Speaker 1: Als media, Welcome to it could happen here. I'm Garrison Davis.
Speaker 1: This is going to be another episode in which we're
Speaker 1: discussing the Defend the Forest and Stop Copcity movement in Atlanta, Georgia.
Speaker 1: This struggle has always tied together a lot of the
Speaker 1: aspects that we focus on on this show, between the
Speaker 1: collapsing climate, political escalation, and how everything just feels like
Speaker 1: it's kind of getting worse. But through that there's people
Speaker 1: who respond to this crisis of neoliberalism and band together
Speaker 1: and figure out how to sort through all of this
Speaker 1: shit and all that is continuing as the City of
Speaker 1: Atlanta and State of Georgia unveil new state repression tactics
Speaker 1: to chill any resistance to the construction of this ninety
Speaker 1: million dollar police training facility that we have covered in
Speaker 1: depth in this show the past few years. A few
Speaker 1: months ago there was another three part series about the
Speaker 1: sixth Week of Action in June, but new things have
Speaker 1: happened since then. The referendum has been submitted to that
Speaker 1: is all in process, but the same day construction was
Speaker 1: scheduled to begin, the State of Georgia indicted sixty one
Speaker 1: people on rico charges, RICO is an acronym referring to
Speaker 1: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This specific act
Speaker 1: is meant to legally target organizations, and organizations can relate
Speaker 1: to anything between you know, traditional incorporated organizations or something
Speaker 1: as loose as like a pickup basketball team, which is
Speaker 1: how the state is able to paint whole communities of
Speaker 1: people who are just connected by similar values as being
Speaker 1: a quote unquote organization. The RICO Act, in practice is
Speaker 1: basically a way to criminalize a whole community. Now I'm
Speaker 1: not a lawyer, but I do know lawyer. So for
Speaker 1: this episode, I brought on Mo Cohen, a lawyer specializing
Speaker 1: in state repression. So, without further ado, here is my
Speaker 1: conversation with them. Mo, Hello, thank you for joining me today.
Speaker 2: No grab them, It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1: So in late August, the Fulton County District Attorney and
Speaker 1: other kind of legal entities with the State of Georgia
Speaker 1: unveiled a whole bunch of RICO charges against I believe
Speaker 1: sixty one people relating to the Stop Coop City quote
Speaker 1: unquote movement. It's part of like like I said, it's
Speaker 1: an ongoing kind of campaign of repression that we've talked
Speaker 1: about pretty in depth before. But before we get into
Speaker 1: the actual like rico charges, I first want to kind
Speaker 1: of talk about the raid that happened against the Atlanta
Speaker 1: Solidarity Fund earlier this year, and a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: like financial crime charges that they've been trying to use
Speaker 1: to suppress the bail fund organizing. I think we've talked
Speaker 1: about this kind of briefly on the show before, but
Speaker 1: we've never really gotten very much in depth about it,
Speaker 1: and from my perspective, a lot of these reco charges
Speaker 1: are very much related to the depression of the Solidarity
Speaker 1: Fund mode. I assume you're familiar with the Solidarity Fund
Speaker 1: raid and the charges against against the Network for Strong Communities.
Speaker 1: I am, Yeah. Do I talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: that event. I think that happened in May of this year,
Speaker 1: I believe, so.
Speaker 2: It wasn't a huge surprise. It wasn't, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: a very well grounded or legally warranted indictment. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: certainly the way that the way that law enforcement went
Speaker 2: in to retrieve those three people who were indicted was
Speaker 2: a little extra particularly given the nature of the allegations.
Speaker 2: I think people who are accused of financial crimes don't
Speaker 2: typically get taken out with a swat team. But I
Speaker 2: don't think it was a huge surprise that the district
Speaker 2: attorney brought those charges because this kind of reco indictment
Speaker 2: was anticipated, and those kinds of financial charges or allegations
Speaker 2: of financial misconduct are sort of the predicate for bringing
Speaker 2: this kind of sweeping rego indictment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think like in like the weeks and
Speaker 1: months prior to the swat raid against the Solidarity Fund
Speaker 1: in May, people at the Solidarity Fund were basically warning
Speaker 1: that they were they were like suspecting that they would
Speaker 1: that there would be some form of reco charges used
Speaker 1: against the movement, and everyone was kind of like preparing
Speaker 1: for that. That was definite. Was definitely talked about as like
Speaker 1: as a potential like a tactic of of suppression. You
Speaker 1: know when you say that the types of like financial
Speaker 1: crime like fraud charges that that were brought against this
Speaker 1: the Sole Fund people, how they seem kind of unwarranted.
Speaker 1: That is something that the judge in the bond hearing
Speaker 1: kind of agreed with.
Speaker 2: The judge was unimpressed.
