Mark McCloskey kenosha protestor
Mark McCloskey gets into it verbally with a protestor outside the courthouse in Kenosha. (Photo credit: Fox News)

While jurors deliberate inside the courthouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin in the Kyle Rittenhouse case – the outcome of which promises to be important for gun owners everywhere – Mark McCloskey is outside arguing with protestors. Why? Because there’s never a dull moment in what has been a circus of a two-week trial.

Fox News reports:

Mark McCloskey, the St. Louis lawyer who made national headlines last year when he carried a gun on his property near a social justice protest in his neighborhood, argued with a protester outside the Kenosha County Courthouse on Tuesday afternoon. 

“It really hurts me that you would have that much hatred,” the protester told McCloskey. 

“There is absolutely no hatred involved in what I did,” McCloskey responded. “They came in, storming through my gate, broke down my gate, stormed toward my house, and I was afraid for my life.”

If the jurors can’t reach a decision in the case, Judge Bruce Schroeder will be polling them to find out if they want to continue deliberating. Is McCloskey helping by grabbing another fifteen minutes of fame – or would that be infamy? – on the courthouse steps? Seems unlikely.

Here’s part of the exchange between McCloskey and a protestor.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

99 COMMENTS

  1. If anyone in BLM cared about racial injustice, they would be going after the prosecutor.

    How many black families were torn apart by Littlebinger? How many Black men has the sent to prison after blatantly violating their rights and engaging in every little dirty tactic to get a conviction?

    • “racial justice” stopped being about “racial justice” a long time ago, and actually it never really was about “racial justice”.

      From the very beginning of the concept it was about being Black or not being Black. This is why the black “community” overall refuses to acknowledge that black people can be racists, to keep it about being Black or not being Black. There are racist black people, especially towards black people and its literally killing them with over 70% of violent crime against blacks being committed by blacks who overall have the view they are superior to their own race and this gives them the right to prey on their own race.

    • “If anyone in BLM cared about racial injustice…”

      There is neither any “racial injustice” nor “racial justice”, nor “social justice” or any other category of the raft of BS being passed about in an attempt to make one “type” of person more important than the rest of us.

      There is only justice, or a lack thereof.

      We should all strive for justice regardless of one’s race, gender, religion, country of origin or everything else if one is an American. E pluribus unum.

      To promote, or attempt to recognize anything else is to promote injustice.

    • Nobody in BLM cares about blacks being killed, or else they would be protesting every week in Chicago because the vast majority of murders there [more than 500 every year without fail] are black victims.
      No, the truth is BLM and antifa are revolutionary communist subversive groups, and they stoke racial division as a way to promote their marxist goals!!

  2. Just when the clown quotient seems like it could, maybe possibly have hit the crest… along comes this asshole needing another 15 minutes.

    Napoleon, if the attribution is correct, is rolling in his grave.

    • Not PC to call the BLM clowns assholes. Thought it’s true.

      Proper usage is NOT BLM “protesters”. In all cases it’s BLM RIOTERS

    • Eh, honestly I think the right needs some people like this to show up and get in the communists face in the street. The communist only understands force. The communists think they’re the only ones with the right to assemble.

    • Applying the title “clown” to a buffoon is an insult to professional clowns everywhere. Clowns are highly trained professional performers who train daily to perfect their performance. While they may amuse and titillate their audience, they themselves are serious about the quality of their performance. Buffoon is perhaps a more appropriate term of approbation to apply to low mentality seekers after notoriety.

      As for antifa and blm rioters, anarchist is perhaps the closest appropriate term for them.

    • It’s a pump and dump scam. He owns a lot of CAG.

      [ConAgra owns Oeville Redenbacher.]

      Yes, /s obviously.

    • Yep…Jesse Jackson is at the Arbery trial poverty pimpin’ so it least we don’t have him doddering along. Free Kyle! Lock n load!

  5. The jurors requested a copy of the jury instructions read to them in court.

    All 30+ pages of them.

    This may take more than a full day…

    • Wow. With hard hitting analysis like this, Geoff could be a reporter for Court TV!

      Just kidding. What a clown and loser ‘he’ is 🖕.

        • The only logical reason for your son’s obsessive hatred and stalking of Geoff would be if he walked in on you and Geoff. And Geoff was making you squeel like a pig.

          His level of obsession is off the charts.

