Category: Prisons and Policing

  • President Trump’s all-out assault on immigrant communities and the rule of law escalated to new heights when federal agents beat and arrested David Huerta, a prominent labor leader and president of the Service Employees International Union – United Service Workers (West), while Huerta and others were observing an ICE raid in Los Angeles, CA, on June 6. Huerta was released from federal custody, but he is still being charged with felony conspiracy to impede an officer, and the Trump administration continues to ramp up its attacks on immigrants, sanctuary cities, and organized labor. In his first public interview since he was arrested, recorded at the Netroots conference in New Orleans, LA, TRNN editor-in-chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with Huerta about the status of his case and about the roles unions must play in the fight against fascism.

    Guest:

    • David Huerta is a longtime labor leader, born and raised in Los Angeles County, CA, who currently serves as president of the Service Employees International Union – United Service Workers (West) (SEIU-USWW).

    Additional links/info:

    Credits:

    • Filming: Kayla Rivara, Rosette Sewali
    • Post-Production: David Hebden
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    David Huerta:

    Sure. David Huta, president of S-E-I-U-U-S-W-W represent 50,000 workers across the state, janitor, security officers, airport workers, public event workers, and state council president for SEIU in California, which is 750,000 workers across the state, public sector, private sector, healthcare, long-term care, and everything else.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, brother Huerta, thank you so much for sitting down with me here at the Net Roots Conference in New Orleans. I really, really appreciate it and I know that you’ve been going through a lot. Our country’s going through a lot right now, and everyone in the labor movement and so many beyond organized labor felt a collective chill run through our blood. When we watch those videos of ice agents brutalizing you, arresting you, you a prominent labor leader, and then they go a step further and they charge you with conspiracy to impede an officer. And I know you can’t talk too much about that because you’re embroiled in this legal battle now. And I also know that you’re the first person to say that this fight is not about you as an individual. And I want to dig into everything and everyone it is about. But since I have the chance to sit with you here and now, I wanted to just ask if you could remind our viewers and listeners, take us back to that day, remind us of the context of what you were doing, what happened to you, and what you can tell us about where things stand now.

    David Huerta:

    Sure. Well limited on what I can talk about that day. As you’ve mentioned, I’m still in a process and so on the advisement of my legal team, I can’t really go into the details of the incident itself, but I will say that I was there. I have a first amendment to be there

    That day. I remember waking up, the first thing I see is looking at TikTok and stuff and that there was sightings of ice in and around Los Angeles. And up until that point, there had been a lot of false flags, so to speak, with the exception of what we saw in Central Valley. But I know at one point, I remember I walked several weeks before that, walked through downtown Los Angeles because our members told us that there was ice agents around and we didn’t find any. But this day seemed different. It seemed really, really different in that it didn’t longer felt like there was a false flag going on. And by the time I made it to my office that morning, I remember we were having a training with our members and our staff because we’re gearing up for different contract campaigns. And there was a lot of activity that we were in front of a highway patrol office, our offices, and saw a lot of street activity. And we were embroiled in a fight that morning or that day as part of the referendum against for the $30 minimum wage that we passed for the tourism workers in Los Angeles. And they were fighting, I guess. So technically I wasn’t supposed to be there.

    I was supposed to be somewhere else, but I was asked if I could be there because they needed support. And there was a raid that if I could confirm one was it happening and two, if I could help. And so I said yes. I didn’t think twice. I figured I’ll be there and then I’ll go to my second destination, the destination I was supposed to be at. And when I arrived, I think you can see it in the video, it was a full on operation. And I will say, I think for me, what really triggered my emotion that day was just seeing this young girl just crying because she knew her father was inside. And I just really felt how hopeless she probably felt in that moment in time. And I think that just that sense kind of transferred to me a little bit in that sense of, and something just told me that this was going to be, again, I can’t talk into the details of that day and hopefully someday I will be able to talk about it more freely and hopefully I’ll have my day in court to talk about it freely.

    But I just felt like this was a moment of taking a stand and I didn’t really think it out. It wasn’t like something that I went with any intention, but I felt as if somehow this was starting something much bigger. And so when I said, this is not about me, it’s about what’s happening, it was really because I don’t think the focus should be on me. The focus should be on what is actually happening, what is really being with the intention of what’s happening, and let’s focus on that.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, let’s talk about that, and I want to get real here and talk to you about this not just as David Huta labor leader, but as two Chicanos from Southern California, two brown kids from the same place. You grew up in la I grew up in Orange County, and we’ve watched so much of our home change so quickly. I wanted to ask if you could just communicate for folks who don’t live there, what is actually happening back home and is this the America that you grew up in? What is happening right now?

