In the Jewish media, attorney Augustus Invictus is famous for once—in his pre-Christian days—going on a desert vision-quest to drink goat’s blood. But these journalists have not noticed an even more bizarre habit of his: he drinks the blood of his own God every week!
Disgusting.
Thankfully, Charlottesville Virginia is putting an end to his madness with rational, Jeffersonian legal procedure. In a rigorous and truth-oriented trial, Albemarle County prosecutors ripped away Mr. Invictus’ pretensions of normalcy and exposed him for the soul-warped, god-killing freak he is.
Or so the Jewish media would have you believe.
In all seriousness…the truth is the opposite. Invictus is a lawyer who has defended many men brought up on political charges. He has done work that few others can or would do. No doubt this made him a target.
A year and a half ago, he was charged with “burning an object with intent to intimidate” because he took part in a tiki-torch march on the campus of the University of Virginia (UVA) in Charlottesville seven years ago. The march happened the night before the doomed “Unite the Right” rally the next day.
While planned in secret, the march was discovered by Antifa spies, who published the location and start-time. Antifa then called on hardened criminals to block and disrupt the marchers. They also duped some feckless UVA students into assisting them.
The march presented clear evidence of the masses’ deep dissatisfaction with Jewish rule. Sadly for Antifa, their attempt to block the march from reaching its stated objective failed. They picked a fight, striking the first blows, and then, faced with the prospect of actually fighting, chose to leave.
So, the UVA-Antifa activists fell back to surer ground—the courtroom. Here they would enjoy huge advantages, being richer, better connected and more given to lying than the tiki-marchers, most of whom were working-class men, not students at one of the most privileged and powerful schools in the country.
On October 11th, after a four-day show-trial, Mr. Invictus was found guilty.
The trial played out as these things usually do. The defense argued facts and laws. The prosecution argued slogans and emotions.
Unfortunately, moral conviction beats logic and facts. Americans will keep losing to “progressive” Antifa psychos until they rediscover this truth. When an evil power uses sophistry to oppress you, you have to fight back with sophistry. You can’t just ask them to play fair.
Feelings First
The state had two fact-witnesses to emotionally manipulate the jury: semi-pretty blonde lawyeress Elizabeth Sines and a certain geeky Black named Devin Willis.
Sines served as the front-girl for the massive Sines v Kessler suit brought by now-disgraced lawsuit-flinger Roberta Kaplan. This blatantly political case took 4 years to get to trial and is still ongoing in appeals.
Devin Willis was also a plaintiff in Sines v. Kessler. He was “John Doe 1” to the defendants until the trial started, making it impossible for at least one defendant to do any research about him or his allegations.
The prosecution against Mr. Invictus also brought an “expert”-witness: Michelle Lynn Kahn of the University of Richmond, a quack, who claims especial knowledge about the “Holocaust” and “trans-Atlantic neo-Nazism.”
Despite these supposed credentials, her purpose was the same as that of Sines and Willis: to emotionally manipulate the jury. Among other surprising claims, she alleged that the Reich’s Agriculture Ministry started the Blut und Boden (Blood and Soil) campaign in the late 1930s because the Germans planned to gas 6 million Jews, believing which obviously requires gorging on carbs. The policy was not—according to her—in any way a reaction to the mass-starvation brought about by the WWI British blockade that lasted till July of 1919 or the Versailles treaty.
The other witness was a chubby cop.
So, White girl, bug-Black, holocaust propagandist, and cop. That line-up is sure to convince most professional Whites that what you say is true.
Defense goes for facts
The defense’s witnesses explained all of the obvious things. Antifa has a history of violence. Antifa was attacking the Alt-Right all summer. The Alt-Right never sought out an Antifa protest to attack them. An Antifa spy revealed the location and start-time of the tiki-march contrary to the will of those who planned it. When the marchers found out about that, they immediately informed the police. They also took reasonable precautions to prevent Antifa from attacking the march and to prevent any hot-headed marcher from getting into a fight with Antifa. Several hardened criminals were in Antifa’s ranks. Antifa regularly dupes people like Elizabeth Sines into standing with them so that the hardened criminals can attack their opponents from behind. When the Antifas wished to walk away from the Jefferson statue, they did so without interference and continued “counter-protesting” a few meters away. And so on and so on.