        • “The only logical reason for your son’s obsessive hatred and stalking of Geoff would be if he walked in on you and Geoff. And Geoff was making you squeel like a pig.”

          I have a personal policy, the ladies always come first. (And usually last… 🙂 )

          If my demented troll knew how to properly pleasure a woman, he’d have no time to troll me… 😉

    • It’s being reported elsewhere that two jurors are holding things up “out of fear for their safety”.

      Take that as you will.

      • Well that’s just bullshit, threatening a jury member, the law should do something about that.
        The Law , bwhahaha.
        Wish I was on that jury.

        • Yeah just like the law should do something about terrorists posing as political activists burning down communities. I won’t hold my breath.

      • “…two jurors are holding things up “out of fear for their safety”.”

        So, the jurors can hear the ‘protesters’ calls for “no justice, no peace” in the jury deliberation room, eh?

        No real surprise…

        • Geoff the jizz stain is a contemptible half wit who hasn’t been inside a woman since the day he was born.

          Plus he willingly took the WuFlu vaccine, just like every other detestable leftist.

          Ditch this buffoon instantly!

        • So, the jurors can hear the ‘protesters’ calls for “no justice, no peace” in the jury deliberation room, eh?

          I didn’t see anything further, just blurb on a feed.

          They were told by the judge that they had been videoed and identified by outside agitators and there are documented issues with attempts to intimidate them with threats a week or so ago.

        • “…there are documented issues with attempts to intimidate them with threats a week or so ago.”

          No real surprise there, 9.

          I’m with JWM on this one, he can handle himself.

          And JWM? Something tells me his family has been gifted a replacement by now for the rifle that was seized…

        • to strych9
          That is called the 1st amendment. Just like supporting the KKK or Nazis marching through a black or Jewish holocaust survivor neighborhood.

          I was told this was a great thing as a kid. And you needed to have a strong character and accept such negative things. But it’s different when it’s your life that is on the line. Isn’t it?

      • There have apparently also been threats against the judge and the judge’s children. These people need to be found and the book thrown at them, and thrown hard.

        I’m wondering if these threats could be grounds for a mistrial with prejudice attached? I’d rather Rittenhouse get acquitted on all counts, but I could live with that result.

        • “I’m wondering if these threats could be grounds for a mistrial with prejudice attached?”

          More than likely not, or every underworld crime boss would have his henchmen issuing ‘threats’ to get the boss out of jail…

        • intimidation is not ground’s for mistrial.

          This is among the hard parts about being a juror on a notable self-defense case.

          I’ve been a juror on a self defense case. Its not uncommon for people on both sides to try to intimidate you. They followed me home and around to where I went, followed my wife, got up in my face taking pictures and trying to block paths, spit on me, approached my wife, made provoking lunges and movements towards me, veiled threats towards me and my wife. In my case, as much as people would like to think otherwise, there was really not much that could be done legally until the treat was specific or realized and as long as they stayed on public property or where the general public is permitted.

          In this Rittenhouse case its a little different because some of the threats are a little more than veiled so there is the “communicating threats” and “intimidating witness or juror” concepts, at a minimum, in law that can be used.

      • No member of the jury should be talking about what is going on inside the jury room to anyone but the judge. The judge on the other hand has been getting multiple death threats daily, according to a report in the MSM. He has 24/7 security and tracers working the emails. Because some of his rulings appear to favor the defense he has been accused of being a racist and a KKK member–and it doesn’t seem to matter that none of the guys Kyle shot were black. The first guy was just out there stirring up trouble. The other two are/were Antifa members. (I guess that means they were there just stirring up trouble too.)

        • “The first guy was just out there stirring up trouble.”

          Was that the one on video saying “Shoot me!” ?

          As far as I’m concerned, he got exactly what he asked for…

        • It was reported to the court that people had been making videos of jurors from a distance. The implication being in an attempt to identify them and find their homes.

          Numerous people, allegedly tied to Antifa and BLM, have posted videos online not-very-subtly suggesting that the jurors and their families are fair game for violence if the come back with the *wrong* verdict.

          Personally, IMHO if jurors or someone in a position to somehow know this, is leaking… well [channels HRC], what difference, at this point, does it make?

          Yeah, they shouldn’t do this or that but in a post-law country (the one we all live in) it’s really pretty small potatoes.

        • “…No member of the jury should be talking about what is going on inside the jury room to anyone but the judge..”