Speaker 1: Yes that I I I listened to the I listened
Speaker 1: to the hearing, and the judge is very skeptical of
Speaker 1: the prosecution's claims and basically told the prosecution like, if
Speaker 1: you like actually want this to like succeed like in
Speaker 1: actual like court, you know, once once this progresses, you're
Speaker 1: you're gonna have to have a much much stronger case
Speaker 1: because this all seems kind of like nonsense. But you
Speaker 1: know that that didn't stop the prosecutors and the I
Speaker 1: believe it's the Attorney General Office as well of Georgia
Speaker 1: of using using kind of some stuff from this from
Speaker 1: this raid against the Solidarity Fund and trying to kind
Speaker 1: of tie together this grand conspiracy narrative that we now
Speaker 1: see in this in this reco indictment. So let's I
Speaker 1: guess let's let's talk a little bit about the Rico
Speaker 1: indictment at this At this point, so rico is a
Speaker 1: very like scary word, right, Like this is like I
Speaker 1: feel like everyone kind of knows about like rico like
Speaker 1: like a pop culture like it's like geist sense. But
Speaker 1: do I actually like talk about like what these types
Speaker 1: of rico charges actually are because like you know, most people,
Speaker 1: even if they're charged with the crime, right, most people
Speaker 1: don't ever like have to deal with, Like RICO as
Speaker 1: like a concept, So do it you know, if if
Speaker 1: if you're like arrested at a protest to get like,
Speaker 1: you know, pedestrian in roadway, there's like a litany of
Speaker 1: other kind of basic charges that cops will throw at you.
Speaker 1: RICO is a bit more serious, Like it's kind of
Speaker 1: it's kind of like a scary ordeal, you know, same
Speaker 1: thing with like the domestic terrorism charges that that that
Speaker 1: have been used the past year.
Speaker 2: So yes, what is a lot more serious. Yeah, So
Speaker 2: what exactly is rico. RICO is, uh, while it was
Speaker 2: initially a federal law that was passed in effort to
Speaker 2: target specifically organized crime, because federal prosecutors were having a
Speaker 2: difficult time prosecuting these sort of individual offenses that were
Speaker 2: being committed by dispersed groups of individuals who are all
Speaker 2: acting maybe not in concert, but in the service of
Speaker 2: a larger criminal enterprise. There's a couple of important things
Speaker 2: that I want to say just upfront. Sure, The first
Speaker 2: thing is this is not the first time that RICO
Speaker 2: has been used against movement people. The second thing I
Speaker 2: want to say is that all prosecutions are political prosecutions,
Speaker 2: and RICO is no different. Although federal RICO and ostensibly
Speaker 2: Georgia State RICO were developed and passed in an effort
Speaker 2: to target organized crime, that is not how they've been
Speaker 2: primarily used. And I think it is really significant to
Speaker 2: note that after a lot of the people of color
Speaker 2: solidarity movements like the Black Panthers of Black Liberation, Army Aim,
Speaker 2: the Brown Berets, the Young Lords, these groups were all
Speaker 2: really weakened by Cohen telpro and the community groups that
Speaker 2: remained were then labeled as gangs and prosecuted under RICO.
Speaker 2: And so I just you know, everything that happens in
Speaker 2: this conversation, we have to sort of hold in our
Speaker 2: minds that this particular movement is not the first movement
Speaker 2: and not the first community who has had REGO leveled
Speaker 2: against it as a form of state repression.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and specifically Fultland County. It looks like the batch
Speaker 1: of indictments that we're using these preco charges, it looks
Speaker 1: like this was, at least according to the Atlantic Constitution Journal,
Speaker 1: people this this was the same grand jury that did
Speaker 1: the RICO dinitements against former President Donald Trump as well
Speaker 1: for this, for this, for this batch of charges, and
Speaker 1: they've used they've used RICO charges against like young black
Speaker 1: wrappers in the past. This is this is a a
Speaker 1: thing that the Fulton County Office has has done before. Yes,
Speaker 1: and also like we have like rico's this is like
Speaker 1: a criminal racketeering thing against the mob. In terms of
Speaker 1: like what RICO actually is, like is it its own
Speaker 1: separate charge or is it like is it a way
Speaker 1: to like apply other felony charges, like you know, can
Speaker 1: can you just be charged with RICO or is there
Speaker 1: have to be like other other crimes that you're accused
Speaker 1: of for them to actually use this use this charge
Speaker 1: against these activists.
Speaker 2: RICO is its own criminal offense, but it relies upon
Speaker 2: there having been other criminal offenses committed in the service
Speaker 2: of a larger criminal enterprise or a conspiracy to try
Speaker 2: to do crimes in the service of a larger criminal enterprise.
Speaker 2: And one of the reasons that it is so broad
Speaker 2: in Sweep, I mean, federal RICO is already very broad
Speaker 2: in Sweep and Georgia Rica in particular is notorious for
Speaker 2: being even broader. One of the reasons it is so
Speaker 2: attractive to prosecutors is precisely because it can capture these
Speaker 2: large groups of people with very little actual criminal conduct.
Speaker 1: Okay, So yeah, that's kind of one of the things
Speaker 1: that we want to talk about is I read the
Speaker 1: indictment as soon as it came out, as soon as
Speaker 1: it was made public. It is it is a long document.
Speaker 1: The first patch of it is just like it's almost
Speaker 1: like a really bad like Wikipedia article on like like
Speaker 1: what anarchism is is how is how the document starts.