A reasonable and substantive argument.
When it came to facts, the prosecution’s performance was embarrassing.
The funniest example thereof came in the cross-examining of Mr. Invictus, testifying in his own defense. Attempting to paint him as a violent psycho, prosecutor Lawton Tufts asked why Mr. Invictus had tweeted, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Mr. Invictus pointed to the gigantic portrait of Thomas Jefferson hanging over the judge’s head and said, “I didn’t say that, he did.”
Womp womp.
Tufts did not recognize the quote. But I’ll cut him some slack because—unlike pretty much everyone else in Charlottesville—he didn’t graduate from UVA.
Mass beats precision
The defense ripped apart every logical inconsistency in the prosecution’s argument. And there were a lot of those. The prosecution’s logic did not look like a tree: root-assumptions coming together into a trunk-like conclusion, logically branching out into further consequences.
It looked like tangle-weed. That’s what made it so hard to attack. Jurors could not keep track of all the defense’s refutations. There were a lot of allegations, it was confusing, “oh hell, he probably did something. Guilty.”.
In his closing argument, prosecutor Tufts made short work of the defense’s facts and logic. He proved that you don’t need a top-tier degree to bamboozle a jury.
First, he confused the matter by invoking a doctrine called “concert of action”. Essentially:
- The defendant held a torch
- The defendant was in a group with people who might have thought bad things
- “Concert of Action”
- A geek who happens to be Black now claims that he got scared
- Defendant therefore burned an object (1), with intent (2 via 3) to intimidate (4)
- Guilty!
As the court applied “concert of action”, you could prove anybody guilty of anything. For instance, you could easily prove that Antifa, UVA and the prosecutor’s office plotted to subvert our rights and use the courts for their own political ends. Or that the Charlottesville city administration, police, and leftist agitators all did “concert of action” with Virginia State Police, Governor Terry McAuliffe and the FBI.
Then prosecutor Tufts waived away the defense’s elaborately constructed argument about Antifa violence, taking precautions, and calling the cops. He argued that “It’s not Antifa who is on trial, it’s Mr. Invictus” and that “The marchers wanted to play at war.”
The defense should have immediately and vociferously objected to these statements. It wasn’t the marchers who had a sophisticated intelligence operation, recon elements and hardened criminals… it was Antifa. That is all in the testimony of Antifa ringleader Edward Gorcenski from June’s Jacob Dix trial. They weren’t playing at war, they were waging it.
As to “its Mr. Invictus who is on trial”—that’s rich coming from the lying mouth of the prosecutor who pushed for the indictment in the first place. Where are all of the indictments for the Antifa who threw rocks and packets of toxic chemicals, hacked at people with hammers, and rioted for hours after the police ordered everyone to disburse?
Third, to the defense’s point that Antifa was not surrounded, that they had simply walked through the marchers unmolested and continued protesting off to the side… Tufts twisted the meaning of the defense-witness’ statement. He argued that saying “We allowed them to leave” can only mean that the Antifa were in the power of the marchers at some point, and therefore that the intent had been to intimidate Antifa from the beginning.
Again… logic loses to sophistry.
Prosecutor Tufts’ equivocation on the meaning of “allowed” should have been met with derision. “Will you allow me to respond to that? No? So, you are preventing me from putting on a defense? Your Honor, the prosecutor is denying me equal protection under the law. I demand his immediate arrest!”
To top it all off, Tufts played some snippets of video. Lots of shouting and some scuffles. This had the desired effect on the jurors. They felt shaken. No doubt this instilled in some the moral conviction that they had to vote guilty, regardless of the fact that the video showed Antifa walking away unopposed and unmolested. The method was very similar to that used in the James Fields show-trial.
