Two of the 27 defendants in the civil case have filed a motion to dismiss the case entirely today.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer. You can read the 27 page memorandum here.

These two defendants had been struggling to find a lawyer to represent them in this civil case. Then on March 1, a Baltimore lawyer named Glen Allen filed the paperwork to represent Nathan Noyce and Thomas Dail.

A few years ago, Allen was fired after being outed as a dues paying member of a white nationalist hate group. It's not a surprise he would take this case. However, Allen is not licensed to practice in Virginia, another lawyer, Bradley Marrs had to vouch for Allen.

Marrs works at a Richmond law firm called Marrs & Henry Law Firm located at 7202 Glen Forest Drive in Richmond.

Regarding this Virginia civil case, from what I can tell, the Patriot Front lawyer is arguing that the plaintiffs have no case. The argument seems to be that the two plaintiffs have no standing to even file this case. That's probably true, if all that the plaintiffs were arguing was that they be compensated for the destruction of the Arthur Ashe mural. That's not what is happening.

To rewind, the Patriot Front white nationalist hate group vandalized an Arthur Ashe mural in a black neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia. There are photos of Patriot Front members destroying the mural and putting up Patriot Front insignia over the mural. The question isn't whether Patriot Front members destroyed the mural. What the plaintiffs seem to be arguing is that the destruction of the important mural both scared the neighborhood, and violated their civil rights.

They argue in their case that they were afraid to use the park after the vandalism occurred. They said they were afraid to put up black lives matters signs in their yards. The community felt targeted by a hate group because the community was targeted by a hate group - rights violated.

The Patriot Front lawyer argues that the city of Richmond owns the Arthur Ashe mural, therefore the plaintiffs lack standing to bring this case. But again, the plaintiffs aren't asking to be paid money for the damages done to the mural. The plaintiffs are saying that the act of destroying the mural violated their civil rights.

The Patriot Front lawyer also argues that it's not illegal to be a white nationalist or a racist. While that's true, committing hate crimes to terrorize a community is not a right anyone possesses, unless there is a different constitution that none of us have seen.

Allen took issue with the fact that the plaintiffs in the case needed to look up what the Patriot Front was on Google before they got scared. Maybe there's a legal requirement that your rights can only be violated if the terror happens immediately. If it's a slow-moving sort of terror, that's not illegal.

However, the group calling itself Patriot Front is pretty new. It's only been around for a few years. Had the white nationalists just stuck with the KKK, the plaintiffs wouldn't have had to Google to find out that it's a hate group.

Allen even argues that his clients are "indigent," and that the mere cost of the trial will be punishment. Like I said, I'm not a fancy lawyer, but I don't think you have a right to violate other people's rights because you're broke and live in your mom's basement.

However, Allen is a real lawyer. Before being outed as a white supremacist he did real law. And the 27-page memorandum to dismiss this case is real legal work. I wonder who is paying him, because it's not Noyce and Dail.

Sources and Methods

• Glen Allen Profile
• Brad Marrs Lawyer Bio. Retrieved March 3, 2023.

Screenshot March 3, 2023.