Speaker 1: And then it gets into all these like alleged alleged
Speaker 1: like a thing that are not necessarily criminal nature, but
Speaker 1: they're all in the service of pushing forward this conspiracy
Speaker 1: to stop the construction of this police training facility. So
Speaker 1: there's a lot of like kind of like a like
Speaker 1: random almost aseni and stuff in there that that they're
Speaker 1: that they're eluding is is a quote unquote an overt
Speaker 1: act in furtherance of the conspiracy. You know, anything from
Speaker 1: like buying glue or buying like food supplies, and they're
Speaker 1: they're including or or things like like like writing your
Speaker 1: name as Aca B. They're they're they're including that as
Speaker 1: as as as an as an overt act in furtherance
Speaker 1: of the conspiracy, which is is kind of silly. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make very much sense. But like these also these
Speaker 1: is this is like a very serious case as well though,
Speaker 1: because this is like you know, the people, people you know,
Speaker 1: facing twenty years in prison on top of like the
Speaker 1: domestic terrorism charges. Well, uh, do you know what else
Speaker 1: is a overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy? It
Speaker 1: is the the uh, the advertising that allows us to
Speaker 1: continue this show. It's all, it's all, it's all all
Speaker 1: part of the plan. So yes, every every single ad
Speaker 1: is a co conspirator. So take that, Ronald reichen Coin. Okay,
Speaker 1: we are back. We could talk about more about the
Speaker 1: actual indictment in a sec I do kind of want
Speaker 1: to first talk about who are facing these charges, right,
Speaker 1: because these are these are sixty one people, and it
Speaker 1: looks like for for when I was looking through, one
Speaker 1: of the first things that you noticed is like, oh,
Speaker 1: they're mostly charging people who have already been charged before.
Speaker 1: There's not too many new people added.
Speaker 2: To this case.
Speaker 1: It's mostly people who've already been arrested and charged. Can
Speaker 1: you can you kind of like talk about the scope
Speaker 1: of these sixty one people who are included in this indictment.
Speaker 2: Yes, So, as I was saying, the scope of Georgia
Speaker 2: RICO is extremely broad, and some of the criminal acts
Speaker 2: that can serve as a predicate for charging RICO are
Speaker 2: these extremely unremarkable acts that we would typically think of
Speaker 2: as being very normal protest related behavior, and some of
Speaker 2: them are things like domestic terrorism. And so I don't
Speaker 2: think it is an accident that all of those people
Speaker 2: were charged with domestic terrorism in the beginning months of
Speaker 2: this of this sort of push to overcharge the stock
Speaker 2: Cup City activists. And in fact, I think one of
Speaker 2: the things that tipped us off at that point that
Speaker 2: RICO was in the pipeline was that people were being
Speaker 2: charged with domestic terrorism, which is one of the predicate
Speaker 2: offenses for RICO. And so many of the people who
Speaker 2: are on this indictment are the people who were already
Speaker 2: charged with domestic terrorism. They were overcharged domestic terrorism. In
Speaker 2: my opinion, they were overcharged. I think the opinion of
Speaker 2: most attorneys, they were overcharged. They were charged in that manner,
Speaker 2: not because the allegations against them are serious. In fact,
Speaker 2: if you look at the allegations in those domestic terrorism
Speaker 2: indictments or they're not even indictments yet, most of them
Speaker 2: in those domestic terrorism charges in the documents that are
Speaker 2: associated with those arrests. The allegations are, you know, as
Speaker 2: I said, these absolutely unremarkable garden variety sort of criminal
Speaker 2: trespass allegations, by and large, the allegations against people, and
Speaker 2: they include things that are absolutely lawful, like having mud
Speaker 2: on your like having on your knees. Yes, yeah, so
Speaker 2: a lot of the allegations. One of the things that's
Speaker 2: remarkable about Rico, and frankly about the domestic terrorism stuff,
Speaker 2: is that both of those statutes allow for the sort
Speaker 2: of bootstrapping of one offense into a much more serious
Speaker 2: offense if certain conditions are met. With respect to the
Speaker 2: domestic terrorism statute, a very large number of garden variety
Speaker 2: offenses like criminal trespassing can be transformed into domestic terrorism
Speaker 2: if they are perceived to be essentially politically motivated. In
Speaker 2: the case of So, what we have here is a
Speaker 2: situation where a bunch of people got charged with domestic terrorism,
Speaker 2: not because they were doing something really dramatic or violent,
Speaker 2: but because whatever it was they were doing was perceived
Speaker 2: as being an effort to influence public policy. So we
Speaker 2: transformed a very minor offense into a very serious offense.
Speaker 2: That serious offense then became the predicate offense for Rico,
Speaker 2: which is an even more serious offense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And from my understanding at least in terms of
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of the people in the
Speaker 1: sixty one indictments are are the sixty one people in
Speaker 1: in the indictment is from the arrests that happened at
Speaker 1: the music festival last Castruch, and a lot of a lot,
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of those people were only
Speaker 1: charged with domestic terrorism, which is interesting because usually domestic
Speaker 1: terrorism in Georgia is like an enhancement charge. But lots
Speaker 1: of the people weren't actually charged with any of the
Speaker 1: other other charges. Yet the prosecutors just argued, because we're
Speaker 1: charging with domestic terrorism, it's like inferred that they must
Speaker 1: have done some other crimes that we haven't yet specified.