          Exactly.
          Jury foreman speaks to the judge through the bailiff on behalf of jury members. Bailiff stays outside the Jury deliberation room. Also bailiff makes sure no congregation around door to Jury room or hallway ect.
          The judge should investigate whether this “news” report is true or made up. The report I read mention US Marshalls leaked the info but what the heck do they have to do with this State case?
          “IF” it is revealed that a bailiff leaked something he/she overheard then 1) loss of employment 2)Mistrial …Maybe judge says I’ve had enough of this Happy horse sh!t and Directed Verdict ensues?

    • They have a copy of it. It was read previous in court and into the record. They want it read into the record again for a reason.

  8. Eh, likely just trying to get some internet fame. The McCloskeys were justified in defending themselves, but let’s not forget they aren’t nice people. Both of them have a long history of bungholism, and I’d lay pretty good odds Mr. McCloskey wasn’t there because he was concerned for Rittenhouse or the right to self-defense but for his own benefit.

  9. The mistake people make by engaging either Antifa or BLM members is they don’t really care what you have to say only what they have to say and there really is no desire on their part to hear anything they don’t want to hear. The best thing to do is ignore them and if they physically assault you shoot them. That is about the only thing that gets their attention.

    • ignore them?

      Apparently you have not been trapped in or between real Antifa-BLM confrontations. Both sides make sure you do not ignore them. Everyone not with them is against them and is the evil enemy, everyone with them is good and everyone else is the evil enemy, every evil enemy is aligned against them.

      These are not some kids on the playground calling you names, so the ‘sticks-n’stones’ defense doesn’t work here. These will use those ‘sticks-n’stones’ to seriously injure or kill you if they get a chance, if you are not with them.

      • .40 cal Booger,

        When dprato said, “Ignore BLM/antifa,” I am pretty sure that he/she meant, “Do not debate BLM/antifa,” because BLM/antifa are not interested in honest dialogue.

        I do not believe that dprato meant, “Ignore BLM/antifa to your peril.”

  10. I’m glad a person who was persecuted by the tyrannical government for using their 2A civil rights to defend their life and their home. As I have said before. The “gun community” is uncomfortable when law abiding civilians open carry long guns.

    Libertarian Liberal and Leftist gun owners are far more comfortable, with only the police and military, being allowed to open carry machine guns. The three L’s are so weak.

    • edit
      I’m glad a person who was persecuted by the tyrannical government for using their 2A civil rights to defend their life and their home. I’m glad Mark McCloskey is speaking up. He is a fighter. Most gun owners are not.

    • You are an idiot. One of the main platforms of Libertarians is less Governement meaning you may have to defend yourself. Libertarians fully support less police and less military as it should be. If you actually bothered to read you might understand. The same way Libertarians allegedly support single mothers. How? By cutting off their Governement aid? Libertarians believe you should live your life as you see fit, this does not mean supporting your dumb decisions. Unfortunately both Democrats and your beloved Retardicans seem to think it is Governements job to do these things.

  11. “Is McCloskey helping by grabbing another fifteen minutes of fame – or would that be infamy? – on the courthouse steps? ”

    nope

    he should have stayed away.

    The protest outside the court house was already filled with racial hatred agitators on both sides and that’s what the protest was becoming about at that point. It was becoming white-on-black and black-on-white, that’s what it was moving towards. There had already been several incidents as prelude to violence on both sides, there had already been at least two minor assaults on both sides, and members of both sides having to be restrained from going further especially from the BLM sector. It was getting away from protest support for or against Rittenhouse. It did not need what he represented to the mythos of the BLM movement that any white person with a gun is racists. He should have stayed away.

  12. Mark McCloskey is a white supremacist racist pig. He threatened BLM protestors that were on a public street marching PAST his house and who never set foot on his property. Its not any wonder this racist pig supports and lionizes storm trooper Herr Hauptman Kyle Rittenhouse who was at the protests that night to support police brutality and murders of minorities. Rittenhouse like most Conservative filth places the value of property over the value of human life which has always been the Hall Mark of the penny pinching cheap stingy Conservative jack booted storm trooper crowd.

