Loading summary
Transcript82 lines
- [00:00]
Olive
This is an I heart podcast.
- [00:02]
Bina Ahmed
Guaranteed human.
- [00:04]
Jana Kramer
This is Jana Kramer from Wind down with Jana Kramer. So why do they call it a dishwasher? Well, don't worry, it's not a trick question or anything. It's just because it washes dishes. If the filter and the dishwasher itself are dirty, those dishes aren't actually getting clean. That's why you need Cascade Platinum Plus. Powered by two times the cleaning power of Dawn, Cascade Platinum plus doesn't just remove 100% of grease and residue from dishes, it cleans your dishwasher and filter too. So you get clean dishes and a dishwasher that keeps washing. Just scrape, load and done. Find Cascade Platinum plus at your local retailer Cascade is a proud sponsor of the Elton John Impact Awards, honoring those who have helped shape a more inclusive and compassionate world with their artistry, advocacy and unwavering commitment to equality. Cascade would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of this year's deserving honorees. Don't miss the Elton John Impact Awards podcast, available on June 1st on the iHeartRadio app and everywhere podcasts are heard.
- [01:00]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public, you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete Disclosures available at public.comDisclosures with the new Myloes Pro Rewards American Express Card earn 3 points per dollar spent on Lowe's qualifying purchases for the first 6 months after card account opening. Plus save 5% every day on eligible purchases at Lowe's and earn points on eligible purchases everywhere else AMEX is accepted. Card members get more at Lowe's subject to credit approval. 5% can't be combined with any other offer. Exclusions and restrictions apply. Points subject to loyalty terms@lowe's.com terms and credit reward terms@synchrony.com MLPRA terms visit lowe's.com businesscredit Premier hosts on VRBO deliver quality
- [02:33]
Olive
vacation rental stays with fast responses and
- [02:35]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
clear instructions so you don't have to worry about surprises.
- [02:38]
Jana Kramer
I asked our host a question about the house last night and he got back to me super quick.
- [02:43]
Olive
See, that's the premier host move right there.
- [02:46]
Jana Kramer
I wish I had a Premier group chat. I asked them where we should have dinner last night and they left me on Red. I know you saw it. It says it.
- [02:53]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
Classic group chat move.
- [02:54]
Olive
Don't walk into a surprise book a top rated vrbo.
- [02:57]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
Stay with a premier host if you
- [02:59]
Olive
know you verbo
- [03:02]
Bina Ahmed
Cool Zone Media.
- [03:20]
Olive
Hi and welcome to Outlaw, a podcast about how the law is used to crush dissent in the us. I'm your host Olive. On the previous episode of Outlaw on It Could Happen Here, we zoomed in on legal repression of rapid responders in ICE occupied Minneapolis. On this episode I'm joined by Bina, Joey and Mo, movement attorneys based in New York, Illinois and California. In this conversation we zoom out to talk about the larger trend in repression of resistance to ICE activity across the country and how to prepare for the long road ahead.
- [03:56]
Bina Ahmed
From the north, from the south, from everywhere.
- [04:01]
Olive
Welcome to Outlaw to Start. Could you all introduce yourselves, the work you do and how it connects to the repression of anti ICE protest activity?
- [04:10]
Joey Mogul
Okay, I guess we're going to start with the oldest here. My name's Joey Mogul. I am based in Chicago. I am the Director of Movement Partnerships at Movement Law Lab, which is a national organization that is very much in the anti authoritarian fight in the nation. Prior to joining Movement Law Lab, I was at the People's Law office for over 26 years where I did mostly civil rights litigation against law enforcement officials and criminal defense of police violence survivors as well as protesters and organizers, and at different points have been proud to represent several organizers and many movements seeking justice and liberation. I am also part of Chicago Torture Justice Memorials and a board member of the Chicago Torture justice center and very much involved in the movement for justice redress and particularly reparations for Chicago Police torture survivors. During the surge here in Chicago, I was proud to work with a group known as the Black Community Care Collective, serving as a coordinator of their legal committee and that was a group that was very much involved in the resistance and care work that was happening during Operation Midway Blitz.
- [05:32]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
Joey, I don't know if you're the oldest person here, but I was referred to today as a Gen X loser, if that makes you feel any better. My name is Maura Meltzer Cohen. Everybody calls me Mo. I am an attorney in private practice in New York, and I work in particular to defend people against the politically motivated abuse of the legal system. I also teach federal Indian law, professional responsibility and lawyering at CUNY School of Law to the world's best and most brilliant law students.
- [06:12]
Bina Ahmed
Hi everybody. Bina Ahmed, She. Her pronouns. I also have been referred to as an elder, and I don't know when that happened, but here we are. I am currently an associate at a law firm in LA called Hadselt Renegade where I practice civil rights impact litigation and also where we are external general counsel for several movement groups, including Muslims for Just Futures and Jewish Voice for Peace. Before going to Hadsall Stormberg and switching to civil rights, I was a state and federal public defender for nearly a decade. A state defender in New York and a federal defender here in la. Prior to that, I practiced international law and animal rights law. And a lot of my motivation as well has been to support movements and organizers fighting back against the state repression. And that's been a big part of my work, giving Know youw Rights trainings, advising people and organizers and organizations on their rights and what they, you know, what the law says you can and can't do from a radical lens.