Speaker 1: But in the way that works for the for the
Speaker 1: Rico indictments, because I think you need to have already
Speaker 1: had like like I think there's like a prerequisitive like
Speaker 1: two other like felonious charges. What they did in the
Speaker 1: in these reco charges is go back to the music
Speaker 1: festival and break down every single thing that happened there
Speaker 1: that they're alleged these people did as separate instances like
Speaker 1: like planning to go to the place, you know, marching
Speaker 1: to the place, being at the place, Like they broke
Speaker 1: it down to have all these separate things so that
Speaker 1: they could like shoehorn it into this Rico indictment. So
Speaker 1: there's a lot of like a you know, revisionist history
Speaker 1: going on here, very kind of different arguments than what
Speaker 1: the actual like domestic terrorism of bond hearings had in
Speaker 1: like a previous months. But yeah, there is at least
Speaker 1: at least one person in the indictments who is new
Speaker 1: I think. I think possibly a few others, but I
Speaker 1: haven't quite checked, but there at least one person which
Speaker 1: is a very interesting case. It's this it's this guy
Speaker 1: who worked at the uh the Flock camera company who
Speaker 1: I saw that who they are alleging was was passing
Speaker 1: off information about where cameras were were were located. And
Speaker 1: this is an extremely interesting case because he is he
Speaker 1: is not included in any other previous charges, but that
Speaker 1: is at least one of the people who who are
Speaker 1: kind of new additions to this indictment. One thing I
Speaker 1: didn't want to mention because you've you've said you've you've
Speaker 1: kind of mentioned a few times that these are these
Speaker 1: are state level RICO charges. Those are kind of different
Speaker 1: than federal reco charges. Do you want to kind of
Speaker 1: get into like the difference between state and federal charges
Speaker 1: and specifically how kind of the ones in Georgia at
Speaker 1: work versus the the the federal rico that you know,
Speaker 1: kind of inspired different states to kind of add their
Speaker 1: own style of rico.
Speaker 2: The big difference between the federal Rico Statute, which is
Speaker 2: already extremely vague. I think Scalia said something like Scalia,
Speaker 2: who is notoriously not far left, yeah, activist right, I'm
Speaker 2: not a supporter of leftists, uh in in any meaningful way.
Speaker 2: I think described the federal Rico statute I think as
Speaker 2: intolerably vague. So the federal Rico Statute is already very
Speaker 2: broad in its scope. It already does this thing that
Speaker 2: we were discussing of pulling in many many people by
Speaker 2: associating them with, you know, this criminal enterprise. The Georgia
Speaker 2: Ricos statute is even more broad. The Georgia Ricos Statute
Speaker 2: uses a lot of the same terms, right, a pattern
Speaker 2: of racketeering activity. Right, It uses a lot of the
Speaker 2: same concepts, but it defines those concepts in ways that
Speaker 2: are even broader, even easier to apply. So I think
Speaker 2: the thing that is significant about RICO is that similar
Speaker 2: to like what we would see with conspiracy, where you know,
Speaker 2: not every person involved in a conspiracy needs to have
Speaker 2: been participating in every single criminal instance of criminal conduct
Speaker 2: in order to be implicated.
Speaker 1: They don't even need to know the other co conspirators necessarily.
Speaker 2: So that's the case in this indictment. Yes, yes, And
Speaker 2: that is sometimes the case with maybe other reco indictments.
Speaker 2: We certainly have seen some stuff like gang prosecutions where
Speaker 2: the people involved don't know each other. Typically, I wouldn't
Speaker 2: actually expect to see something that broad. When a prosecutor
Speaker 2: wants to indict someone for engaging in criminal conduct, they
Speaker 2: need to have individualized probable cause that that individual did
Speaker 2: the crime one of the things, and you can't attribute
Speaker 2: one person's behavior to another person. Rico offers a way
Speaker 2: around that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: To use RICO in the way that the prosecutors in
Speaker 2: Georgia are doing, among other things, enables them to engage
Speaker 2: in a sort of collective punishment of people who they
Speaker 2: perceive as holding certain ideologies and those people can be
Speaker 2: engaged in lawful behavior and even in constitutionally protected behavior,
Speaker 2: but if they can characterize any of that behavior as
Speaker 2: having been an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,
Speaker 2: the fact that this person bought glue and was reimbursed
Speaker 2: for the glue, yeah, can function to allow the prosecutor
Speaker 2: to attribute all of this other criminal conduct to the
Speaker 2: person who bought glue.
Speaker 1: Basically, there people can you know, be hit with charges
Speaker 1: that are being you know, alleged against actions of other people,
Speaker 1: but they're all getting like roped up together, and they're
Speaker 1: all facing these charges together, that's right.
Speaker 2: So you can, like, the allegation that there is a
Speaker 2: criminal enterprise allows the prosecutors to associate various people and
Speaker 2: various acts, even lawful acts, even constitutionally protected acts, with
Speaker 2: attempting to further that criminal enterprise. And so the allegation
Speaker 2: that this criminal enterprise exists is the fundamental core of
Speaker 2: this indictment. Now you read the indictment and it's you know,
Speaker 2: it's laughable. They're making these claims that you know, if
Speaker 2: it weren't so serious, if this weren't so serious, we'd
Speaker 2: all be rolling on the floor. The idea that mutual
Speaker 2: aid is sinister. Yeah, it really to me. When I
Speaker 2: read this indictment, I thought, Wow, this is just fascinating,
Speaker 2: because what's happening here is that Georgia is saying the
Speaker 2: quiet part out loud. We all know state repression is real.