A show-trial relies on maintaining the appearance of dignity. In Judge Richard Moore’s courtroom, I felt like I was in church. This is the same UVA alumnus who presided over the James Fields show-trial.
The purpose of creating this atmosphere is to lull the jury into a sense of normalcy while the prosecutor calls you all kinds of bad names and insults your honor. If you try to stand on “propriety” and “being above that”, you will lose.
Build a Counter-Narrative
In a show-trial, the only way to win is to build a counter-narrative. The prosecution’s argument is simply “the defendant is bad”. He is racist. He has thought evil things and therefore deserves to be found guilty. It does not matter if a crime was committed.
Lawyers will tell you that you can just refute this argument. “I’m not racist.” But they are wrong. You need to build your own counter-narrative to fight the manipulative and truth-blind arguments of the prosecutor. You cannot just rip apart their slippery story. You have to build your own.
This is hard when you are on the defense, but not impossible. Mr. Invictus and his lawyer did have some success here. They made a strong argument that Antifa was to blame for the violence. Unfortunately that argument alone cannot beat “You’re racist”.
The only proper counter-narrative would have been: Class not race. The argument should run:
- The prosecution wants you to believe that the defendant is guilty because he talks about race and because he openly says that he prefers his own race. Well fine. But that isn’t why the prosecutor brought the charges. The prosecutor doesn’t give a damn about Black people.
- This whole trial is because UVA got egg on its face. It wants revenge. These are upper-class Whites who are using the issue of race to attack those they see as social inferiors. UVA feels that it is one of the best schools in the country.
- They are very proud of their status and supposed achievements. You have seen that with their witnesses—like the insufferably arrogant Professoress Kahn—constantly bragging about their degrees and awards. They brought this charge because these young men did not show them the respect to which they feel entitled.
This is not guaranteed to work. Nothing is. But it will strike the prosecution where they are weak. It plays to the ingrained sense of guilt of upper-class Whites, who are the majority of Charlottesville juries. If the prosecution wants to guilt-trip the jurors about race, you should guilt-trip them about class. The facts will certainly back you up.
The best part about pointing out the class-snobbery of UVA, Antifa and the prosecution is… it’s TRUE!
You don’t need to be a full-on Marxist about it either. National Socialism advocates for socialism because it prizes each class for what it can contribute to the whole People.
When one class (in our society the bourgeoisie or “white collar” class) oppresses and attacks the others, it needs to be chastised and made conscious of its duty. That’s what needs to be done to UVA.
We want to turn the energies of the professional class in a positive direction. We don’t want to tear down white-collar professionals, lawyers and academics. Well… maybe these ones.
Force relevant facts out
In this trial, the defense’s main failure was to call the jury’s attention to the prosecution’s collaboration with Antifa.
The jury was not informed of the following very pertinent facts:
- The elected prosecutor had a massive conflict of interest because his main donor’s daughter is an anti-White extremist who fought on Antifa’s side at Charlottesville. Sonjia Smith is a billionaire who gave prosecutor Jim Hingeley’s campaign $114,000. Her daughter, Kendall Bills is an Antifa. That is in court records. The prosecutor need not be totally objective—after all his job is to prosecute you—but he does need to at least appear to not be using his office for personal vendettas. That is clearly what is going on here.
- The two assistant prosecutors arguing this very case—Tufts and Armin Zijerdi—were also in the street with Antifa at Charlottesville. That too is in court records. This makes them potential material witnesses to this very case! Lawton was in communication with several Antifa-affiliated groups in the weeks leading up to “Unite the Right”. That is established in a report ordered by the city government.
Now, I hear the whining voices of a thousand narrow-minded lawyers: “But you can’t make those arguments at trial, you have to make them in pre-trial motions” and “The judge will exclude that evidence because he will say it isn’t relevant to the trial, but only to appeal”.
And to a degree these voices are right. But this is how a show-trial works. The judge excludes all of the most important facts and focuses in on the few little details that make the defendant look guilty.