- [07:15]
Olive
Well, thank you all for being here over the past few years, from the movement for Palestinian liberation to the many ways people are organizing against ICE and authoritarianism today. I'm curious to start by just hearing a little bit about what broad shifts you're tracking right now in the state's playbook for crushing dissent.
- [07:36]
Joey Mogul
Well, I mean, I think that we've seen, and you're talking to people who've represented organizers and activists who have been prosecuted by state actors for decades. I think that what we're seeing, particularly with this administration, is the weaponization of federal charges. And we're seeing the weaponization of federal charges en masse. And I think this is by design. We are seeing that with the National Security Presidential Memorandum Number seven issued by President Trump and his administration, where they are wanting to enlist the use of Joint Terrorism Task Force to go after people they deem to be, quote, domestic terrorists, unquote. And that means they are going after individuals who they claim have extreme viewpoints. On immigration, radical gender ideology, anti American sentiment. I don't believe we agree with these determinations and in fact we absolutely oppose and object to these determinations. But these are individuals who do not agree with this administration's views or takes on immigration, on gender, on anti black violence and the rest. And we see though that this administration is actually working hand in glove with one another. So after the issuance of National Security Presidential memorandum number seven, we now have Pam Biani and the U.S. attorney's office issuing this memorandum 12-4-25, where they are basically calling on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, they are calling on federal agents and, and they're calling on the Department of Justice to go after organizers and activists throughout the Nation. They list 27 enumerated crimes in those memos, things like rioting, looting, so called doxing, swatting, conspiracies to impede or assault law enforcement officers, destruction of property and the rest, as well as trying to enlist the use of the IRS and other tax crimes to go after organizers and organizations in several ways. Essentially anyone who opposes this administration is somewhat in the target sites.
- [09:40]
Olive
Can you tell me more about what these federal charges are and what is new about what we're seeing right now?
- [09:46]
Joey Mogul
So now what we've seen since the onset of this administration, so for over a year now, we have seen the exponential rise in federal charges being lodged against organizers. I think that is very much a different landscape than we have seen in decades. I don't want to say there hasn't been the use by the Department of Justice to bring federal charges in the past, but not in this massive scale that we are currently seeing it. Right now what we are seeing is, I would say in particular we're seeing these assault, impeding, harassing officer charges, which is 18 USC section 111 being brought in scores across the nation. That is not something we typically have seen before. We are also seeing charges of conspiracy to impede officers, 18 USC Section 241. Again, that's not something we generally have seen before. Generally I can say, for example, as someone who was in Chicago who was part of representing protesters who were protesting the Democratic National Convention, generally the federal government and federal agencies don't get involved in protest related activities activity. But for arson cases prior to the Trump administration, that playbook is out and this new playbook is in. So we are absolutely seeing the federal government stepping in and engaging in this policing and persecution of protesters and organizers in a way that we have not seen before. That said, there's a silver lining here is the federal Government is overreaching in so many of these cases and many of these charges are being dismissed, many of these charges are being declined by U.S. attorneys. And there have been several not guilty verdicts in la as well as in Chicago, as well as Miami. And further, what I think is striking, and I think that this is really unheard of for criminal defense attorneys in particular, is we're actually seeing grand juries refusing to indict in these cases. And given how biased grand jury investigations go, how one sided they are, to have the grand juries come back and not return an indictment really is showing that people are resisting and they are not buying the government's slogan and lines and playbook on this. And they are saying, no, we're not going to put up with this. So while on the one hand it's a whole new landscape, we're also seeing the counterpart of people resisting. And that includes in the federal courts,
- [12:21]
Olive
if the term grand jury is new to you, it's basically a special jury in federal criminal cases that is appointed to decide if there's enough evidence to bring the official criminal charge, the indictment against a defendant. But they're super rigged against the defendant. Basically, they always indict. And often the grand jury process is just an information gathering tool for the government. Especially in movement cases, people get subpoenaed to testify before grand juries in a way that often seems just like a fishing expedition because whatever they say can be used against them and only the prosecution gets to present evidence to the grand jury. There's a lot more to say there, but check out the show notes and I'll link some really important conversations and resources about grand juries.
- [13:10]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
I think that's all exactly right, Joey, but it isn't 100% new. Right. What the Trump administration is doing is that they are able to police First Amendment protected identities, beliefs and associations by trying to define those beliefs, identities and associations as terrorism. There's a whole apparatus for fighting terrorism that they then can pull in, draw upon resources they can use and legal authorities that they can exercise as long as the thing that they're policing is something that can be called terrorism. Well, by defining all of these things as terrorism, that lets them sort of trigger all of these resources and authorities. Those resources and authorities were not put in place by this administration. They were put in place post 9 11. They were put in place by Barack Obama. They were put in place by Joe Biden. Right. And so this is not a problem with the Trump administration. This is a problem with the surveillance state. This is a problem with consolidating federal police authority and making it easier and easier for the federal law enforcement apparatus to assert jurisdiction over what we would normally understand to be state level matters, such as garden variety protest. And so the shift is not one of kind as much as it is a shift in scope, where we're seeing the federal government treating, as I said, garden variety protest conduct as though it is militant revolutionary action.