Speaker 2: We all know that the American legal system functions to
Speaker 2: repressed assent, to impose prior restraints on First Amendment protected behavior,
Speaker 2: to chill speech, to frighten people into submission. Right, we
Speaker 2: understand that it is this coercive system, but there is
Speaker 2: at least a sort of set of rules that purport
Speaker 2: to prioritize fairness, that purport to value concepts of due process,
Speaker 2: and the Rico Statute, and in particular, the Reco Statute
Speaker 2: as it is being used here, really functions so explicitly
Speaker 2: to circumvent those rules, and that they're just they're not
Speaker 2: even trying anymore. They're not even trying to pretend that
Speaker 2: they care about individual probable cause, about the First Amendment,
Speaker 2: and I would say, most frighteningly about the sixth Amendment,
Speaker 2: which is the right to counsel, because they have gone
Speaker 2: way beyond the pale in alleging that things like accessing
Speaker 2: legal help, or accessing bail, or having legal observers or
Speaker 2: you know, providing anti repression trainings are in some manner
Speaker 2: sinister acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. And I am
Speaker 2: really I don't know what will happen here. I really
Speaker 2: can't begin to guess because I feel like it is
Speaker 2: no longer possible for me to be surprised by the
Speaker 2: nonsense that is coming out of this jurisdiction. I don't
Speaker 2: know what will happen, but I am very, very curious
Speaker 2: to see how the bench, how the judges in Georgia
Speaker 2: respond to these allegations that involve making it part of
Speaker 2: a criminal conspiracy to provide legal assistance. You know, this
Speaker 2: is to me like one of the most concerning aspects
Speaker 2: of this of this indictment, because as absurd as it is,
Speaker 2: this could have very serious consequences.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, that's something people have been talking about
Speaker 1: with Atlanta for a while now, is that because of
Speaker 1: how many you know, criminal cases there is around this
Speaker 1: top top city of like movement, whatever kind of the
Speaker 1: result of those cases is going to be is going
Speaker 1: to set a very influential precedent for future for future
Speaker 1: kind of eco defense campaigns, future, like any anything relating
Speaker 1: to like like civil rights, you know, uh, police abolition,
Speaker 1: or even even even things it's like benign is like
Speaker 1: police reform, like any any kind of like any kind
Speaker 1: of like grassroots activist, whatever kind of movement that's going
Speaker 1: to happen in the future, is going to be affected
Speaker 1: by how these cases go. Because not only as you know,
Speaker 1: as as as you mentioned the you know, access to
Speaker 1: bail fund being being in like access to to to
Speaker 1: lawyers and and so and legal support is being used
Speaker 1: in these reco charges, they were also alleging that by
Speaker 1: having a you know, a bail fund number on your arm,
Speaker 1: that was like, you know, that was evidence that that's
Speaker 1: that this person intended to do crimes. And then you know,
Speaker 1: as as evident in support of these domestic terrorism charges,
Speaker 1: which is you know, an extremely dangerously legal claim to
Speaker 1: to to be to be talking about and we've been
Speaker 1: dealing with that in Atlanta for months now, and it's
Speaker 1: you know, it's created this really chilling effect on the
Speaker 1: ground that you know, you can you can be you know,
Speaker 1: doing something as simples marching in the street and now
Speaker 1: have not only like terrorism charges, having reco charges for
Speaker 1: stuff that is very clearly like First Amendment activity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it is really fascinating to me that
Speaker 2: the law enforcement apparatus in Georgia is basically engaging in
Speaker 2: really concerted state repression against this movement, which is highly
Speaker 2: visible and highly legible as state repression. And then when
Speaker 2: people respond appropriately by anticipating that they may be subject
Speaker 2: to state repression by writing the jail support number on
Speaker 2: their arm, not because they believe that they intend to
Speaker 2: go out and do crimes, but because they know that
Speaker 2: unremarkable acts of First Amendment protected conduct may result in
Speaker 2: intense state repression. The law enforcement apparatus then responds by
Speaker 2: rationalizing their repression further. I mean, it's just we we
Speaker 2: can see the sort of post hoc fallacy at work
Speaker 2: in real time. It's not clear to me how how
Speaker 2: much of the hypocrisy is self aware. Sure, you know
Speaker 2: who else doesn't talk to cops? Products I cannot guarantee that.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure these companies have the same standards that you.
Speaker 2: And I have. They don't have shared values.
Speaker 1: In terms of our willingness to to to talk with
Speaker 1: the police, but they probably has.
Speaker 2: Good defense lawyers.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, all of all of these products and services
Speaker 1: that supp this podcast definitely do have good defense layers,
Speaker 1: that is true, So listen, listen to their important messages.