    David Huerta:

    Well, I’ll say this, LA is my America. LA is, LA for me is probably one of the best cities. It is a point of people can say anything they want about la,

    But we’ve seen it all. Man, I grew up in the unincorporated territory, valley County called West Whittier, born in East la, very typical Chicano family story. But what Los Angeles for me represents is really it’s home. It represents a place that a point of origin and a point of departure, so to speak, both. It’s where culture is vibrant, language is vibrant, everything is really, it’s a place that, and it’s a very working class city. A lot of people probably see the glamor of la. I always see the grid of la and when I always say when I was growing up, my father was a teamster. His jobs were right around Washington Boulevard and City of Commerce where all the trucking outfits used to be at. And it always has been a very worker oriented place. And so when I see, when we saw what happened or is happening in Los Angeles, I don’t think they’re done with this yet. I don’t think they’re done with this country yet in the sense of what they’re trying to do. But what I saw is what happened on June 6th at that garment facility is people taking a stand and people defending their community, defending their families, defending their casinos, and defending who they are. For me, that’s the most important thing, right? Because too often we’re kind of like, we’re not considered American, we’re hyphenated.

    So for me, it’s sort of like this is our response back to those who want to erase us, who want to deny us, and you can’t deny us anymore and we’re going to defend him. We’re going to fight,

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And we’ve got a real fight on our hands. I was just back home filming for The Real News in Pasadena Santa Ana, like 10 minutes from where my folks live. I’m interviewing the son of Narciso Barranco, a man who’s worked here for 30 years and was working as a landscaper in front of an ihop. And he just gets sworn by these mast unidentified armed thugs who beat the shit out of him in the middle of an intersection and disappear ’em in a van.

    And this is happening all over the place. I went to food drives that are for immigrant families that can’t leave their homes and haven’t left in weeks. The parks are empty, the food trucks are gone. There’s a real terror gripping the neighborhoods I grew up in. But like you said, also seeing a lot of grassroots resistance from folks who are done waiting on the Democratic party, they’re done waiting on local governments, even official unions. They’re saying, we’re going to band together and do this ourselves. And I wanted to ask where the labor movement and where unions need to be in that fight and what the labor movement can do to really help empower people in this fight against authoritarianism.

    David Huerta:

    Well, look, I think as a labor person, as somebody who spent his last 29 years organizing in community organizing, basically immigrant workers and black workers, right? Because the beauty of my organization is that it was, I think about 15 years ago, we engaged in one of the largest organizing efforts to organize black workers and security officers in a really long time. And so our organization, I think is what’s possible, right? Especially in Los Angeles where we can’t deny there’s been tension between black and brown communities in the past. But I think it’s also how do we build those bridges between our communities, but allowing our communities to show up as who they are is very important. And we’ve played as a labor union, we played a role in creating that environment for our members. I think this moment in time though also calls for labor to really weigh in.

    They have to lean in, man. It’s like we have to be part of, we have something that’s unique. We have resources, we have facilities, we have rank and file members, we have standing organization. All of those things make us a catalyst right now in creating something. And I think the one thing that we can do, because I think how we’re going to fix this or not fix this, there’s no fixing this. We got to organize this. It is we’re going to have to create disruption, non-cooperation, figure out how we are really destabilizing, so to speak. What is this authoritarianism, right? But labor, I think plays a central role in significantly different role in that labor disruption. How can we build the rank and file power? How can we build within work organization to really build towards mass disruption? And how do we lean into that disruption? And I firmly believe, I think if there is going to be a disruption, it’s going to start with service workers. Those service workers are the ones who are on the crossroads of this organization because those are the places where the predominantly black and brown workers are

    Speaker 3:

    At.

    David Huerta:

    And so that’s, in my opinion, it’s the workforces that represent those workers. They’re going to be a catalyst and change. And so when I look at S-E-I-U-S-E-I-U is all predominantly, we’re the long-term care workers, we’re the healthcare workers, we’re the janitors, we’re the security officers. We are that service workforce that if we lock arms with other service workers like hotel workers, farm workers, if we’re able to really galvanize and move, it’s going to be that workforce that’s really, in my opinion, can really create the disruption big enough or the crisis big enough to make the change that we need.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And I know you got to head out of here in a sec and catch a plane, and I really appreciate this time with you, man. I wanted to kind of build on that last point and ask that, sorry, I mean in the administration and the people who support it, they understand the threat that unions and organized labor pose to their agenda. I mean, Donald Trump is now rescinding collective bargaining rights for federal unions and agencies across the board. They went after you, they’re going after labor leaders. And so I guess the blunt question is why do fascists hate unions so much? And what role must organize labor play in the fight against fascism and the fight for something better for working people?

