VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY

Commonwealth of Virginia

v.Case Nos. CR 17000784-00, 845-00

Christopher Cantwell

Motion for a Bill of Particulars

Comes now the Defendant, by counsel, and moves the Court to require the Commonwealth to submit a Bill of Particulars concerning its motion to Revoke Bond, on the following grounds, to wit:

  1. While the motion is styled as one to revoke bond, it puzzlingly asks that a subpoena duces tecum be quashed.
  2. The motion is impermissibly vague as to what Cantwell has allegedly done, if anything.
  3. The motion does not specify what condition(s) of bond has been violated.
  4. The Commonwealth has been asserting that Cantwell has been violating his bond in diverse ways since February 23. At that time, it claimed that Cantwell had directly or indirectly contacted after Gorcenski had herself accessed the internet, and had accessed Cantwell’s blog and then complained that he reposted a comment made by Gorcenski on Gorcenski’s public twitter feed, which has 24,000 other followers. Watching a person’s public TV show, radio broadcast, or public twitter feed is simply not the same as contacting them. If Gorcenski does not want her to be known to the public, which may include Cantwell, then why is she making them in public?? Exercising one’s right to free speech on one’s own property is a Constitutional right, no matter how much the Commonwealth, or the complainant, does not like it.
  5. On March 1, the Commonwealth complained that Cantwell had done something improper by reposting two posts from other people on his own GAB account. One merely referenced lies. The other was a post from someone else about being kicked off of Facebook “zucked” for mentioning Gorcenski. Gorcenski got on the internet, accessed GAB, found Cantwell’s account, and apparently searched it for at least two different terms. This can hardly be direct nor indirect contact by Cantwell. Exercising one’s right to free speech on one’s own property is a Constitutional right, no matter how much the Commonwealth, or the complainant, does not like it.
  1. The Commonwealth has alleged no facts whatsoever that indicate Cantwell has “intimidated or harassed” the Commonwealth in the preparation of its case, nor has it alleged any facts to indicate that Cantwell has done anything at all to Gorcenski, let alone contact, direct or indirect. Moreover, the Commonwealth comes to this court claiming that Cantwell has misbehaved, deceptively concealing its knowledge that Gorcenski herself in the past affirmatively sought out material over which to complain.
  1. The Commonwealth should not be allowed to violate Cantwell’s due process rights by dragging him into court with only some vague allegation of alleged misconduct.

Wherefore, Defendant asks that the Commonwealth specify in writing the actions or omissions of Cantwell of which it complains, and which bond condition it holds has been violated.

Christopher Cantwell

By Counsel

Elmer Woodard

Attorney at Law

5661 US Hwy 29

Blairs VA 24527

434-878-3422

VSB 27734

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, being an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Virginia, does hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was duly served upon the opposing counsel this date as follows:

By personally hand delivering a copy the same to him or to one of his employees at his office;

By fax transmission;

XXXBy electronic mail;

By depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:

ADDRESSEE:

Robert Tracci, Esquire

Albemarle County Commonwealth Attorney

410 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

This Tuesday, January 01, 2019.