- [15:16]
Joey Mogul
No, I totally agree with that. And to underscore your point, not a single law has needed to be passed. There's been no legislation that's needed to be changed in order to effectuate these prosecutions whatsoever. Let alone this immigration enforcement, this all pre existed. The Trump administration, his administration hasn't passed a single law. So I absolutely agree with you. I'm just saying you're right. The garden variety level of prosecutions we haven't seen, and it's the scale of this. But again, we absolutely know, for example, the Biden administration pursued the FACE act against individuals in Florida regarding one of these false clinics. It's not that these tools weren't used before. I just think the scope and scale is not what we've seen.
- [16:00]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
Yeah, and I totally agree. And I think it's important to note that the fact that the law hasn't changed is important not simply because the laws already existed to bring these prosecutions, but because the law actually hasn't changed, which means the First Amendment remains in effect, which means that a lot of these prosecutions, as you pointed out, Joey, are going nowhere because they actually can't really be sustained under the current regime.
- [16:33]
Bina Ahmed
Yeah, the scale and the aggressiveness and the scope, I think, is something we haven't really dealt with before. You know, in terms of it being not new. I mean, we know the founding of this country and it's not a just system. And I think if we just also start from that, that it's a system that protects property and white nationalism and violence and power and capitalism, then I think we can sort of like see where these powers originated from and where the structure originated from. And we've also seen that used against radical black activists, against the American Indian movement. So a lot of these things that we're seeing now were tested on communities of color prior to seeing, okay, what works, what doesn't work, and then bringing this surge, I think, to our communities. I think, in addition to, I think what Joy was saying about the FACE act, that is something we haven't really seen prosecutions under the FACE act before. Right. Because the FACE act is actually technically to protect access to abortion clinics. And I think that one thing that this administration is doing is finding creative different ways to manipulate the laws that are already terrible, to go after folks in a way that we haven't seen before. Like Mo was saying, like so much of the work that we've done defending protesters and movements, a lot of it is state. Of course, some has always been federal, but a lot is usually state. And to then see these federal, not only prosecutions for the Face act, or I know we'll get into material support prosecutions, but also like civil litigation, which I think is something we've never, not never, but really were not prepared for or dealt with as a movement before these massive civil pieces of litigation that while on the one hand are brought mostly by private actors, like Zionist actors, we know that they're really coordinated by and with the administration because then the administration has mimicked bringing these same lawsuits against these very same activists for the same causes when we know that they're in coordination. And so I think that's also really important to know is that the civil component, you know, the movement, of course, like criminals, where we've always been the most concerned, is someone's liberty is on the line, someone's life is on the line. But civil is also like this slow death, right, of like time and money and just draining organizations. That I think is something that we've now had to really grasp.
- [18:47]
Olive
Can I just give a follow up question, Bina? Can you break down for people who are listening and really not in the legal world, why a civil case impacts someone's life, why civil cases against activists are really disruptive to movements?
- [19:01]
Bina Ahmed
Sure, there are many ways. So when a civil case lands, I mean, first, you don't have the right to free counsel like you do with a criminal case. It's not guaranteed in the Constitution. You're not facing prison time and incarceration, so you're not guaranteed that. So one, you have to find either free counsel or you can pay for someone to defend you. And when the lawsuit lands, there's so many things that happen. There's an affirmative obligation for you as the one who's being sued to preserve any evidence that could be relevant to the case that is completely antithetical to what a lot of movements do. We don't like save documents and then turn them over to the other side. We're going to keep our work internal and our organizing and who we work with. And civil lawsuits really make that really difficult because you have to turn over discovery if it gets that far in the case and you can't delete things and you can't let things get deleted like on signal. And if, you know you can be sanctioned. And there's all these things that could happen if they find out that that happened and then you're subject to, you know, other things like being deposed, being questioned by the other side about things you don't want to talk about and that are really antithetical to what we, what we do. And these cases can go on for years and years and even if you win, there can be appeals, there can, you know, there's, there's just so much that doesn't feel like it ever ends with civil litigation. And so much where people, you know, even just have moved on in their lives. Like I've moved to a different city, have a different job now, but you're still always tied back to this civil case. And there's no sort of like right to a speedy trial in a civil case. Right? That's, that's for a criminal case. So all of this stuff, and I'm sure there's many other things I'm not mentioning that you have to go through or that impact your life once you're being civilly sued, but a lot of that, you know, it's, it's not again like things that we have really dealt with as a movement before and you know, very importantly, people don't have the money to pay for lawyers for years and years and years. And it's really expensive to do civil litigation and civil defense. It goes on forever. You have to do so many different pieces of discovery and motions and like all of that is so much more involved and it really, I think part of the tactic is to bankrupt organizations. That's a big part of why these actors are bringing these civil suits.
- [21:19]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On public, you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index. With AI, it all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year. You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures want
- [22:19]
Jana Kramer
to get more work done with less effort on TikTok? Creators are sharing AI automation tips that
- [22:25]
Olive
save time and deliver better results.