Speaker 2: There is actually a part of this indictment that I
Speaker 2: think deserves some very serious attention. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: So. Typically when we're thinking about RICO, we're thinking about
Speaker 2: like white collar crime, yeah, and we're thinking about the
Speaker 2: use of RECO to target groups that are doing unlawful
Speaker 2: things in order to profit. This indictment seems to allege
Speaker 2: that stop Coop City activists are raising money to do crime,
Speaker 2: which is sort of the opposite, right, And as as
Speaker 2: we said, the crime that they're alleging, by and large
Speaker 2: is really petty. There does seem to be one major
Speaker 2: act of violence that is alleged in this indictment, and
Speaker 2: I think we need to talk about it for a
Speaker 2: second because that one alleged act of violence involves the
Speaker 2: claim that Manuel torte Ghita Tehran, who was murdered by police,
Speaker 2: was firing upon officers, and that is an incredibly central
Speaker 2: claim in this indictment. That really is I think the
Speaker 2: hook on which they're hanging a lot of the seriousness
Speaker 2: of the allegations, and it is an incredibly disingenuous claim
Speaker 2: and it's an incredibly dangerous claim. The evidence that they're
Speaker 2: using to support that claim is the statement of a
Speaker 2: third party who was not present. It's a regrettable statement
Speaker 2: that they've dug up from some group balance you know,
Speaker 2: you know, thousands of miles away from the Atlanta Forest. Yes,
Speaker 2: and there's no reason to credit that statement, but they
Speaker 2: are using it to support this claim. That is, as
Speaker 2: I said, it's it's critical to their argument, and it
Speaker 2: is extremely disingenuous and it's extremely dangerous for for the
Speaker 2: office of a prosecutor, which you know, for what it's worth,
Speaker 2: is supposed to pursue justice and not convictions. It is
Speaker 2: just intolerable to me that that somebody thought this was
Speaker 2: an acceptable thing to put into a legal document.
Speaker 1: And like you were talking about, how you know, they're
Speaker 1: using statements from the scenes dot no Block subsite, which
Speaker 1: anyone can submit to. There's no barrier of evidence for somebity.
Speaker 1: And one interesting aspect that I didn't want to mention
Speaker 1: is that for many of the kind of the little
Speaker 1: like you know, accounts that they that they have in
Speaker 1: their indictment, it's it's just referencing people you know, claiming
Speaker 1: that they did crimes on on on this website. But
Speaker 1: they're they're attributing the the either like co authorship of
Speaker 1: these claims to the people at the Solidary Front, which
Speaker 1: they've laid out no evidence in supporting that. That's it's
Speaker 1: it's one of the more bizarre aspects of this indictment
Speaker 1: because they make every they claim that every single post
Speaker 1: on scenes is somehow the solidarity different people are in
Speaker 1: part responsible for it, which is absolutely absurd that there's
Speaker 1: there's They've they've produced nothing, no piece of evidence in
Speaker 1: support of this claim. But that is one of the
Speaker 1: core parts of their indictment because much much of what
Speaker 1: they're filling this indictment with, you know, talking about how
Speaker 1: there's people do you know, doing crimes in San Francisco,
Speaker 1: in in Portland, in like Minneapolis, like all across like
Speaker 1: New York, all across the country. Right, this is part
Speaker 1: of like the criminal conspiracy angle, which where very clearly
Speaker 1: from my perspective, this is, you know, people all across
Speaker 1: the country who care about a cause and so they're
Speaker 1: doing something in their own city. It's there's there's no
Speaker 1: there's no conspiracy to it. It's it's people taking their
Speaker 1: own individual action, but they're they're trying, they're trying to
Speaker 1: tie this into the solidarity fund in a very bizarre way.
Speaker 1: You know, I'll be curious to see if they ever
Speaker 1: try to prove evidence to support that claim in court.
Speaker 1: But it's it's it's so laughable on the face. So
Speaker 1: you're like, how can how can three people with with
Speaker 1: a bail fund be be connected to these direct actions
Speaker 1: happening all across the country.
Speaker 2: Well, that's not literally what they're claiming though, right, And
Speaker 2: I think this is this is where we see this
Speaker 2: difference of perspective mattering a lot. The kind of distributed
Speaker 2: network of autonomous solidarity that exists in this in stance
Speaker 2: is something that is totally foreign to people who are
Speaker 2: very used to having hierarchy in their lives. And you know,
Speaker 2: I think I've I've talked about this before, I think
Speaker 2: on this show about the fact that when the far
Speaker 2: right organizes, they organize in ways that are familiar to
Speaker 2: police and prosecutors. Right, they organize in these very martial,
Speaker 2: hierarchical ways where there's a clear chain of command. Now,
Speaker 2: often their chain of command is very silly and involves
Speaker 2: people having titles like dragons and wizards. But it's legible, right,
Speaker 2: It's legible to law enforcement. They understand there's someone in charge,
Speaker 2: and there's someone who answers to the person in charge.
Speaker 2: Having a situation where we have a website that is unmoderated,
Speaker 2: hosted by or supported by some group, and totally open
Speaker 2: is something that I think, you know, police and prosecutors
Speaker 2: might have a little bit of difficulty understanding, right, because
Speaker 2: it's inconceivable to them that there is not a hierarchy,
Speaker 2: that there's not a chain of command. It's like, you know,
Speaker 2: I've actually had to drop footnotes in federal court filings
Speaker 2: to explain to judges and to explain to opposing counsel
Speaker 2: that Antifa is like a set of practices and not
Speaker 2: a membership organization. Yes, right, And that trying to trying
Speaker 2: to address Antifa as though it were an organization is
Speaker 2: similar to trying to address the world of Batman fans, right, Like,
Speaker 2: these are all people who might self identify in some way,
Speaker 2: but you couldn't really identify them as a group, and
Speaker 2: they don't know each other, and they're not so I
Speaker 2: ifying in any way for each other.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, and and as that relates to the no
Speaker 1: Blogs website, like it's they have they have not laid
Speaker 1: out any evidence of who is running this website at
Speaker 1: like who who is, who's operating it, who's hosting the servers, this,
Speaker 1: none of that, None of that information is included in
Speaker 1: the indictment. So the fact that they're trying to tie
Speaker 1: this to Solidarity Fund in some ways is very is
Speaker 1: very bizarre, just because there was like a link on
Speaker 1: this website to donate to the Solidarity Fund, but any
Speaker 1: anyone could put a link there like that's like, I
Speaker 1: I've put links to the to the Solidarity Fund in
Speaker 1: the show notes of this podcast, right, I'm I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm not connected to them in any in any other way.
