Christopher Cantwell Decries His Treatment in Sines Trial

Editors note: Christopher Cantwell’s views are his own. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. I publish them here so that they will have wider readership, because I think he makes some salient points about the treatment of Defendants in the Sines trial and the unscrupulous agenda of Roberta Kaplan and Integrity Last for America.

The original document was handwritten by a prisoner without legal representation, isolated from contact with the outside world, and expected to defend himself in a trial in which they are not even bothering to send him documents before the deadline for his response.

You can view the original handwritten document here.

Transcription of handwritten document

United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division

Civil action No 3:17cu00072

Defendant Christopher Cantwell August 12th Letter to the Court

It has been four years to the day since Dwayne Dixon of Redneck Revolt aimed his semiautomatic rifle at James Fields, causing the untimely demise of Heather Heyer, and setting in motion a course of events from which this country will not soon heal. Last month I received a written order from Judge Hoppe regarding a settlement conference to take place eight days from now on August 20th. The order instructed that “counsel for the parties shall schedule a conference call with the court approximately fourteen (14) days in advance.” He further instructed that “such initial communications should involve all parties.”

I just got off the phone with plaintiffs’ counsel Michael Bloch, who informed me that this conference did in fact take place albiet with the notable absence of Christopher Cantwell, whom, much to his dismay, is still party to this suit. Mr. Bloch had no response to my generous offer to settle this case, but was eager to have me stipulate to the authenticity of unmeasured piles of vaguely described evidence I’ve never seen, so much that he was willing to provide what sounded like free legal advice on why I should do what he wants.

Flattered though I was by the offer, I declined, and asked Mr. Bloch to confirm that he had received the mail I sent him regarding the judge’s order. He confirmed that he did, and I’ll state for the record that I mailed him twice, well in advance of the fourteen day mark.

I can confirm that I received from the plaintiff a lengthy work of fiction portraying the supposed ailment of their clients, as well as two pro hac vice motions. I can also confirm having received from the court an oral order on those motions. So the old excuse of sending correspondence to an email address they knew I could not check does not seem to apply here, and once again the plaintiffs prove quite capable of communication, when they need me to answer their requests.

Clearly, I lack training as an attorney, but my lay understanding of our legal system carries a stubborn if somewhat outdated notion that courts have a meaninful role to play in keeping the powerful from taking advantage of the powerless. Having seen the criminal justice system abandon this archaic concept, perhaps I ought to come to terms with the civil courts having followed suit, if not led the way. Perhaps, as I noted in response to my then attorney’s motion to withdraw, my codefendants who defaulted and stonewalled will be proven to have had the better judgement, in concluding that justice cannot be found in American courts, in the wake of Plaintiffs’ Revolution.

Whatever the case, I will humbly suggest one more time that if the plaintiffs and the court insist on dragging me through this transparently dishonest ordeal, that they at least see to it that we go through the motions of pretending I am capable of impacting this in some way. This would at least lend some veneer of legitimacy to the scam. Or perhaps the Revolution has been so thoroughly successful that this veneer is no longer even desirable, much less necessary. Perhaps we are so far along in this process that the whole entire point of the operation is to flaunt its lawlessness as a warning to anyone who might be so foolish as to dare opposing the plaintiffs – if you’ll pardon my use of the term – Radical Agenda.

If that is the aim, then of course things are going quite well, and I am clearly in no position to tell anyone so powerful how best to go about maintaining their stranglehold on the levers. But I’ll remind everybody that the whole thing is on video, and YouTube censorship will only get them so far. The truth of this event will be known to anyone who cares to know it, and if this case reaches a contrary conclusion, then the American justice system will have gone the way of Heather Heyer, and at the same hands, but to far less media manufactured martyr worship. The troubles of the wrongly judged Defendant will pale in comparison to those of the country.

None of that will deter the Plaintiffs, of course. Such has always been their aim. To them, our legal system, such as my quaint notions of fairness romanticize it anyway – is every bit as much of a relic of white supremacy as the torchlit march. This institution will not preserve itself by giving into their whims. Us today, you tomorrow.

HL Mencken said, “The trouble with defending human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels, for it is against scoundrels that unjust lawfare is first aimed, and injustice must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

We are well beyond this point. The scoundrels are now in charge, and the justice of the law as written has no bearing on its exercise. The process is the punishment, and an unjust verdict is mere overkill, a symbolic head on a pike to warn others of the victor’s ruthlessness.

Such decorations, one hopes, are beneath the dignity of this court.

Respectfully submitted, Christopher Cantwell