- [22:28]
Joey Mogul
Tap to discover try TikTok now.
- [22:35]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
Hey, it's us, the Jonas Brothers. And guess what? We have some big news. What's the news? Huge news. We created our own podcast called hey Jonas. We invented a podcast. Well, we didn't invent it.
- [22:45]
Olive
We just contributed to First People to do Podcasts.
- [22:48]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
Pretty. Yeah, pretty wide range of podcasts, but this one's extra special. So how did we. How do we actually come up with
- [22:55]
Olive
the name hey Jonas? Guys, I honestly don't remember.
- [22:58]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
I think it was on a call about what we should call it and well, we were thinking, I'm originally calling it one of the early names of our band before Jonas Brothers. This is how you guys remember it going down? Yes, I have a very different memory of this. We were talking about a thing a
- [23:15]
Olive
bit for the podcast.
- [23:16]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
People could call in and say, hey Jonas. And then I wrote down on my little notepad, hey Jonas. And offered it up as a potential title for the podcast. But thanks for remembering that. Guys, listen to hey Jonas on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [23:31]
Olive
Just listen. We don't care where you hear it.
- [23:34]
Public Sponsor / Jonas Brothers (ads)
Yes you can. A five minute, quick and easy calorie burning workout. Give it a try. Come join our sweat sesh on TikTok.
- [23:51]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
I just want to intervene strategically at this moment to say that everything that Joey and Binary are talking about is true and critical and important and we need to be so alert to the way that these federal apparatuses are being deployed against our communities. But I also want to say that one of the things we have seen over the last couple of years that I think is so important and we have to hang on to for dear life, is that when we fight, we win. And so what we're starting to see now, you know, we just saw some of my impressive and beloved colleagues at CUNY School of Law are litigating a case right now in the federal courts about Columbia University's repression of student activists. And what we're seeing is the court coming back with these rulings that say anti Zionism is not hate speech. Columbia University acting at the behest of the executive makes them subject to the constraints of the First Amendment. It's potentially violative of the First Amendment to discipline students for engaging in speech. We're seeing people fight these federal cases, both criminal and civil, and winning, as Joey mentioned, we're seeing grand juries declining to issue indictments or to authorize prosecutors to issue indictments. So I do want to say we really do see the power of communities taking on that legal battle, fighting with our community movement, legal people, and meeting that challenge head on. And I think as devastating and exhausting as it is and as terrible as the consequences and the risks really are, I do want to say we do see people having a lot of courage, marshaling a lot of resources and energy and winning reliably.
- [26:04]
Olive
Thank you. And I know, Joey, you started talking a little bit about what we've been seeing broadly across the country and how the state has been repressing specifically anti ice activity. I know you've been based in Chicago and particularly tune into what's happening there. And it's been similar in Minneapolis where it's been a lot of 18 USC 111 cases, federal charges. And part of what is coming up is just unpreparedness for movements to meet and defend against these kinds of charges. And also similar vein to the question I just asked why it matters for people's lives and form of movements that it's federal charges coming down instead of state charges.
- [26:48]
Bina Ahmed
When I transitioned from state to federal defense, my reaction was like, state. It's always horrible just being in the criminal system and fighting. It's very like David and Goliath. But I felt like I had more of a fighting chance in state court. When I got to federal, it was shocking how much worse it felt for my clients, how restricted you are in state. It really feels like when you're doing a trial, you have the power to kind of run the show. Right. Of course a judge can like, shoot down many motions for experts for, like, for, you know, doing certain defenses. But federal is so much more constrained in my experience, where federal judges want to have just so much more power. And I think I wasn't also just didn't appreciate how much more power federal judges had and how much more they were willing to wield it. But also I think in terms of the charges are heavier, plea bargaining and sentencing is so much harder and heavier. You're very restricted. Even though the Sentencing guidelines, for instance, are no longer mandatory. That's what everyone, judges and prosecutors still mostly go by. There's so many more mandatory minimums. It's so easy to catch a federal charge, too. You know, things like even just gun possession, right? Because a gun might have been manufactured in Texas and then bought in California, which most people wouldn't think is a federal offense, but it can be charged federally. Just all of those factors, I think, just I realized how much harder it was in federal court for my clients to have a fighting chance. But, you know, that being said, I don't mean to make state sound like it's this like, sort of gold, like, oh, great, and we can, like, do whatever we want in state. Not at all. But I felt like I could fight more. I had more leeway to fight in state. You know, federal, I think, is a whole. Is a whole other animal.
- [28:27]
Olive
That was a great answer. And if either of you don't have anything more pressing to add, I would turn us back to just the question of if there's anything else. We wanted to talk about trends in charging across the country of anti ICE protest.