    David Huerta:

    Yeah. Look, I think we’re the one part of our economy and our society where we have the collective power to make change. And a fascist authoritarian government like we’ve seen right now is going to try to dismantle that so they have the power to be imposed. Look, I think right now we’re going from a billionaire class to the trillionaire class. We’re not very far from that. The sad thing is that’ll probably be celebrated. It’s like we’re going to celebrate somebody’s wealth that comes at the cost of working people. I think the fear is that if labor does their job right as we should, we can grow a class consciousness. We can make people understand that the wealth that’s being accumulated, the wealth that’s being generated, the wealth that’s being centralized into the hands of a few at the cost of many have the power to change something.

    And I think that, and that’s why I keep telling when I said it today, I tell my members all the time, you have the power. You have power in your hands because your hands are the labor that makes this economy function. And the same way how you give that power, you can withhold that power as well. And so I think it should not be lost on these guys why they’ve been over the last 40 years have been pounding on labor. That’s why we were at such small numbers that we are now, back in the day of my father’s generation, labor was, they were power. They had the ability to be able to, my father was able to raise two children on one income. Tell me where that happens. Nowadays, it doesn’t happen. And not loading and loading the truck, it surely does not happen.

    I think what is possible is what scares them. I think what is possible is what should motivate us. I think that’s what we have to remind ourselves, that when we build that power across our differences, white, black, brown language, gender, all these different differences we have, it doesn’t mean I have to change who I am. It means I get to show up as who I am and respect each other’s difference and get into a space where through that difference, we can build power and really show up as a Chicano show up as black people show up as white people show up as who you are. And let’s build that power. Because I firmly believe, and I still believe in this democracy, I haven’t given up on it yet, and my father fought for it. I have uncles who fought for it, my brother, and so I haven’t given up on it yet.

    None of us should give up on it. And like I said, the flaw in MAGA is that they think somehow the greatness of this country is in its past. And I really think the greatness of this country is still in its future. And so these are the things that, for me, I hope that as working people should motivate us, should inspire us, and should really put us in a space where we can make a better quality of life for working people and not allow the trillionaires to determine our destiny. But we should determine that for ourselves.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Aug. 14, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    More than 100 protesters gathered late Wednesday at a checkpoint set up by a combination of local and federal officers on a popular street in Washington, D.C., where U.S. President Donald Trump has taken over the police force and deployed around 800 National Guard members as part of what he hopes will be a long-term occupation of the country’s capital—and potentially other major cities.

    The officers at the Wednesday night checkpoint reportedly included agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is also taking part in immigration raids in the city. Some agents were wearing face coverings to conceal their identities.

    After law enforcement agents established the checkpoint on 14th Street, protesters gathered and jeered the officers, chanting “get off our streets” and “go home fascists.” Some demonstrators yelled at the agents standing at the checkpoint, while others warned oncoming drivers to turn to avoid the police installation.

    There was no officially stated purpose for the checkpoint, but it came amid the Trump administration’s lawless mass deportation campaign and its broader threats to deploy U.S. troops on the streets of American cities to crush dissent.

    At least one person, a Black woman, was arrested at Wednesday’s checkpoint. One D.C. resident posted to Reddit that agents were “pulling people out of cars who are ‘suspicious’ or if they don’t like the answers to their questions.” The Washington Post reported that a “mix of local and federal authorities pulled over drivers for seat belt violations or broken taillights.”

    The National Guard troops activated by Trump this week were not seen at the checkpoint, which shut down before midnight.

    Wednesday night’s protests are expected to be just the start as public anger mounts over Trump’s authoritarian actions in the nation’s capital—where violent crime fell to a 30-year low last year—and across the country.

    Radley Balko, a journalist who has documented the growing militarization of U.S. police, wrote earlier this week that “the motivation for Donald Trump’s plan to ‘federalize’ Washington, D.C., is same as his motivation for sending active-duty troops into Los Angelesdeporting people to the CECOT torture prison in El Salvador, his politicization of the Department of Justice, and nearly every other authoritarian overreach of the last six months: He is testing the limits of his power—and, by extension, of our democracy.”

