star Chamber through the media manipulated court of
public opinion, mob rule as well as violations of well established
constitutional law.

The political left could have chosen the path of reason, allowing
justice to take its natural course through a display of objectivity
and fairness as John Adams and the colonials did during the Boston
Massacre trial.

They have instead chosen to take the same route as the British,
motivated by a “win at any cost” mentality, using lies, strategic
omissions, censorship and threats of mob violence to turn the
Rittenhouse trial into a political proxy war.

Here are just a handful of examples that show the establishment and
the media are seeking to undermine centuries of normal constitutional
protections including the right of self defense…
The Kenosha “Peaceful Protest” Misdirection

First, lets be clear that the media’s handling of the entire Kenosha
incident was corrupt from the very beginning. Aside from refusing to
call the riots that erupted what they were – RIOTS, the media has also
consistently mischaracterized the police shooting as brutality against
black suspect Jacob Blake. Blake, crippled by the incident, has been
painted as a “victim and hero” in the news.

In reality, Blake had a warrant out for his arrest including
trespassing, disorderly conduct and sexual assault. The police were
made aware of this before they attempted to detain him. Blake also had
a history of resisting arrest, and of course attempted to do so again
in Kenosha. Videos clearly show Blake trying to march away from
officers and jump back into his vehicle.

The media claimed Blake was unarmed, yet he is also clearly holding a
karambit style knife in the same videos, which the police ordered him
to drop and he refused. The Wisconsin DOJ confirmed that Blake was
armed and Blake himself admitted to having the knife. Officers were
already on edge as Blake tried to reach into his car, or use his car
to get away, or possibly use the car as a weapon.

Frankly, Blake’s history and behavior at the scene make him a
criminal, not a hero or a victim. All this information was readily
available within about a day of the event. The media attempted to hide
these FACTS surrounding his shooting from the public and deliberately
sowed seeds of unrest. And the ignorant and reactionary people within
the BLM movement ate up the propaganda.

When violence broke out, the media portrayed the riots as “peaceful
protests” for “racial justice”. Even though, just as with George
Floyd, there was no evidence whatsoever that racial motivations had
anything to do with it. The riots were based on lies from beginning to
end, and this false narrative has bled into and tainted the handling
of the Kyle Rittenhouse case – For even if Rittenhouse was defending
himself from attackers, the attackers are still presented as the “good
guys” because they were fighting for “racial justice”, which again, is
simply not true.
The Kid Defending Himself Was Actually The Villain Because He Defended Himself?

The prosecution in the Rittenhouse case should have watched the widely
available video evidence (and the secret FBI evidence) and seen that
without a shadow of a doubt Rittenhouse was defending himself from an
unprovoked attack by an unhinged mob. It is no coincidence that every
person Rittenhouse was forced to shoot had a violent criminal record,
including Joseph Rosenbaum who had multiple convictions for pedophilia
including 11 counts of child molestation. These people were chasing
Rittenhouse because they intended to do him harm just as they had done
others harm.

The media and the prosecution offer a bizarrely disconnected view, in
which Kyle Rittenhouse “provoked” the mob into attacking him simply
because he was there and because he had a firearm. Multiple witnesses
and FBI surveillance footage indicate Joseph Rosenbaum chased and then
attacked Rittenhouse, trying to take his rifle by force, which was why
he was shot. But this does not matter in the Star Chamber.

Lead Prosecutor Thomas Binger openly argued that Rittenhouse ‘lost his
right to self defense because he was carrying a gun.’ Binger
apparently overlooks the fact that one of Rittenhouse’s attackers,
Gaige Grosskreutz, had a gun (illegally due to his felony record) and
admitted in court that he ran at Rittenhouse with the weapon pointed
at him when Rittenhouse shot him. But somehow, only Kyle’s gun was the
cause of the violence and all his attackers were responding to the
threatening presence of his weapon?

This has been the overarching crux of the prosecution’s case as well
as the media narrative: They say Rittenhouse should be treated as an
“active shooter” and that the leftist mob was leaping into action,
bravely trying to stop him. This does not translate at all when we
watch the video of the event; it is clear that Rittenhouse is being
pursued by the mob and and they attack him from behind, causing him to
fall to the ground. Only then does he defend himself with the rifle
against his attackers, including Anthony Huber who tried to bash
Kyle’s head in with a skateboard and Grosskreutz who ran at him with a
Glock.

To clarify, because this may not be a widely understood factor, if
someone is trying to get away from you, you cannot attack them and
then legally claim “self defense” was your motive. Only police
officers have the right to physically detain a person who is trying to
escape.

Also, if Rittenhouse was an “active shooter” you would think he would
have fired belligerently into the crowd, but he did not; he only fired
on the people trying to hurt him.

