Attorney Mark Richards was the lead attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse when he was facing murder charges for the self-defense shooting of three men. Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges.
Now that the criminal charges are behind him, Rittenhouse is being sued in civil court by Gaige Grosskreutz and the parents of Anthony Huber. Richards filed waiver of service forms with the Eastern District of Wisconsin where both suits are being litigated. This means that neither plaintiff needs to locate Rittenhouse and serve him personally.
Recently, Judge Lynn Adelman decided in a written order, that the lawsuit brought by the estate of Anthony Huber can go forward. It has been wildly mis-reported in the news. For example, Adelman says in the ruling, “When deciding such a motion, I must accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the plaintiff, and ignore any facts that may support the defendants’ version of events if those facts are not alleged in the complaint. In other words, I must assume that the story told by the complaint is true.”
Adelman also wrote in part, “The subject matter of this case is well known. The shooting of Jacob Blake, the resulting protests (which gave way to rioting and arson), and the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse were extensively examined by news outlets. Rittenhouse was charged with crimes, including first-degree intentional homicide, for shooting Huber and the other two men, and his criminal trial was highly publicized. As a result, members of the public may be familiar with the events at issue and believe that plaintiff’s allegations, which I describe below, are contrary to the facts reported in the news or leave out important details. For this reason, I again stress that a court confronted with a motion to dismiss a complaint must accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and ignore outside evidence that may contradict them. That would include matters reported in the news and evidence presented during Rittenhouse’s criminal trial. Moreover, some may find certain of plaintiff’s allegations—such as his allegation that law enforcement conspired to have armed civilians use violence against protestors—hard to believe.”
The Judge is very skeptical about what these lawsuits alleged as they are more the work of fiction.
In both complaints, the lawyers allege that me, the police, and Rittenhouse conspired to deprive Huber and Grosskreutz of their constitutional rights. Of course, I know that to be false. I had no contact with the police nor Rittenhouse. Once discovery gets underway, the plaintiffs will also know this to be true. No court dates have been scheduled in either case. Rittenhouse has set up a legal defense fund for the civil cases.