- [28:43]
Joey Mogul
Well, I know, I just. I think I want to echo something that MO has talked about, and I'm not trying to leave it out, but I do think the resistance is so amazing. And I think that, you know, essentially people are being arrested for First Amendment activity, whether it's. It's video recording, ICE and CBP agents actions, whether it's following officers, whether it's announcing their presence with whistles. We've seen people arrested, we've seen people detained, we've seen people interrogated. Sometimes they're charged, sometimes they're not. But I think what's striking is we've seen so many of these cases fall apart. And to be honest, but for Prairieland, Texas, which is a devastating loss, the federal government has lost in many of these cases they've been able to charge or the cases have been dismissed. But even the ones that have gone to trial, they have lost. And that is not something that I think we're used to seeing in federal criminal cases. Generally, when someone's charged in federal criminal court, as Bina was explaining, so few of the cases go to trial because so many people need to take a plea bargain. And the idea that you're going to get to go to trial and win seems very slim. That landscape seems to be changing as well. And so I think what we are seeing in this moment is the people are resisting. They are continuing to do this important First Amendment work and they are not being intimidated, they are not being deterred. And I think all of you and your neighbors and your family, friends and folks in Minnesota have proven that to us. And so I think we're going to continue to see this type of work go on. I'm not seeing this level of surges at this point. Ongoing post Minnesota. I don't know if we're going to see a return to this prior to the election. I don't know if we're going to see this if the Insurrection act is invoked. But right now, I don't see this ongoing surge activity in terms of immigration enforcement.
- [30:43]
Olive
It's an interesting point. The thing you hear about federal criminal cases is like the federal government can be investigating somebody for years. By the time that they bring the charges, they have such a strong case against them, it makes it impossible to win versus what at least we've seen in Minnesota, where it felt like some of these cases were being brought, like pretty quickly and kind of sloppily, which is just a little bit of a different, maybe a little bit more hopeful for people in movements, even though there still are federal judges and procedural limitations and that make federal cases scarier and worse to go through oftentimes. Now, for a depressing thing that is happening, let's talk about Prairieland, the recent trial and guilty verdict that recently came down. I'd love to hear how you all are thinking about this case and what it means for movements going forward.
- [31:36]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
I think right now the defense just filed post trial briefing. I've looked at some of it and I think there are a lot of really strong arguments, you know, for setting aside the verdict. And, you know, whether or not the judge agrees with me is of course not a foregone conclusion. But there are a lot of really strong legal arguments and this really isn't over. There's so much post trial and post conviction relief, so many appeals that remain to be done, and so much support that can be offered and so much solidarity that can be offered. I think that this case was unusual. It was a departure from what we would typically see in that so many people got pulled into this prosecution under sort of a conspiracy theory, right? A theory that all of the people at what was a really quotidian sort of noise demo in front of a ICE detention facility somehow spontaneously became a conspiracy to do serious violence. I think this is a little bit like the federal government trying to take a second bite at the apple that they took a run at after Trump's first inauguration when they tried to prosecute like almost 300 people for conspiracy on the basis that they were all dressed in black block. And in this environment, politically and in that jurisdiction in Texas, it seems like that theory had legs in a way that it didn't in DC. So one of the things that happened in the J20 case was that the prosecution withheld a bunch of exculpatory evidence. And based on some FOIA disclosures that a journalist obtained, it looks like actually a very similar thing may have happened here with Prairie Land, where the prosecution may have withheld evidence that would be favorable to the defense, and that's called Brady material. Based on a Supreme Court case about having to turn over information and evidence that would tend to undermine the prosecution or that would be favorable to someone facing criminal charges. All of that kind of information, if it's in the custody or control of law enforcement, has to be disclosed to the defendants and to defense counsel. And it appears that there is some material that would fit that bill that was not turned over to the Prairie Land defendants or their attorneys. And so that as well is an extremely important argument against letting this conviction stand and the trial itself. There were just a lot of irregularities. Not only was this an unusual prosecution, but it was characterized by irregularities. Very early on, the judge declared a mistrial on the basis of a T shirt that one of the defense attorneys was wearing. There seemed to be a lot of conflict among the jurors. There were all kinds of inconsistent statements among the witnesses for the prosecution. Right. So there's all kinds of things that happen during this trial that do give me a certain amount of hope that Prairie Land is the exception and not the rule. You know, I. I think the government is boundary testing, but I'm not convinced that they're going to find that this is an effective approach to prosecuting protest. Although, of course, I want to be very clear, it's been devastating for this community.
- [35:39]
Olive
I hear that there's some uncertainty about the long term impacts of this. And with that in mind, is there anything, any of you just want to add what you think movements should be paying attention to here going forward? Also its connection to the expansion of the fundamentally racist war on Terror legal regime and its turn towards activist communities in new ways.
- [36:06]
Bina Ahmed
I can jump in and start. I'm really glad you brought up the war on terror as part of the history of this. You know, I think I mentioned previously a lot of these tactics that we see, like we've all said, are not new, and much of it has been tested on communities of color. The way that war weapons are Tested on the battlefield and then brought to our domestic police forces here. Same thing with tactics. Right. And so the war on terror, like primarily against the Muslim community in the Muslim world. A lot of non Arab countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, you know, of course, is a racist endeavor, but it does sort of like give us a picture of the larger sort of like colonial project of what, you know, what we're facing. But I think there's also just a lot then that we can take from history and take to our movements and learn from. I think while it's devastating, and I agree with Mo, I think the Prairie Line conviction, there's a lot of bases for appeal, including being prohibited from putting on a self defense argument or defense of others argument. I think we can learn a lot from the way that our movements were targeted in this way. Right. We're like, you know, a lot of it was from text messages and Signal. And I think it's just like. It's also a really important thing to note. While Signal is a very important app to communicate, it's not bulletproof. Right. And it's only as secure as you make it. And it is still something that's in writing. And so I think I always try to remind folks, if you can open your phone right now and you can see your signal messages, someone else can too. Right. So I think a lot of people are under the impression that it's completely bulletproof. And I think it also calls the question of how we organize and also does everything we do need to go in text or writing. Is there more value to actually talking with people? Because a lot of things that were said casually, I think in writing look much worse and much more serious than if you would just have a conversation, talking ideas through, which again, as an elder, I did in the 90s and we didn't have cell phones.