    “He’s feeling out what the Supreme Court, Congress, and the public will let him get away with. And so far, he’s been able to do what he pleases,” Balko wrote. “We are now past the point of crisis. Trump has long dreamed of presiding over a police state. He has openly admired and been reluctant to criticize foreign leaders who helm one. He has now appointed people who have expressed their willingness to help him achieve one to the very positions with the power to make one happen. And both he and his highest-ranking advisers have both openly spoken about and written out their plans to implement one.”

    “It’s time to believe them,” Balko added.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • When police kill someone, state medical examiners have an outsized influence in determining the final cause of death—and whether or not cops can be charged or held accountable for the killing. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa speaks with fellow TRNN reporters Stephen Janis and Taya Graham about their years of investigating Dr. David Fowler, former Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Maryland, and the families of people killed by police that were denied justice because of Dr. Fowler’s malpractices.

    Speakers:

    • Stephen Janis is an award-winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. He is the co-host and producer of Police Accountability Report and Inequality Watch at The Real News Network.
    • Taya Graham is an award-winning investigative reporter covering US politics, local government, and the criminal justice system. She is the co-host and producer of Police Accountability Report and Inequality Watch at The Real News Network.

    Additional links/info:

    Credits:

    • Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Imagine this: that you are on trial and the principal witness against you is getting ready to be certified as an expert witness, to be certified as an expert witness. Your body of work is going to be examined, and then at some point in time, the prosecutor going to say, your Honor, I move to this person. Be certified as an expert witness to give a testimony along these lines. And then the jury hears this and the jury, because of you being certified as an expert witness, believes this person to have the voice of God. But then you later on find out that this person not only was not an expert, but was an expert in lying. Joining me today is Stephen Janis and Taya Graham, two of my colleagues at The Real News, introduce y’all ourselves to the Real News audience or really the Rattling the Bars audience.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. My name is Stephen Janis. I’m a reporter, investigative reporter at The Real News. I host the Police Accountability Report and the Inequality Watch Show here.

    Taya Graham:

    Hi, I’m Taya Graham. I’m a reporter here at the Real News Network, an investigative reporter criminal justice system is my primary beat. I co-host the police accountability report with Steven, and I’m also the co-host of the Inequality Watch, which is a government accountability report.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay, so in the article written by y’all published on May 15th, 2025, y’all examined the audit fines, dozens of police custody, death in Maryland should have been ruled homicide. And this is relation, as I open up about the expert, talk about this particular expert

    Stephen Janis:

    And

    Mansa Musa:

    What went on with that.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, Dr. David Fowler was the chief medical examiner for the state of Maryland from I think roughly 2002 to 2019, which meant he had the final say on almost all suspicious deaths in terms of what the manner of death would be. So the manner of death is the way you classify death in, there’s five categories. There’s homicide, accent, natural causes, and suicide. And the last one is undetermined. So if Dr. Fowler at that point and during any of that period of time had a case come in and rule it, let’s say an accident rather than a homicide, well, police can’t really do much because you can’t prosecute a case that’s

    Mansa Musa:

    Right,

    Stephen Janis:

    So, the medical examiner has an oversized influence on the outcome of cases in terms of criminality. Now, during that period of time, Dr. Fowler was very liberal in the way he ruled on police involved deaths. Deaths where police were the cause of death, or a person died in police custody. And we had written extensively about this, and he tended to rule in favor of the police. For example, the case of Anton Black, a 19-year-old young man who was killed on the Easter shore after he was chased by police to his mom’s home, and they sat on top of him. And Dr. Fowler ruled that death, I think it was undetermined or accident, an accident. And so the police couldn’t be prosecuted. So we would write about extensively. We would get outside experts to say, this guy’s not a credible person. His science is incredible. He used things like excited delirium, totally discredited theory of why people would die after a taser. So anyway, we didn’t writing about this fear, and I have been reported on it, and no one did anything in Maryland. They letting him off the hook. So one day he testifies in the trial, if you all probably remember the Derek Chauvin trial.

    Derek Chauvin was a police officer who sat on George Floyd’s necks and killed him. And he testified that George Floyd did not die because of the positional asphyxiation or the downward pressure on his neck that instead he died because of the tailpipe and a drug overdose. So the scientific community went crazy, and 450 doctors wrote a letter and said that Dr. Fowler should be investigated. So the Attorney General’s office investigated 87 cases of police involved restraint and looked at them and said, did Dr. Fowler rule correctly? And they concluded he did not. They concluded that unanimously concluded, I believe in 36 or 37 cases that Dr. Fowler incorrectly ruled, which is profound because all those police officers could not be investigated, right, Teo?