The prosecution and media narratives are a blatant attack on the right
of self defense in general. In closing arguments, the prosecution
argued that Rittenhouse was a “coward” that should have used his fists
to fight off the angry mob instead of using his rifle; displaying a
clear intent to attack not just Rittenhouse, but overall gun rights.
The case itself is obviously politically slanted against Rittenhouse
because he is a conservative. Had this been a leftist shooting a mob
of conservatives under the same circumstances at the Jan 6th riot I
doubt it would have ever gone to trial.

The implications of this are far reaching. If Rittenhouse is found
guilty despite all the evidence to the contrary, the assertion will
then be that self defense is no longer a protected right for anyone
with the wrong politics. It will be seen as open season on
conservatives at any such events in the future and all defense law
will come into question, especially any defense law that involves gun
rights.
The 5th Amendment Attack And The Strategy Of Subverting A Trial

Various establishment institutions have been trying to undermine the
5th Amendment and the right to remain silent for decades now. Once
again, we saw this evidenced in the Rittenhouse trial when prosecutors
sought to attack the defendant on potential evidence that was
ostensibly dismissed before the trial by the judge. The prosecution
asked questions related to the evidence anyway. The judge removed the
jury from the room and then chastised Binger, who then proceeded to
question Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent on the issue.

This may seem to be overly complicated legal jousting, but this action
by the prosecution was an aggressive attempt to taint the jury with
misconceptions of the defendant as a violent “vigilante” rather than
the victim of a mob attack. Also, questioning a defendant’s right to
remain silent is belligerent to say the least. But beyond that, the
faux pas by the prosecution could have led to an immediate mistrial
declared.

Keep in mind that the prosecution had already suffered numerous
failures and the case was going downhill for them. I suspect that this
may have been an attempt by Binger to deliberately cause a mistrial
and to retry Rittenhouse at a later date, undoing his many mistakes
and getting another opportunity to bury Rittenhouse despite his
innocence. This is how the Star Chamber begins – When you can be tried
over and over again until the establishment gets the outcome they
wanted. Furthermore, if the right to remain silent comes into
question, then any refusal to answer questions could become an assumed
admission of guilt.
Silencing The Alternative Media And Obstructing Honest Reporting

Perhaps the most blatant act by the establishment has been to use Big
Tech to censor various elements and observations of the Rittenhouse
trial. Facebook and Twitter have been policing Rittenhouse related
posts, and YouTube blocked the majority of independent streamers
covering the live closing arguments of the case. The mainstream media
has completely avoided any mention of this decision, but of course
they would; it makes them the only source for case coverage and their
narrative the only narrative.

And how about that thermal surveillance evidence from the FBI that
only saw the light of day in the middle of the trail? Withholding
evidence is a direct obstruction of justice but also a direct attempt
to undermine public insight into the case. The narrative is easier to
fabricate if one filters out any evidence that contradicts it.

This control of the narrative has led to widespread disinformation in
the Rittenhouse case. There are still many leftists out there that
actually think the people Kyle shot were black and that Rittenhouse is
a “racist.” The media has asserted for the past year that
Rittenhouse’s self defense was somehow related to “white supremacy.”
Media hacks like CNN’s Don Lemon have also insinuated that the judge
in the case is biased and possibly racist.

The media has asserted that if Rittenhouse is not found guilty that
riots will erupt once again to provide punishment where the courts
“failed.” If riots do explode, it will be because of the misleading
and poisonous lies constantly spread by the same mainstream media. But
let’s think about the consequences of this for a moment…

The Star Chamber is an ideal tyrannical tool, but the establishment
and leftists do not have it in hand yet. They want it badly, and their
behavior during the Rittenhouse case makes this clear. I REPEAT: The
Star Chamber is not upon us yet, but it is coming soon if these people
get their way.

Rule by the mob goes well beyond the effects of the Star Chamber, but
this could be by design. Think of it this way: Say Rittenhouse is
found Not Guilty, and BLM mobs burn down Kenosha in response. Future
courts and future juries in similar cases might then decide it’s
easier to ignore facts and evidence so that mob violence is avoided
and the leftists are appeased. The Star Chamber will return because it
will be seen as a preferable alternative to national riots. The Star
Chamber will become a mechanism for the “greater good” and the
establishment will get what it wanted all along.

This cannot be allowed to happen. The Rittenhouse trial does not
represent a singular shooting event and an isolated case for self
defense, it represents a fulcrum point for the very fabric of our
society and what justice will actually mean in the years to come. If
an obviously innocent kid is convicted of murder merely because of his
political beliefs, or if the mob is allowed to burn and destroy swaths
of a city because the verdict is Not Guilty, then every effort the
Founding Fathers made to stop the creation of another Star Chamber
will be erased.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list