- [38:00]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
I want to kind of piggyback on something you started to say, which is you said these tactics, these strategies have been tested on communities of color. And I think the significance of that statement, like we can't overestimate how important it is to understand that. And you know, you can watch it happening in real time. It. I mean, obviously we've seen this kind of state repression, right. Since the days of like abolitionists. Right. But we saw it really coming becoming very salient during the Nixon administration and thereafter. And you know, the Black Panther Party and Black Liberation army were subjected to this. Black communities were then subjected to this. And Puerto Rican independence communities were subjected to this. And you can see it all the way through the 80s even with like the so called gang legislation, right? Targeting of, quote, gang activity.
- [38:57]
Olive
When you say these communities have been subjected to this, what do you mean? What's the this?
- [39:02]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
Sorry. Have been subjected to, have been targeted and surveilled and criminalized by the state for what we would understand to be First Amendment protected identities, beliefs, associations and activities. Right. And so people have been targeted for surveillance and criminalization on the basis of their political beliefs, on the basis of their associations and activities in a way that we now see being recuperated against more explicitly political like protest movements. And we saw this during the no Dapple movement at Standing Rock. We saw the revival of a federal charge called civil disorder. I think the last time it had been used had been during the standoff at wounded knee in 1974. Right. It was like a, a federal charge that seems like it was only used against people struggling for indigenous sovereignty. And then we saw it being used again during the Floyd uprisings in 2020. And that was the first time we saw it really being used against people who were not explicitly involved in struggles for indigenous sovereignty.
- [40:30]
Bina Ahmed
To give like an example, you know, in terms of like, what strategies are tested on the Muslim community or communities of color, the case that a lot of us within the movement at least, are still haunted by is against the Holy Land foundation and the Holy Land 5. Right. And it's shocking now to realize how many people outside of our circles don't actually really know about that case or even like what material support is. I think only when it became now much bigger and being weaponized in more creative ways are people sort of realizing. But, you know, back for, back in the day when the Holy Land Foundation Congress were targeted and then convicted and their convictions were upheld for just raising money for families in Gaza, it was so devastating and crushing to communities and to organizing, but it really didn't get, I think, the broad attention that it should have, right. Or this other targeting of like using informants in the Muslim community. Just going back through history and I think we can learn from them now. But I think if we had had more attention on those cases and what communities of color were going through, I think there's a lot we can learn from or could have organized stronger against having now seen, you know, what, what is doing to communities of color.
- [41:41]
Joey Mogul
I think if there's a lesson for us to learn from this is that, you know, post 911 there was this massive persecution of Muslim communities and we really saw this apparatus of the material support for terrorism being used against individuals. And as you say Bina, often in isolation, without support. And part of that's because when you get charged with material support of terrorism, you know, not only are you facing massive criminal, like, sentencing, but, you know, your organization is being taken down, you're getting debanked. You cannot, you know, be able to hold financial funds. And what happens is people don't want to get ensnared in that criminal prosecution. That often people don't come out and make those solidarity statements. You become essentially radioactive. And I think, you know, what I'm hopeful is that we can find new ways to resist this material support for terrorism apparatus, which is being wielded in ways that I think are unjust and unfair and illegal and wrong. And I hope there's ways that we can think about how we're going to counter that. Whether it's in the Prairie Land, Texas case or in other cases as well. I think we need to get back to the roots of that law, and we need to think about really, who's it serving, who is it protecting, and who is it destroying so that we can really rectify the harms that have come from it.
- [43:11]
Olive
Material support for terrorism charges are not the only uncommon charges we're seeing being brought against anti ICE protesters here in Minneapolis. We've also seen the use of the FACE act and federal threat and cyber stalking charges. Just to note, the use of the FACE act is specifically against Black Lives Matter protesters here who staged a protest in a church, and I don't think expected to have this random act that nobody knew existed come out, and now they're facing super serious charges. I'd love just for listeners to understand a little bit what these charges are. If there's other unusual charges you've seen around the country, what do people actually need to understand about them? People who are going out to protest, how much is it important to know about these different things that can pop up?