    Taya Graham:

    Absolutely. And I don’t think it can be underestimated. Essentially the corruption in Dr. Fowler’s office. Come on. Steven mentioned the case of Anton Black, a 19-year-old track star who came home to visit his mother after walking the catwalk in New York Fashion Week, he had just gotten his first small part in a movie. This young man was about to have an incredible life front of him.

    Speaker 4:

    He

    Taya Graham:

    Ends up being chased home by three police officers. They lay on top of him. He’s on just the front steps of his mother’s house, and she’s watching him turn blue. She’s watching her child turn blue right in front of her. Now, what’s amazing is that the officers were actually allowed into the room while the autopsy was being done. One of the things they listed as a contributing cause of death was that Anton had bipolar disorder. So it was as if the fact that they attempted to tase him that he had three grown men on top of him that had nothing to do with his death. Instead, he had bipolar disorder and a heart abnormality. This was a perfectly healthy 19-year-old boy. And it’s deaths like that, that Dr. Fowler would rule accidental and undetermined, making sure that the family could have no chance at justice because there was no way legally to move forward with an investigation.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay, let’s unpack this then, because okay, this is already abuse at the highest level.

    Speaker 4:

    Why

    Mansa Musa:

    Did it take the medical community

    Speaker 4:

    So

    Mansa Musa:

    Long to weigh in? Because now I’m going to give you an example. I had a knee replacement and they put it in wrong. So when I get out, the doctor that examined me took x-rays on both my knees, asked which knee I wanted to get replaced, and I said, one of ’em has already been replaced. So he told me, show me where the one was put in wrong. So then I asked, I said, look, can I get something from you to help me pursue this? And he was reluctant. So I’m asking you why did it take the medical community to got to this point where Freddie Gray, where you can’t ignore it, but all other cases it’s still got the same ominous kind of situation. Oh, this person fell out, fell down. It wasn’t me, my knee on his neck that killed him. It was the fact that he fell and hit his head. He asthmatic.

    Taya Graham:

    I don’t know if Steven would agree with me here, but I think the media played a role in Dr. Fowler’s crimes. And I am saying

    Speaker 4:

    Crimes

    Taya Graham:

    Not being acknowledged. Steven, for years, he was a lone voice reporting on the medical examiner’s office, for example, he did an in-depth investigation on a number of black women who died in Baltimore city whose deaths were not investigated. And yet when you looked at the autopsy report, there was evidence of blunt trauma evidence, asphyxiation evidence that perhaps they had been strangled evidence that they had been experienced sexual assault,

    And yet their deaths were ruled undetermined. And you would ask, why would you rule a death like that undetermined? Well, as you know, in Baltimore City, political careers are made on whether or not the homicide rate drops. So by taking these women’s deaths and sliding them into the pile of undetermined, these are women who might’ve had histories of solicitation, drug addiction, et cetera, and they go ahead and they slide their bodies into the undetermined category and the homicide rate is artificially dropped. And so I do think that there’s an area of politics here, and that the larger media ecosystem refused to acknowledge that the medical examiner’s office was absolutely essential in protecting the police department. And Steven was one of the few reporters that called that out.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, I mean, I think science is very good at serving injustice.

    Mansa Musa:

    Come on.

    Stephen Janis:

    And justice and authoritarianism and science can craft narratives that people will believe despite the evidence. And I think that’s one of the things that we saw with the propaganda of science that Dr. Fowler utilized. Because for example, for years he used excited delirium as a cause of death in police custody and taser death, or even in just police restraints. And excited delirium is just a fiction. It’s a total. So I confronted him on this one time down at the medical examiner’s office. I said, Dr. Fowler, what the hell is excited delirium? And he handed me a book. He gave me a book to read too. So I went home and I read it, and it recounted a condition in 18th century San Asylums where patients would suddenly start to freak out and two weeks later just collapse and die. And that was the entire basis of there was no scientific evidence, just like blood spatter. There’s no scientific

    Speaker 4:

    Evidence,

    Stephen Janis:

    Just like hair follicles. There’s no scientific evidence. None of these are supportable. But what are they used for? They’re used for generally in service of our fascist and authoritarian impulses in this country to believe police out of fear, to believe an authoritarian infrastructure that resides in most of these cities. In terms of policing and the medical examiner, Dr. Fowl played a very critical role. As T said, they were cited in this audit for being too cozy with police. They’re supposed to be an objective agency that doesn’t, I mean, they listen to police, but they’re not supposed to be influenced by police. And one of the things that came out is they were constantly influenced by police. So when you let an authoritarian infrastructure infiltrate government, then things like signs tend to become propaganda, not science at all.