Speaker 1: So just just having having that be this this kind
Speaker 1: of aspect and even even if somehow Solidarity Fund were
Speaker 1: run running running this whole website, which there's no evidence
Speaker 1: they are, this feels like would also relate to like
Speaker 1: a section two thirty case where people who host content
Speaker 1: are not responsible for the actual like like they're they're
Speaker 1: not like the a super big lot person. But this
Speaker 1: usually applies to like social media sites and other places
Speaker 1: that host user generated content that the actual site itself
Speaker 1: is not responsible for the user generated content that is
Speaker 1: that is that is on the site. So it's anyway,
Speaker 1: there's a whole bunch of you know, various various aspects
Speaker 1: of this claim that don't don't make any sense to me.
Speaker 1: But it's verically that they're trying to wrap all of
Speaker 1: these no blogs posts in because that's the most that's
Speaker 1: most like the evidence they have, which is extremely weak,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's it's in some ways a good
Speaker 1: sign that all they have are these anonymous posts on
Speaker 1: this website with no actual you know, idea of of
Speaker 1: who made them or if they're true or not. But
Speaker 1: that's the kind of that's the that's a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of what we're a lot of what they
Speaker 1: are going off or are just these website posts which.
Speaker 2: A lot of these things. I don't even know if
Speaker 2: they could make them admissible or under what theory, because
Speaker 2: you know, we don't I don't know how they would
Speaker 2: attribute them, right, I mean, look their public statements. I
Speaker 2: suppose they can bring them in just as public statements
Speaker 2: that have been made. But the indictment is a mess,
Speaker 2: and it is full of baffling claims, and unsupported claims
Speaker 2: and claims that are demonstrably untrue. And nevertheless, I am
Speaker 2: concerned that they may get somewhere. I don't know. I
Speaker 2: don't practice in that jurisdiction. I'm not familiar. You know,
Speaker 2: I've never defended a Rico case. Just to be clear,
Speaker 2: you know, my wheelhouse is state repression. This is clearly that.
Speaker 2: But I'm not tremendously familiar with litigating Rico and I'm
Speaker 2: not you know, I would like to have some faith
Speaker 2: in the legal system, but that faith has been worn
Speaker 2: rather thin, and it has particularly been worn thin after watching,
Speaker 2: you know, all of the abuses that have taken place
Speaker 2: in this particular case. So, you know, I am really concerned.
Speaker 2: I'm really concerned about the constitutionality of this statute and
Speaker 2: of the domestic terrorism Statute. I am concerned about what
Speaker 2: will happen in the courts if this proceeds. That said,
Speaker 2: it is entirely possible that this is like many many
Speaker 2: criminal cases that are brought in the context of protest movements.
Speaker 2: It is highly possible that the primary thing motivating these
Speaker 2: cases is an effort to fractionate and drain and distract
Speaker 2: and criminalize in the popular imagination, the movement to stop
Speaker 2: cop City. They may be more interested in doing those
Speaker 2: things than they are in obtaining any convictions or proceeding
Speaker 2: to trial, and they may well succeed. You know, Look,
Speaker 2: prosecution is a very very effective way to undermine movement solidarity,
Speaker 2: and it's a very effective way to undermine popular support,
Speaker 2: and it's a very effective way to make it impossible
Speaker 2: for people to actually focus on their movement goals because
Speaker 2: they have to spend all of their time doing court
Speaker 2: support and hiring lawyers and talking to me. Right when
Speaker 2: you're talking to me, you're probably not doing a lot
Speaker 2: of public education or signature gathering or forest defense, right. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So you know, I guess what I would say is like,
Speaker 2: this is a very clear example of state repression. It
Speaker 2: is extremely disruptive. I'm sure that the people who are
Speaker 2: included on this indictment have good reason to be quite anxious.
Speaker 2: But that said, as I frequently remind people, state repression
Speaker 2: is not new. It exists all of the time, whether
Speaker 2: or not we can see it. Right, even if we
Speaker 2: didn't have this indictment, there would be other things happening,
Speaker 2: and the most powerful weapon that the state has to
Speaker 2: quell social movements is fear. And so the solution to
Speaker 2: state repression is not self censorship, It is not staying home.
Speaker 2: It is courage.