    • Yes it was his property too, his private property, because its collectively private property of the home owners association of which he is a member while his home remains his personal private property. They broke down a gate to the private property to enter. They were hostile and expressed wishes of intent to harm. The majority of the BLM protestors there that day were actually white, and it was actually a white man McCloskey threatened at one point when the man threatened to harm them and this is a pic of that confrontation when McCloskey stepped forward and leveled the rifle at the treat that was already moving towards him after threatening harm and actually entered the McCloskey personal private property in doing so > https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2021/05/1862/1048/2020-06-29T000000Z_1475611792_RC22JH9T56UO_RTRMADP_3_MINNEAPOLIS-POLICE-PROTESTS-ST-LOUIS.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

      This is a pic of Patricia McCloskey standing her ground after those two you see in front of her in the pic (and another out of the pic but on the right) threatened her with harm > https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2021/05/1862/1048/2020-12-22T233109Z_753897955_RC2NSK9CX2RN_RTRMADP_3_MINNEAPOLIS-POLICE-PROTESTS.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

      Every time the McCloskey’s actually pointed their weapons it was in response to a threat of harm from the so called “peaceful protestors” who have unlawfully entered “their” private property by breaking down a gate.

      Despite the media coverage, the protestors were violent and destructive and did enter private property and threaten harm to the McCloskey’s.

      Should they have been outside that day with weapons? Well, they did remain on their own property, the protestors had already destroyed private property (the gate) to enter the private property. But some would say they should have stayed inside and in some ways I think that too, but I’m not going to fault them for taking a preemptive self defense stance under the conditions there that day.

      Are the McCloskey’s nice people? No, not really. Basically they are the definition of “ass hole”.

      So why don

      • Nope, the gate was open when the protesters arrived as multiple videos show.

        The gate was indeed destroyed later, after the McCloskey’s had threatened the crowd with firearms.

        The protesters never entered the McCloskeys real property, they were on the street which was owned by the HOA which declined to press trespassing charges.

        The McCloskeys had actually filed suit in court to prove that the street did not belong to them, but rather to the HOA and was the HOA’s responsibility.

        There was no altercation or confrontation with the McCloskeys until they exited their dwelling with firearms and shouted at the protesters on the street.

        Property titled in the name of the HOA belongs to the HOA, there is no collective property ownership as you suggest. In fact, the McCloskeys have an adversarial relationship with the HOA:

        “The McCloskeys have filed at least two “quiet title” suits asserting squatter’s rights on land they’ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own. In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture.
        It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate. Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it.”

        • to Booger Brain
          Miner really burned your lying ass off on this one. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. LMAO

        • So you’re supporting the KKK when they burn a cross on the front grass of a black persons home. That is good to know. Many white Leftist’s have publicly supported this in the past. Good to know people like you have not changed.

        • This is not accurate.

          yes, but they still broke the gate down and through that gate at that point at the gate was private property as was the gate its self. The McCloskeys paid for that gate upkeep and maintenance via there fees to the HOA. There is a collective property ownership for the portion (spot) the gate was on and for the gate, it was private property of the McCloskeys as well

          A person who is a member of the HOA also has property ownership over that held under the HOA. Its what makes it an “association” and why its called an “association” because members of the HOA are “associated” by the right of property ownership for the property held under the HOA of which they are a member.

          “There was no altercation or confrontation with the McCloskeys until they exited their dwelling with firearms and shouted at the protesters on the street.”

          “The protesters never entered the McCloskeys real property”

          these are not true. I was there and witnessed it. We knew ahead of time where the protestors were going to be, that had made sure of that. My wife is a free lance journalists, she was there that day covering the events and I went with her for protection. her and the crew she was with were already set up by the time protestors started showing up. Mark McCloskey was looking out the front door which he had slightly open (the door behind the gated type portion). One of the protestors saw him and shouted “stop peeping and come on out. Get you fuc-‘n ass out here or I’m gonna come in there and drag you out”. After that is when the McCloskey’s exited the house with firearms. This was witnessed by myself, my wife, and several others on the crew with us that day – none of us were ever interviewed or subpoenaed to testify and I’m not sure why.

          One protestor did enter their “real” property at their home, threatening harm, I posted a pic above of this confrontation. Other also enter the areas around homes including the McCloskey home.

          They thing about the protestors being only on the street is also not true. There were protestors that entered the grounds of the homes many times. In one of the pics I posted, the two in front of Pat McCloskey, the one on the left was actually at one point standing on that wall behind her. And prior to the main mob arriving there had been a group of protestors in the area that were wandering around the houses and looking in windows.