- [44:04]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
So the FACE act is a piece of legislation that initially was being pushed for by reproductive justice groups. And it was supposed to criminalize people interfering with folks who are attempting to access reproductive health care. Because at the time that it was being lobbied for, there was a pretty active pro life, you know, anti choice movement that was physically making it difficult for people who were seeking reproductive health care to gain access to clinics. And at the time, people who work in criminal defense and who work with criminalized populations were like, hey, this legislation is going to be mobilized against other kinds of protesters and is probably going to be primarily dangerous to people who are perceived as antagonistic to State interests. And what do you know? That is what has happened. Because one of the things, one of the concessions that was made in order to get that piece of legislation passed was that in addition to criminalizing obstructing access to reproductive health clinics, it also criminalized obstructing access to so called places of worship for specifically people who are attempting to access those places in order to engage in first amendment protected religious expression. So now one of the things we're seeing is people using their churches or their synagogues to do things like have political meetings that are not particularly religious meetings, or to do things like sell real estate in Palestine to which they do not have title and cannot lawfully sell. And then when people show up to protest those activities, the federal government tries to charge them with violations of the
- [46:25]
Olive
Face act in like the simplest way. What do people need to know? Like, there's one outcome here that everyone's like, oh my God, I didn't know that protesting in a church could get me federal charges for like handing out some flyers and using a megaphone. What else don't I know about other risks and random acts that can come up, up. How do you talk to people about that who are thinking about taking action?
- [46:48]
Joey Mogul
Yeah, I think that that's the again, the changing landscape here in seeing the exponential rise of federal charges. I think that when organizers are thinking about the actions they're pursuing, I think they need to talk to attorneys and legal workers and others who have both an understanding of what their local laws and state laws are, but what the federal laws are as well. And again, I think that's just a different changing of the landscape. I do want to say, you know, there's a lot of important organizing that has happened in churches and synagogues and temples. And I don't want to discount that. But I do also want to say, I think again, we're seeing a misuse of this law, particularly the Face act. And it's very, very scary. But you know, I think that there are some really incredible lawyers and organizers in Minnesota who I think are fierce and who are going to fight this to the end. And I have hope that they will come out unscathed.
- [47:45]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
Yeah. And I do want to clarify, it isn't just protesting at a church. They have to be able to allege that people were, by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injuring, intimidating, interfere with people who are trying to get health care or people who are trying to worship. So it isn't simply having a protest at a place of worship that remains First Amendment protected behavior.
- [48:16]
Bina Ahmed
I think in addition, with the Face act, it has a civil component. So again, like material support, it also has a civil component and many people are getting civilly sued. And so a lot of these Zionist groups have also brought suits based on the Face act for people protesting the illegal sale of Palestinian land inside a synagogue. And that's a breach of international law and so many other crimes. And just also to think of just the disgusting use of this law and you think of sort of the historical targeting of black churches and like, still to this day, like, it's, it's just such a slap in the face. But regardless. But I think also Olive, to your question about, yeah, like, a lot of this can catch people off guard and be like, I didn't. What, you know, I didn't know. And even, you know, even if they know, they really can't prove that you blocked, you know, access, they might still try to either sue you or prosecute you. I think that the thing is, like, none of us are ever going to know all the laws that are on the books and the way that they might creatively try to use them. So, you know, I don't want people to get paralyzed into not doing anything because it's, it is, you know, scary. There's just like, you don't know, you know, what, what laws are out there that can be used, you know, in some way now, you know, new way against you. But I think what Joey and Mo both have said is right about connecting to lawyers and legal workers. Just being tight on our organizing, knowing what our rights are and knowing when you. What to do when you encounter law enforcement, which is not say nothing, you know, like, all of that, I think is like, hopefully, like, universally at least, like, minimizes the harm that can happen to you. It's not bulletproof, right? As we know it's not meant to be. But I think, like, you know, I don't want folks to like, be like, now, I don't know, X, like this other random thing, you know, could be brought against me. And that may happen and continue to happen, but that's what we all do, right? Like, sort of like with this message of hope is that what we do is we fight. And like, we have fought like, state repression, like our ancestors have fought that state repression. We're not going to stop. They're going to keep adapting and so are we. This resistance is not going to stop, even if we have to figure out a new way to resist based on what comes next.
- [50:18]
Olive
To ask you all as a final Question. With your repression forecasting, hats on. Anything you want to add about how movements can prepare to meet this repression that is already happening and that which is to come.
- [50:33]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
I can't see the future. As I tell my clients every day, I can't see the future. I am but a lawyer, not a wizard. What I can tell you is we know a lot about what the state has done in the past, and we have a lot of good models to look to. We have a rich ancestry of resistance and of movement lawyering and of movement lawyers who know how to work, work in community with people who are doing the heavy lifting. We have made it this far, as Bina said, we're just going to continue to fight. And I do hold out a lot of hope. Not because I have any faith in the law itself or believe that justice is on the table in our courts, but because we are actually really good at solidarity and because we have over a century of evidence that solidarity is not just good for our communities. It's legally effective.
- [51:47]
Joey Mogul
That's it.
- [51:47]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
Don't talk to cops.
