Charges of kidnapping, domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature and possession of a weapon during a violent crime were at the center of a court hearing for a prominent member of the “dissident right” last Thursday.
Augustus Sol Invictus, a 36-year-old defense attorney, appeared in front of a judge in a Rock Hill courtroom in the wake of his arrest, which stems from an incident that allegedly took place on Dec. 12 in Rock Hill.
According to documents obtained by The Johnsonian from the Rock Hill Police Department, the alleged victim said that “her husband…held a gun to her head and forced her to go with him to Jacksonville, FL.” The Primary Narrative of the documents also states that the “incident took place in the presence of their children” and that “[w]hen in Florida, [redacted] was able to separate herself from her husband and escape back to Rock Hill with her children.”
The hearing began with Invictus looking over documents and the judge going over his rights with him. Following the reading of Invictus’ rights, the judge said that he had the option of applying for a public defender.
“I would like to go with the public defender’s office, ma’am,” Invictus said.
The judge approved Invictus for a court-appointed lawyer and said that he would be contacted by someone from the public defender’s office. The hearing proceeded on with the judge describing sentences associated with each of the crimes.
“Just giving you a heads up what you’re facing in terms of a sentence if you are found guilty,” the judge said. “The possession of a weapon, having a knife or a firearm during a crime of violence, that carries up to five years in prison. Kidnapping carries up to 30 years and then domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature, that carries up to 20 years.”
As the hearing progressed, RHPD detective Matthew Beach spoke from the podium. He said that one of his “primary responsibilities” in his division is that of investigating cases of domestic violence.
“I’m not quick to request bonds to be denied but in this particular case, with the defendant being charged with domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature, kidnapping and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, I must request that the bond for defendant Augustus Invictus be denied,” Beach said.
Beach said that his request for the denial of bond was based on “three primary issues.” Beach said that these issues were “the threat the defendant poses to the victim, the threat the defendant poses to the community at large and the likelihood that the defendant will flee” if he were able to post bond.
Beach said that the victim had “expressed fear for her life to multiple investigators” ever since the beginning of the investigation. Beach cited documents obtained from the alleged victim, one of which was a letter containing Thelemic language that Beach said was written by Invictus. Beach went on to cite another writing which he said Invictus had published online, entitled “The Imperial Declaration on the Code.”
Beach read the final section of the code, which discussed how members of the dissident right should conduct themselves. According to the code, “the lowest rung in hell is reserved for traitors.”
“To clarify the threats that these show, maybe it’s stating the obvious, but I believe we can conclude in the first letter that this victim has been excommunicated, possibly even identified a traitor by the defendant, who in this declaration on the code lists very clearly what he believes should happen to traitors,” Beach said.
Beach said that he believes that the “logical deduction” from the documents is that “the victim does have a legitimate threat to her safety.” He said that Invictus also poses a danger to the community, citing personal journals that Invictus is said to have written. According to Beach, one example of these threats is a list of “buildings to be burned to the ground.” Beach said that this list “includes numerous things from strip malls to the Southern Poverty Law Center to [Wal Mart stores], law firms, community colleges, bars, night clubs.”
Beach described the defendant’s ideology as “militant” and said that these views are also expressed in online interviews. He read further excerpts from Invictus’ alleged writings which he said show a disregard for “community institutions” as well as the judicial system. Beach said the defendant’s connections to Florida were another factor — along with his alleged disregard for the judicial system — in Invictus posing a flight risk.
“I believe if he was not secured, he will disappear as such,” Beach said.
Following Beach’s remarks, a victims’ advocate spoke and said that she had made contact with the alleged victim at an undisclosed shelter.
“She sought safety with law enforcement for herself and her two young children,” the advocate said. “The person the victim sought safety for is in this courtroom, Augustus Invuctus.”
The advocate requested a no-contact order which the judge granted.
Following those remarks, Invictus returned to the podium and criticized Beach’s work on the case, saying that Beach “has not done his job in any fashion whatsoever” adding that the statement that Beach read from was “a public declaration of my campaign for public office.”
“To act like that has anything to do with this case is not only absurd, it’s reckless,” Invictus said. “The only other thing I have to say is that I am absolutely innocent. As soon as this is over, and everybody finds out what happened, I will accept detective Beach’s apology magnanimously.”
Invictus said that he looked forward to returning home to his family and denied that he is a flight risk which he called “absurd.”
“As far as other reasons I’m not a flight risk, the only reason I was arrested at all is because no one knew of this warrant. Once the SWAT team showed up at my residential address, attorneys phoned in to find out whether there was a warrant,” Invictus said. “We looked at [Florida Department of Law Enforcement], there was no warrant, we tried to contact law enforcement. There’s absolutely no risk of flight at all. I was proactively seeking to find out what was going on. Also, I happen to be [the] head of a giant family and my wife and kids, despite what is being said by the detective and the victim’s advocate, they need me right now.”
The judge reiterated the no-contact order and said that Invictus could not contact the alleged victim nor could he have anyone contact her for him before addressing the issue of bond.
“In reference to the domestic violence and also particularly the kidnapping, that, if you’re found guilty, you could receive a sentence of up to 30 years so in South Carolina, that’s life. Because you have this particular charge and because of the sentence you could receive, I don’t have jurisdiction to set your bond on the kidnapping,” the judge said. “So that bond is denied. You also have this domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature, that carries up to 20 years. I could set your bond on that but because you have the kidnapping charge and possession of a weapon during a violent crime, I’m not going to set your bond on these charges either.”
The judge said that Invictus will see a judge at Moss Justice Center in York where another bond hearing will be held.
Revision made on January 16, 2020.
Photo: Matt Thrift/ The Johnsonian