        • “My wife is a free lance journalists, she was there that day covering the events and I went with her for protection. her and the crew she was with were already set up by the time protestors started showing up.“

          If the gate was not open how did you enter?

          So you and your ‘crew’ trespassed before the protesters arrived?

          Why was it OK for you to enter the HOA property exercising your first amendment rights, yet you think it is somehow wrong for the protesters to enter the HOA property to exercise their first amendment rights?

        • @Miner49er

          We asked permission to be on the property. We contacted a HOA representative and got permission to set up for a protest that they knew was coming their way because the protestors had already made it known they were going to enter. So we got there ahead and set up.

        • @Miner49er, in other words the HOA let us in with permission to be there. None of this was a secret, the protestors told where they were going so the media would be there to capture their march.

          The HOA thought it would be good to have media coverage of it for evidence reasons in case they did actually enter. About 30 minutes before the protestors started showing up they were told it was a gated community private property and they said they would enter anyway. That’s when we got a phone number for the HOA rep from one of the protestors, we called and told him they were coming in anyway and asked if we could come in to cover it and he said yes so we scooted ahead and set up.

        • @Miner49er

          I’ll tell you something else too…

          There were protestors in the crowd in front of the McCloskey home that were also armed.

          There was also a group of 10 armed people that had been outside the property, we believed to be part of a sort of “quick reaction force” for the protest because of how they were dressed, armed, grouped, and seemed to be waiting. We saw one of the advanced people we had seen earlier from the protest group speaking with them just a few minutes before protestors started showing up and pointing towards an area at what would be considered from that point to be the “back side” of the property. They were armed with AR-15’s, hand guns, and shot guns, wearing body armor. We ran across them when we arrived and watched them for a bit while waiting for the HOA rep to meet us. Then they moved i9n the pointed direction away from view and we didn’t see them again.

          There is plenty of video and pic’s of this but it never made it into the media.

          peaceful protest my butt

        • 40, thanks for the info.

          “They were armed with AR-15’s, hand guns, and shot guns, wearing body armor.”

          So the marching protesters were armed and yet somehow managed to make it through the protest without pointing guns at anyone.

          Let me ask, do you think it is appropriate that you had to ask for your first amendment rights to observe the free speech protest?

        • @Miner49er

          I think it was proper to ask permission to enter in this case because we were arriving ahead of the protestors so at that time we wanted to set up there was no event to cover.

          “So the marching protesters were armed and yet somehow managed to make it through the protest without pointing guns at anyone.”

          this old thing, really?

          and so? it doesn’t mean the McCloskey’s were not in fear.

          Thousand drive their cars every day and don’t run into others. Does that mean there will never be a car crash?

          Not doing something is not evidence that others should not. But you basically say this like because the armed protestors didn’t pull out their weapons that the McCloskey’s should not have either thus the protestors were peaceful and the McCloskey’s were provoking. Threats that cause fear invoking a self-defense mind set doesn’t always come defined with a specific instance, a threatening violent or potentially violent mob threatening you can also justify that self defense mind set in the moment.

          members of a “protest” mob that say they are going to kill you, they are going to come in to get you, they are going to burn down your house – does not a peaceful protest make.

          This was not a peaceful protest. The protesters “quick reaction force” thing having weapons out even before the McCloskey’s, and the armed protestors – the protest was prepared to being about violence and they sent that message in the threats they made against the McCloskey’s that day.

      • Here is a 2017 lawsuit by the McCloskeys, against the Portland Place Assn trustees, in which the McCloskeys admit that Portland Place trustees own the roadway:

        “Portland Place property owners claim association failed to fix sewers

        By Lhalie Castillo | Nov 10, 2017

        shutterstock.com
        ST. LOUIS — Property owners are suing homeowners’ association trustees, citing alleged breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.
        Mark T. McCloskey and Patricia N. McCloskey filed a complaint on Oct. 23, in the St. Louis Circuit Court against Sanjay Jain, Russell John and Richard Gemberling, Portland Place Association trustees, alleging they breached their duties to maintain the sewer lateral in Portland Place.
        According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that as a result of the debris and obstructions at the sewer lateral, water backed up and flowed into the plaintiffs’ home. They paid to repair a collapsed portion of the sewer lateral at their property but were unable to repair those that pass through defendants’ roadway. They claim they have suffered damages to real estate and personal property, annoyance, inconvenience and emotional distress. 
        The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they allegedly wrongfully ignored their legitimate request to repair the storm or fowl water sewer system at Portland Place.
        The plaintiffs seek judgment in their favor in a fair reasonable amount that will compensate their actual and consequential damages, plus interest, costs of this action and all further relief the court deems just and proper. They are representing themselves.
        St. Louis Circuit Court case number 1722-CC11570”

        In case you missed it, here’s the relevant acknowledgment of roadway ownership:

        “ …those that pass through defendants’ roadway… “

        I thought some of the people here claim to be attorneys, are they not familiar with real estate law?