- [51:49]
Bina Ahmed
I might go with the cheesy answer route that I think what communities and movements can do to prepare is a lot of this right is like coming together and strategizing, especially amongst the lawyers. So uplifting. What Mo said is like showing solidarity with communities and lawyers showing up. But I think also, and like, Joey and Mo really modeled this for me as well, is lawyers showing up with each other and, like, working together. Because it is a lonely fight. A lot of times being a lawyer when you're not in a circle of solidarity or folks of radical politics or who also believe in including each other in fighting and doing this work. And that is always going to be a losing fight. If you're doing it by yourself, you're not doing it with each other and with the communities and with other radical lawyers. That's not what we do. That's also not the point of this work. It's for one sole lawyer to fight it and win. It's about us doing it collectively, and that's the way that we win. And just uplifting you three, just even having this conversation and Joey and Mo, for all the work that you do and the work that you do inclusively, you know, that, like, gives me hope because I know I've had, like, many every day, you know, like, I just sit and I feel like alone. I'm like, oh, my God. Like, I have to first end with a message of hope. I have to find some way to keep going. It's really Hard. And sometimes I'm just like, I don't know. And then. And then we have these conversations and like, all right, yeah, like, we have those moments we get, you know, like, we feel defeated, but, like. Like we have each other, you know, and like, our movements didn't come this far, you know, our ancestors didn't come this far for us to give up now.
- [53:23]
Joey Mogul
Yeah. I think I would just echo what both Bina and Mo have said. I mean, obviously black, indigenous and other communities of color have faced fascism and authoritarianism before and have resisted and survived. This is not the first time in this country we've seen this, and it's likely not going to be the last. But I think, again, I would say that, as Mariam Kama says, hope is a discipline, and we have to keep pouring into hope and we have to keep resisting. So I do have a lot of hope, and I feel like, again, I want to look at what the organizers have done and how far we've come. Even in terms of this latest administration. I would say last year, after the onset of this administration, I don't think we were seeing a lot of resistance, not a lot of public resistance, and instead we were seeing law firms cave and deciding to create agreements with the administration. We are seeing educational institutions cave and come up with a lot of agreements. But what we did see is we saw the people resisting. And that happened in la and that happened in Chicago, and that certainly happened in Minneapolis and St. Paul in Minnesota. So I take heart, and I think what we need to continue to think about doing is how people are going to do the mutual aid work and the care work. I think we need to continue to do the know your rights and know your risks work. That's essential. I think a big thing we need to continue to think about is the Insurrection act and getting information out about the Insurrection act, which may be invoked prior to this election. You know, I think that the ongoing work that people have been doing, again, it's about the people and the power of the people that have gotten us this far. But even if we look at what happened this past weekend, 8 million people coming out to protest and resist, those numbers didn't exist over a year ago. And so I feel like the resistance is happening. People are coming together. And despite institutional failures, I think the movement has grown significantly. And I think we have to even look at the last year and a half to see how far we've come. And so I've hoped that we'll go even further. And I hope that we're not returning to the status quo. And in fact, we are actually dreaming the world we want to live in and that we are going to fight for the world we want to live in, and that this is an opportunity for us to let things go and for us to create anew.
- [55:59]
Olive
Well, thank you all for those hopeful forecasting advice answers. You don't always get that twist, which is really lovely. And I feel like it's been something that's on my mind a lot here in Minnesota, that sometimes when things are the worst and you're the closest to violence and terror, it's also when you see how powerful people are and how powerful resistance can be.
- [56:26]
Joey Mogul
I mean, these are long fights and these are long hauls. Yeah.
- [56:29]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
I think that's kind of the lesson is, you know, not to get all piercing a vote, but you are not obligated to finish the work, but neither are you free to abandon it. Like, these are long fights. Yeah, they are fights that we don't win alone. It's not possible or desirable to win these fights alone. Right. They're generational. I mean, they, they last multiple generations. So, you know, this like the ever receding horizon of democracy. Right. There's no forecast that could even be adequate because it's going to go on for so long. But I think the advice is always the same. Right. Just don't talk to Cops.
- [57:17]
Bina Ahmed
Yeah. What you said is generational. And you're not free to just abandon the work. MO is like, I would, like, write that on a wall somewhere because I think things, people jump in, right. It's like, okay, this is hot, let's do it. But it's like, once it's not a hot new thing, you know, people kind of move on to the next. It's like, that's when we need folks to stick in it and you can't. And I think that's just a really important, like, lesson.
- [57:39]
Maura Meltzer Cohen (Mo)
Send me your mailing address. I'm gonna send you a. I'm gonna send you a poster.
- [57:44]
Bina Ahmed
Or can you crochet it? I know you can crochet. You can do it with flowers and everything. Yeah.
- [57:49]
Olive
Thank you all so much.
- [57:51]
Joey Mogul
You guys are awesome. I love you guys.
- [57:53]
Bina Ahmed
It's been so great. I feel like at a therapy session, like, oh, I feel so much better about this of, like, what we're doing and, like, where we are and like, I have hope.
- [58:01]
Olive
I dedicate this one to you, fam. Thank you for listening to Outlaw on It could happen here. If you like the episode, check out the show Outlaw, wherever you get your podcasts and rate. Review and follow Outlaw Pod on Instagram and Blue sky for anti repression updates, news and stories that you might want to know.
- [58:20]
Bina Ahmed
From the north, from the south, from everywhere. It Could Happen Here is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from Cool Zone Media, Visit our website coolzone media.com or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts, you can now find sources for It Could Happen here, listed directly in Episode Descriptions. Thanks for listening.
- [58:45]
Olive
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.