    Mansa Musa:

    And to your point, as I open up one thing in criminal cases, the first thing they do is certify ’em as an expert witness.

    Stephen Janis:

    Exactly.

    Mansa Musa:

    And then that gives them this glow of, my word is law. And then when you come and say, bring someone in the counter that, because in most cases you’ll bring somebody in the counter. But in this case, when he’s testifying on behalf of the state and saying, undetermined, cause then there’s no way. There’s no way that

    Stephen Janis:

    To counter it, to counter it.

    Mansa Musa:

    So they get a pass.

    Stephen Janis:

    Think about this. I mean, why would he be called to testify on behalf of Derek Chauvin, the most notorious cop in the history of this

    Mansa Musa:

    Country?

    Stephen Janis:

    Why would he be Who call? Why would you call Dr. David Fowlers specifically? Well, that’s because he was known to work with police and known to be so the science propagandist for police. So of course they would call him. I think the thing that you talk about that why did it take so long? It was just because in that particular instance, his ruling or his assertions were so proably false and so prove ignorant. We all saw with our own eyes, George Floyd died under the knee of Derek Chauvin, and here is this man who has the gall to testify in front of the country, in front of the entire nation that he died because of a tailpipe. I mean, so that showed the world everything that we had been saying for years. And unfortunately it took 19 years for that to happen.

    Mansa Musa:

    My question is why is it that the prosecutors office across the state or wherever this person insert itself in? So I’m going to give you a case. In that point, federal government had an expert witness that was dealing with hair follicle. And to come to find out he didn’t know nothing about hair, hair at all, but the Justice Department got involved. And everybody that whose Casey testified in, they told him, the Justice Department said, listen, if this person testified in your client’s case, filed for a motion for a new trial, because they couldn’t justify his blatant behavior. So why is it that the prosecutors continue to use this guy in defendant’s case, knowing that he perpetuating a lie?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, I mean, remember the state went through some reforms separating police investigations from local prosecutors because prosecutors were found to be biased and compromised by police as well. So I don’t think te there was any incentive really for prosecutors to divorce themselves from Fowler. Right,

    Taya Graham:

    Right. I mean unfortunately when you have prosecutors and police and the medical examiner’s office, unfortunately they’re just too cozy. They all work together. So honestly, these prosecutors, in a lot of cases, not all of them, but they really can’t see straight, they can’t divorce themselves

    Stephen Janis:

    From

    Taya Graham:

    The relationship that they’ve established with these people over the years.

    Stephen Janis:

    I mean, in fact, we talked to Dwight Petitt when we were doing our investigation and he was talking about in the case of Tyron West where police, where the medical examiner would not rule at a homicide, even though it was like people witnessed Tyre West getting beaten to the ground for 45 minutes. And he said, I’ll never forget this. We were interviewing and he goes, police, were in the autopsy room telling the medical examiners what to think. Now that’s not supposed to happen. Police are supposed to give their investigative report, but the medical examiner is supposed to be an independent body. And as it shows, once you allow the power of policing, which Baltimore, if nothing has been ruled by police for decades, once you let the power of the policing infiltrate all your institutions, those institutions are ultimately corrupted by the authoritarian impulse of American policing.

    Mansa Musa:

    So do you feel exonerated now? I mean, I know you like somewhere on the Bible screaming in the wild saying, listen man, this is corrupt. I’m telling you it’s corrupt people losing their lives.

    Stephen Janis:

    I will feel better once the police cases, the 27 cases that Mount side medical examiners unanimously ruled, we’re wrongly determined and we’re homicides. I will feel better once those homicides are investigated and in cases where it’s warranted, prosecuted. And we’re also writing a very long story about some of the cases, like you said, that were looked like murders, but he didn’t rule correctly. I will feel better when those cases are reopened. So I would like to see justice for the people who deserve it and then I’ll feel a little bit better at this point. For me, it’s just I am gratified that the world woke up. I dunno, how do

    Taya Graham:

    You feel? I mean, I’m also really grateful that he was exposed in front of the entire nation for everyone to see. I mean, this is the same medical office that when we were doing a podcast where we were discussing some of these cases that were ruled as undetermined or accidental and were very suspicious, the press information officer tried to get us fired for the medical examiners, for the medical examiner’s office, tried to get us fired, called the management and said, you should take their podcast off the air. So the medical examiner’s office reached out to attack us for doing this

    Speaker 4:

    Journalism.