        And waving guns and shouting belligerently at folks on another’s property is not self-defense, that’s why the McCloskeys were found guilty of assault with a firearm.

        And just like Kyle Rittenhouse, they are indeed the face of American gun owners.

        • @dacian,

          I wasn’t quoting fox news. I just used the pics because they showed some of what I witnessed that day.

          I was there and witnessed it. We knew ahead of time where the protestors were going to be, that had made sure of that. My wife is a free lance journalists, she was there that day covering the events and I went with her for protection. Her and the crew she was with were already set up by the time protestors started showing up. They actually had tried to get her to only get video and pics of black people because there were so many white people but it didn’t work out that way for them. Over 90% of the video and pics provided to media outlets for that day, from not only her but other sources, was never used and the public never saw it.

          this was not a peaceful protest.

        • To Booger Brain
          Yes it was not peaceful after Husband and Wife White Supremacists provoked a fight just as Rittenhouse did when he showed up at another protest. You got it half right this time.

        • shut up dacian.

          I’ll re-post here for you what I told Miner49er:

          “There was no altercation or confrontation with the McCloskeys until they exited their dwelling with firearms and shouted at the protesters on the street.”

          “The protesters never entered the McCloskeys real property”

          these are not true. I was there and witnessed it. We knew ahead of time where the protestors were going to be, that (correct for this re-post “they” not “that”) had made sure of that. My wife is a free lance journalists, she was there that day covering the events and I went with her for protection. her and the crew she was with were already set up by the time protestors started showing up. Mark McCloskey was looking out the front door which he had slightly open (the door behind the gated type portion). One of the protestors saw him and shouted “stop peeping and come on out. Get you fuc-‘n ass out here or I’m gonna come in there and drag you out”. After that is when the McCloskey’s exited the house with firearms. This was witnessed by myself, my wife, and several others on the crew with us that day – none of us were ever interviewed or subpoenaed to testify and I’m not sure why.

          One protestor did enter their “real” property at their home, threatening harm, I posted a pic above of this confrontation. Other also enter the areas around homes including the McCloskey home.

          They thing about the protestors being only on the street is also not true. There were protestors that entered the grounds of the homes many times. In one of the pics I posted, the two in front of Pat McCloskey, the one on the left was actually at one point standing on that wall behind her. And prior to the main mob arriving there had been a group of protestors in the area that were wandering around the houses and looking in windows.

    • In the McCloskeys’ case, it was not a public street, the street belongs to the HOA which decline to press trespassing charges.

      Took McCloskeys have gone to court to prove that the street is not their property.

      Here is a 2017 lawsuit by the McCloskeys, against the Portland Place Assn trustees, in which the McCloskeys admit that Portland Place trustees own the roadway:

      “Portland Place property owners claim association failed to fix sewers

      By Lhalie Castillo | Nov 10, 2017

      shutterstock.com
      ST. LOUIS — Property owners are suing homeowners’ association trustees, citing alleged breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.
      Mark T. McCloskey and Patricia N. McCloskey filed a complaint on Oct. 23, in the St. Louis Circuit Court against Sanjay Jain, Russell John and Richard Gemberling, Portland Place Association trustees, alleging they breached their duties to maintain the sewer lateral in Portland Place.
      According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that as a result of the debris and obstructions at the sewer lateral, water backed up and flowed into the plaintiffs’ home. They paid to repair a collapsed portion of the sewer lateral at their property but were unable to repair those that pass through defendants’ roadway. They claim they have suffered damages to real estate and personal property, annoyance, inconvenience and emotional distress. 
      The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they allegedly wrongfully ignored their legitimate request to repair the storm or fowl water sewer system at Portland Place.
      The plaintiffs seek judgment in their favor in a fair reasonable amount that will compensate their actual and consequential damages, plus interest, costs of this action and all further relief the court deems just and proper. They are representing themselves.
      St. Louis Circuit Court case number 1722-CC11570”

      In case you missed it, here’s the relevant acknowledgment of roadway ownership:

      “ …those that pass through defendants’ roadway… “

    • Oh great, now a guy has shown up in tactical vest with an AR-15 to “protest”

      he is the same white guy with the dog that had a verbal confrontation with a black guy, where the black guy threw what looks like some kind of liquid towards him, on Tuesday.