The only way to fight this is to force those facts out. Blurt them out if you have to. Yes, a judge will stricke them from the record. He might threaten to hold you in contempt.
He knows he is twisting the rules and is daring you to defy him. Your only hope is to call his bluff and keep saying the truth. The whole truth. The relevant truth.
I experienced this myself when arguing against a farcical and politically motivated charge. Whenever I hit on a good argument, the judge would threaten me with contempt. Whole hearings devolved into arguments between me and the judge while the prosecutor stood there and watched. At one point I offered to go sit in jail if that would speed the process up. The judge was more polite after that.
This is the new trial by combat. Are you willing to risk jail-time to prove how much conviction you have? If not, the sheep-brained jurors will see you as a bitch and will vote “guity”. It’s barbaric. It’s totally unjust. But that is where American law is headed. Better to deal with it as it is than to hope uselessly for the return of Enlightenment principles and fairness.
Stop arguing the First Amendment
Now that you have a counter-narrative—privileged Antifa vs working-class men—and you have forced the pertinent facts out—the prosecutors are Antifa—you have a chance at winning.
However, you will fumble if you attempt to argue “free speech” in closing. This is unfortunately what happened for Mr. Invictus.
We all love free speech. But “free speech” always loses to “you’re racist”. It’s like a law of physics. The old gods of America are dying. You will lose if you invoke them.
This is because liberal jurors will see you as a coward and a hypocrite. They are thinking, “He only invokes the First Amendment to cover for his desire to strip other people of their rights”. This makes the jurors mad. They will retaliate by arguing vociferously for your conviction once they get to the jury room.
So, when the prosecutor calls you a racist, your counter-argument has to be “oh yeah, well you’re more racist”. You should also point out that he is a privileged, careerist snob. This can be supported by other arguments depending on the prosecutor’s background, which can be further “dialed in” based on the racial and social make-up of the jury.
For example:
“At least I’m honest.”
“The prosecutor is racist, he’s just better at covering it up than me.”
“The prosecutor is calling me racist because he knows it will help his career”
“Oh yeah? How many ‘Black friends’ do you have?… liar.”
Or you could throw caution to the winds and go with:
“You just hate me because you are Jewish.”
“You are a doing the bidding of your Jewish master”
“You are a Jewish supremacist”
Of course they’ll object and whatever. That’s fine. The prosecutor will use plenty of ad hominem arguments against you.
This is kindergarten-tier argumentation. But the other side won’t fight fair so why would you?
The Real Accuser
In the end, the defense lost because this was rigged.
The prosecuting attorneys were Antifa. They got their jobs from a guy who was placed in office by a leftist billionaire whose daughter is an Antifa. The judge is a UVA alumnus and regular donor.
But the trial was rigged in an even more fundamental way: The defense was not allowed to confront its accusers.
Bottle-blonde Sines and Black nerd Willis were frontmen. The real accuser here was UVA, and its Law School in particular.
At the next trial, the defense needs to assert that ancient right. They need to subpoena Anne Coughlin of UVA law. She is the mastermind and political impetus behind this nationwide inquisition.
She has been calling for prosecutions for years. She started before the August 11 march even happened. In May of 2017, she was inciting city officials and citizens to commit barratry against Alt-righters who staged a similar tiki-torch (Heaphy Report, pp 28-29).
She is friends with prosecutor Tufts. She was with Antifa at Unite the Right, providing logistical support.
This isn’t her first abuse of the legal system either. Ten years ago, she used her powers of sophistry to force the Pentagon to admit women into combat units.
She was in the courtroom at the Invictus trial—sitting between Antifa pseudo-journalist Molly Conger and an attractive blonde girl who bore an uncanny resemblance to a girl I knew in high school.
Seeing them there, I was overcome with confusion. I felt my mind melting out my ears.
I thought, why are these women in the courtroom oppressing my freedom and not on the battlefield defending it?
Oh right. Sophistry.
Fine. We can play that game too.