    Taya Graham:

    So we were both out there trying to let the public know what was going on. We had people coming to us. One person that we spoke to, Tyra McClary daughter, I spoke to her. This was a woman who was found in an alley partially disrobed covered by debris. And there was a

    Stephen Janis:

    Plastic bag tied around her

    Taya Graham:

    Ankles, right? There’s a plastic bag tied around her ankles. And there was evidence she had particular hemorrhaging. So there’s evidence that she had been perhaps strangled and he, because she had a little bit of drugs in her system, decided to rule it undetermined that he couldn’t be absolutely certain what the cause of death was. Well, her family has, all they’ve ever wanted was an investigation. All they’ve ever wanted was to know that our city cared enough to investigate her death because as her sister said, they tried to sweep her under the rug like trash. They didn’t care about her life. So if they open up cases like that, if they can actually do an investigation. So families like that can get some consolation, I think then will feel vindicated.

    Speaker 4:

    Yeah.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I think that that’s right there where we want be at because we talking about human beings and what we think, it’s always got to be a human factor associated with this. And the family members deserve the right to know what happened with their family

    Speaker 4:

    Members. I agree.

    Mansa Musa:

    And more importantly, I think when we look at this, how this plays out, everybody is involved, the city’s involved because you’re trying to control the crime narrative. So you looked up away because in your mind I’m saying crime is down now how is it down? We manufacturing these numbers then I’m looking the other way when I see this psychopath making these examinations and saying, oh, cause of death, undetermined, somebody threw ’em off the roof and say, oh, the person had some drugs in. So they just jumped off. And everybody in their mind saying, well nah, that’s not that person. You don’t do the investigative thing.

    Speaker 4:

    And

    Mansa Musa:

    Then we are left with a situation. How do we trust this particular institution when the police is involved? The institution plan two, which lead me to my next

    Speaker 4:

    Thing

    Mansa Musa:

    Where y’all had did a report on John Hopkins, professor say, America’s dissent into authoritarianism have started with policing in blue cities. If that’s true, we are in big trouble. So look, so we can see this as a continuum because absolutely they’re connected. These entities,

    Stephen Janis:

    They’re totally connected.

    Mansa Musa:

    They totally connected, right? And they totally connected to the big narrative. But talk about, and when I was looking at this particular article, and I really commend y’all on y’all vision in terms of how y’all get in the weeds and flush ’em out. So it’s not a matter of if somebody confronts you, it’s a matter of like, you will give me the information to contradict this particular, it’s not my opinion. Give me the information to contradict this statement of facts. And so in this case, you got a John Hopkins professor saying, we in big trouble talk about that.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, we were interviewing Lester Spence, who’s a political scientist from Johns Hopkins University during our making a documentary, Freddie Gray, 10 Years, a struggle about the Freddie Gray Anniversary. And he said something that struck both of us, I think, which was that because blue cities are incubators of progressive ideas because people here tend to be more liberal and want to see more progress, think about the great American progressive era in Chicago or New York or Baltimore, even with civil rights,

    All these things come here. Because of that, the use of authoritarian policing in these cities has diminished the democratic impulse of this country. It’s like we have taken the most progressive people in this country and we quashed them from dissent with policing. And it struck me so hard because for many years I had watched zero tolerance and Taylor will talk about zero tolerance, but I had watched authoritarian policing and I never thought about it in terms of the implications we have for the rest of the country politically. And that’s why we decided to kind of take that idea a little bit further and say,

    Huh, how does this play out? And there were several facets. There were two facets that we thought about. And then Taylor, we’ll talk about zero tolerance. Number one was that the more you arrest people, the more you take away their constitutional rights, the less politically active they become, the less likely they are to vote, the less likely they’re to participate. That’s the first. And the second is that this use overuse of policing failed. It failed, it did not do anything. It made everything worse. You know better than anyone how an arrest uproot someone’s life, totally disengaged ’em from the political system and disengaged ’em from the economic

    Speaker 4:

    System.