      Hes wearing a tactical vest, carrying an AR-15, has a button-down shirt, bow tie with slacks and dress shoes. He spent this morning yelling “Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization” and screaming “fu– BLM!” through a megaphone across the street from the courthouse.

      • Kenosha County sheriff’s deputies showed up. The man is driving a Maserati with Illinois plates and identified him self as “Maserati Mike,”

        Deputies told him he could not have the rifle there because he was within 1,000 feet of a school and did not have a concealed carry permit, and that “If you want to be here, you’re going to have to put the rifle away.”

        • The deputies escorted him away to record his information. While this was happening a woman came up to get her bit of critique in with “All that attention you didn’t get in high school? Now you got all the attention you want, Isn’t that so cute?”

          He put the rifle away, and came back to protest and started using the megaphone to blast “Build a B*tch” by Bella Poarch and “Ride It” by DJ Regard, along with other TikTok hits. he stopped that for a bit and started screaming into the megaphone again like he did previously then he went back to the music and pro-conviction demonstrators are blasting back their music.

    • The motion for a mistrial with prejudice was filed Monday. While blasting the media he said

      “I haven’t even had a chance to read the motion to dismiss. I just got it yesterday. And I really think before I rule on a motion, I should let the state respond. So why anyone would think, it is odd for the judge to sit on a motion to dismiss, I have no idea. And the recommended course, I think for judges, at least that is what I was educated to believe, was that motions to dismiss should be kept under advisement, unless they’re crystal clear and they have had a chance for both parties to respond. Which we didn’t have in the heat of the discussion on the day the original oral motion was made. “So I’m somewhat astounded, It’s just a shame irresponsible statements are being made.”

  14. The Rittenhouse and McCloskey cases are really about the right to open carry a long gun and, the right to defend private property with deadly force if necessary.

    And those are two things that the “gun community” and the rest of the country are nervous about. But they are comfortable with only the government killing to protect government property.

    • Only you are nervous about this. To everyone else it’s common sense. But you worship the idol of big Governement and standing armies so this is really no surprise.

  15. Libtard

    A term used by the radical far right to describe someone familiar with Science, History, Economics, World Affairs, Spelling and Grammar.

  17. Uh Oh…. the jury is asking to review video evidence in the case. The question is if it will be viewed in the courtroom or in private (of the jury deliberation room).

    The attorneys on both sides agreed the video needs to be viewed in the courtroom. However, defense attorneys objected to the jury viewing drone video showing the fatal shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum. Judge says it will be viewed in the courtroom.

    The Joseph Rosenbaum shooting is a problem. Rittenhouse testified that Joseph Rosenbaum had threatened to kill him and said he “came out from behind the car and ambushed me” thus indicating Rosenbaum was trying to carry out a threat to kill Rittenhouse. But later in his testimony Rittenhouse said that he believed Rosenbaum “tried to take my gun,” and added “if he would have taken my gun he would’ve used it against me and killed me.” So the doubt here is if Rosenbaum had actually threatened to kill Rittenhouse before he was shot or that Rittenhouse thought Rosenbaum may have killed him if he took his gun. Earlier part of his testimony to justify his shooting Rosenbaum was that Rosenbaum had previously threatened to kill him.

    • In court the attorneys for both sides arguing the mistrial motion. It involves the technical nature of things so the judge says he would like to “get somebody to explain this.” He said he planned to call in expert testimony and take testimony under oath from attorneys to get to the bottom of the issue.

    • Ok, the jury has asked to review just two videos from evidence and will do it on a laptop. Presumably one of these is the drone video showing the Rosenbaum shooting.

      yeah, the jury has some doubt.

  18. Pardon my ignorance but what the phuk does what happened in Wisconsin have to do with black lives!? Oh I get it, there were cameras there!!

Comments are closed.