SPLC claims leaked emails show dues paying neo-Nazi providing legal advice to ‘Unite the Right’ organizer
Emails obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center appear to show a defendant in a lawsuit over Charlotte's fatal 2017 "Unite the Right" rally receiving shadow legal advice.
"Glen Allen, a lawyer Hatewatch identified in 2016 as paying dues to the neo-Nazi group National Alliance, provides what appears to be legal advice to Michael "Enoch" Peinovich in the emails Hatewatch reviewed, despite never formally appearing as counsel in the case," SPLC reported. "In 2018, Hatewatch reported on Peinovich's use of a "shadow" lawyer, and so did other outlets who covered the "Unite the Right"-focused lawsuit, also known as Sines v. Kessler."
Peinovich has been acting as a pro se defendant as he acts as his own lawyer, though whether he was being advised came up at a June 2018 hearing.
"I don't know whether the person that is ghostwriting his briefs is full-time or not, but he has got a lawyer," plaintiff's attorney Roberta Kaplan told the judge.
Ten residents of Charlottesville sued organizers of the rally in 2018.
"Allen, the unidentified lawyer Kaplan referenced, paid dues for years to National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group founded by the late William Luther Pierce. (Pierce authored the dystopian racist book The Turner Diaries, which helped inspire the Oklahoma City terror attack in 1995.) In the emails Hatewatch reviewed, Allen advises Peinovich on how best to present his case," SPLC reported.
It appears that Peinovich paid Allen in bitcoin.
"If you provide a template Glen, I would be willing to write a bunch of this stuff myself and then you could help me trim it down. … Let me know how I can send you some cash or some more bitcoin," Peinovich wrote in one email.
This was not the first time SPLC has been leaked info on Peinovich. The organization also obtained video Peinovich at a 2017 book burning event.
Alt-Right Book Burning Event 2017 www.youtube.com
Before the judge dropped Mike Peinovich from Charlottesville's Sines v Kessler lawsuit, people speculated that a sh… https://t.co/6tnDrNL5Vz— Michael Edison Hayden (@Michael Edison Hayden) 1634831216.0
In an extensive thread on Twitter, lawyer Tristan Snell, who prosecuted the Trump University case for the New York Attorney General's office, tweeted that the new social media network from the ex-president is a disaster for any investor.
Wednesday night on Fox News, Donald Trump Jr. did a kind of soft launch of TRUTH Social, the new Trump social media site. Already the site has been hacked and users were able to grab usernames like @MikePence and @DonaldTrump.
"Trump will have to make SEC filings for the first time ever," said Snell. "From a guy who is already under investigation for fraud and other misconduct — and had two other entities (Trump U, Trump Foundation) prosecuted for fraud. So, the SEC enforcement folks will be watching. Closely. Trump will also have to deal with Wall Street analysts and commentators nitpicking everything Truth Social does. He's banking on his own supporters buying the stock, freeing him from what the Street thinks. But they'll still rip it to shreds if it's losing money."
He noted that it's unclear what the funding model will be for the site, but if there is an ad-based model, he's not sure if there are enough large advertisers to use the website. If there are a lot of GOP users who end up using the site, it could become a way for Republican candidates to send money to Trump by advertising to the users of his site.
The greatest problem, however, is that with a "free speech" demand that promises not to silence anyone, candidates could run false videos against anyone, even Republicans.
"He's toxic to most of corporate America now - they don't want the drama. That leaves a subscriber model," Snell continued. "But will Truth Social keep a large base of subscribers if the site goes offline, looks janky, has no legit branded content, etc? Enough to sustain a public company? Will Trump's supporters really prop up Truth Social if it loses lots of money?"
While being probed in a House hearing Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland was asked by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) about the decision by the Justice Department to discuss strategies for curbing violent threats and intimidation against local officials.
School board officials and members of local city council are being threatened with violence by Republicans opposing mask mandates in schools. GOP officials have made the case that the Republican activists can make violent threats because they are protected by the First Amendment.
"Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values," the attorney general said in a statement Oct. 4. "Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety."
Jordan unleashed a loud rant seeming to claim that the DOJ is retaliating against states and parents angry about things like critical race theory or wearing masks. He went on to probe Garland on whether the White House told him to write his memo, which Garland said it didn't, and demand to know what contact he or his staff had with the White House.
Conspiracy theories claim that FBI agents will be at school board meetings to curb free speech, but Garland dispelled the myth, saying that it wasn't happening. Jordan then tried to claim that the DOJ press release for the Oct. 4 memo said that the task force to review the threats would include "representatives from the department's Criminal Division, National Security Division, Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the Community Relations Service and the Office of Justice Programs, to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes, and ways to assist state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement where threats of violence may not constitute federal crimes."
Jordan attempted to use the fact that a National Security Division staffer being on the task force meant that Garland was going to make parents into terrorists.
"Now are you said earlier to a question to one of my colleagues on the Republican side that parents aren't domestic terrorists, we're not going to treat them that way," said Jordan, reading the press release. Garland explained he didn't say that in his letter, but Jordan shouted that it was in the press release about his letter.
It became clear that Garland was fed up.
"I want to be as clear as I can be," said Garland. "I want to be clear as I can be. This is not about what happens at school board meetings. It's only about threats of violence and violence aimed at school officials, school employees, and teachers."
The whole thing appeared to annoy legal experts, who posted on Twitter that Jordan appeared ridiculous during the hearing.
"Jim Jordan tries to conflate an AG directive that FBI consult with state and locals to ensure they're in contact if violence/threats are made against school employees with targeting parents as domestic terrorists," tweeted former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance. "It's an embarrassing display of ignorance about how DOJ works."
Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) began his time to question the attorney general by saying that he's shocked to see Republicans don't care about violence against officials.
See the video below:
Why don't republicans care about violence against officials www.youtube.com
Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Raw Story Investigates and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.
$95 / year — Just $7.91/month
I want to Support More
$14.99 per month