Speaker 1: I think that's one of the more you know, interesting
Speaker 1: things about what's been happening in Atlanta the past two
Speaker 1: years is that every time the state has kind of
Speaker 1: unveiled a new suppression tactic, right, it's whether it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, increased raids and domestic terrorism charges, you know,
Speaker 1: all of this, the solidarity fund raid, you know, trying
Speaker 1: to compromise people's ability to access bail funds. Every time
Speaker 1: there's been this this kind of new attempt, it has
Speaker 1: not caused people to back down. It's caused them to
Speaker 1: actually like strengthen their solidarity with each other and and
Speaker 1: and keep on and keep on going. I think that's
Speaker 1: because all of these things have been seen from the
Speaker 1: start as very clear tactics of state repression. It is
Speaker 1: actually like catalyze people to actually like care for each
Speaker 1: other more and and and and recognize what is going
Speaker 1: on so they can respond appropriately and and and not
Speaker 1: let all of these all of these very like chilling tactics,
Speaker 1: but consciously make sure that you recognize that so that
Speaker 1: you don't let it really, like, you know, affect your
Speaker 1: ability to continue continue doing the work that you feel
Speaker 1: is so important. And that's absolutely been one of the
Speaker 1: things that's been very unique to watch in atlant To.
Speaker 1: I think, uh, I think we've kind of covered lots
Speaker 1: of lots of what I wanted to get into. In
Speaker 1: case you have any other kind of things of note
Speaker 1: or any like, any like resources you want to you
Speaker 1: want to point people towards. I think I think we'll
Speaker 1: be kind of close to wrapping up here.
Speaker 2: I do not do social media, so I have nothing
Speaker 2: to plug. I think the best resources that are out
Speaker 2: there are the Center for Constitutional Rights has a zine
Speaker 2: called if an Agent knox YEP and the Electronic Frontier
Speaker 2: Foundation has a website called Surveillance Self Defense. And I
Speaker 2: would recommend everyone familiarize themselves with both of those things. Uh.
Speaker 2: And for the love of God, in crypt your phone
Speaker 2: and use signal.
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely, I love.
Speaker 2: The things about that indictment that was so that just
Speaker 2: made me roll my eyes until they popped out the
Speaker 2: back of my head. Was this casting of the use
Speaker 2: of encrypted technology as being extremely sinister, and I thought,
Speaker 2: my god, you know, privacy is good.
Speaker 3: Actually and it's literally in the Constitution, like it is
Speaker 3: in fact the case that the government is not entitled
Speaker 3: to all information about us, which is why we have
Speaker 3: curtains and doors.
Speaker 1: Yes, no, there's certainly many, many funny aspects of the
Speaker 1: Reco case. Hopefully, you know, people, this will all, you know,
Speaker 1: turn out to be not very legally viable and in
Speaker 1: ten years we can just laugh about it. But I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, it's people have been talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: the increased possibility for these types of grand juries. You
Speaker 1: know this this this was a grand jury in the
Speaker 1: case of these Reco indictments where they used special Agent
Speaker 1: Ryan Long of the GBI is their only witness.
Speaker 2: I was noticing this. I've thought, my god, you only
Speaker 2: had one witness for all of these allegations. Well, no,
Speaker 2: wonder your indictment reads like it was. All right, Yes,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna stop talking shit about their indictment.
Speaker 1: While recognizing this is say repression, there is still, like
Speaker 1: you know, an ongoing fear of grand juries and like
Speaker 1: further indictess in Atlanta because you have to it's is
Speaker 1: very like life and death work, and this is a
Speaker 1: very life and death situation. So you know, very there's
Speaker 1: very very clear uh practices like like using signal and
Speaker 1: shutting the fuck up, which are very important when you
Speaker 1: know when you're when you when you're doing this sort
Speaker 1: of thing. One other thing is that, uh, for for
Speaker 1: a while to the Solidarity Fund was rated. They were
Speaker 1: not you know, taking in donations, they were outsourcing it
Speaker 1: to the net to the National Bill Fund. I believe
Speaker 1: they are they are back. The Solidarity Fund website is
Speaker 1: now once again taking taking donations to help people who
Speaker 1: are facing this repression, for legal support, for counsel, all
Speaker 1: of all these sorts of things. And because this case
Speaker 1: just keeps on growing, you know, they're they're always kind
Speaker 1: of needing, needing, needing more resources to get people lawyers,
Speaker 1: to get people out of jail, all of these sorts
Speaker 1: of things. So you can you can once again donate
Speaker 1: at the at the at L solidarity dot org site.
Speaker 1: So that is that is also kind of new news
Speaker 1: as of as of the past few, uh few weeks.
Speaker 1: Thank you Moe for for talking about this. Uh, this
Speaker 1: is very very enlightening.
Speaker 2: It's my pleasure. And I guess the last thing I'll
Speaker 2: say is I do as always want to remind all
Speaker 2: of your listeners that there is never ever a compelling
Speaker 2: reason to speak to police or answer their questions before
Speaker 2: you talk to a lawyer. And so if please start
Speaker 2: asking you questions, the one and only thing you need
Speaker 2: to say is I am going to remain silent and
Speaker 2: I want to speak with my attorney. And if they
Speaker 2: knock on your door or call you on the phone,
Speaker 2: you can say, I am represented by counsel. Please leave
Speaker 2: your name and number and my lawyer will call you. Yep.
Speaker 1: You can print up the little sheet that tells you
Speaker 1: what to say, put it, Put it next to your door,
Speaker 1: Join the Join the number of punk houses that have
Speaker 1: that have the sheet next to their next to their
Speaker 1: front door, the amendment sheet.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, well again, thank you, Birah, thank you for listening.
Speaker 1: For everybody. Uh yeah, do not do not talk to cops.
Speaker 1: It could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: coolzonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 1: find sources for It could Happen Here, updated monthly at
Speaker 1: coolzonemedia dot com slash sources, thanks for listening.