    Stephen Janis:

    So what it ended up doing was creating these blue cities that looked like failures and the Democrats and the Republicans were able to take that narrative and create this idea of liberal failure, that progressive policies are ultimately failure. So that’s what really struck me. And of course, and take and talk about this, but number one, zero tolerance and of course what we’re seeing now. So if you want to talk about that a little

    Taya Graham:

    Bit, well, zero tolerance policing, what Stephen was talking about

    Stephen Janis:

    In Baltimore

    Taya Graham:

    And what he’s talking about is political efficacy, which is when you have an interaction with law enforcement that there’s research that shows that when you have a negative interaction with law enforcement, you are less likely to vote. You’re less likely to believe that your voice will be heard. You’re less likely to believe you can influence your government. So when our city experienced zero tolerance policing, which occurred from about 2000 to 2007, where roughly 100,000 Baltimore residents were arrested per year. Now this is a city of 600,000 people. So think about it, 100,000 residents were arrested per year. Now of course there were a few repeat arrests in there, but that’s an incredible number of people arrested. But what were they arrested for? Nuisance crimes, quality of life crimes. And I went through hundreds, hundreds of statements of probable cause. And I can tell you I saw with my own eyes, expectorating spitting on a sidewalk was a reason that someone would be taken down to central booking loitering. So what that can mean is you’re standing with your friends on the corner, a cop says move, and you don’t move fast enough. You’re taken in, you’re sitting your own stoop of your house with an open container taken in. Okay? So for all these reasons, people were being taken in. And that’s based off of that broken windows theory of policing where

    If you take care of these nuisance crimes, it’ll help take care of the bigger ones in your neighborhood. Well, all it did was criminalize an entire population as well as take away their political efficacy.

    Stephen Janis:

    Okay, go ahead. Sorry. Ahead. Do you want to finish?

    Taya Graham:

    So in relation to taking away your ability to feel like you can influence your government, you have an entire generation of young people who have been harassed, who have seen their civil rights violated, who’ve seen their constitutional rights violated on a daily basis. You have disempowered an entire community and it’s hard to believe that’s not purposeful.

    Mansa Musa:

    And they become apathetic. They be like, man, why would I do something? If I say something, they going to lock me up. If I

    Speaker 4:

    Roll

    Mansa Musa:

    My eyes, they’re going to lock me up. If I shuffle my feet, they’re going to lock me up. So stop from being locked up. I’m not going to do nothing.

    Stephen Janis:

    It was also very a constitutionally aggressive. And there are more examples. There was a training called Diamond training, which was literally the brochure. This was in the 2000 tens, was training Baltimore police officers, was supposed to be things learned in the streets of Fallujah. And they trained Baltimore police officers. They used Eric Reon Reon, he’s a discredited politician who was also a Navy seal. And he came in and he trained officers to be militarily aggressive. And that led to something called Visa Violent Impact Crimes Division, which was a group of 80 officers not tied to any district dressed in jeans going around and just the idea was to disrupt. But of course the idea was to impose an unconstitutional regime and order on the neighborhoods that they destroyed. I mean, they really did. They would come in, I would do stories where they just ransacked the whole neighborhood, arrested everybody, threw people around. This was going on in a democratic, allegedly democratic city. And we used to confront the city solicitor about it. And we would say jokingly, well, the Constitution doesn’t imply in Baltimore. And he would just smirk

    Mansa Musa:

    Because

    Stephen Janis:

    I think they felt like anything was justified. And so this set the roots of authoritarians in this country. Go ahead.

    Mansa Musa:

    And other part of it is this is like a continuum of what has been going on forever because we had no knock laws and blue cities. We had stop and frisk.

    Stephen Janis:

    Absolutely.

    Mansa Musa:

    And we was talking about this, you had the shotgun squad in Baltimore jump out, boys jump out boys in DC they had the same thing where, so this attitude,

    Stephen Janis:

    Gun trace, task force, gun

    Mansa Musa:

    Trace, yeah. Attitude. It goes on and on and on. And they reinvent and they redefined.

    Stephen Janis:

    Let me give you a perfect example. When I was reporting on Zeto in the s, I got a list of quotas that police officers had. They had quotas for arrests, they had to make a certain number of arrests regardless of if someone broke the law. Well, now what are we hearing now that federal immigration officers have quotas?

    Mansa Musa:

    Right?

    Stephen Janis:

    Right. It’s very similar and parallel. Unfortunately, it happened in a place that is most likely to push back against authoritarians became subject to it.

    Mansa Musa:

    And as we see now, to juxtapose that to what we see today, we see right today that now the first thing that president did, and he made a speech at the Justice Department, he recogniz the Justice Department.

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s true.

    Mansa Musa:

    He said, yeah, look, I’ll pity deal with Pam because we getting ready to unleash the line. And right after that, now we find ourselves that any type of dissent, any type of descent, it could be no more than holding up a sign saying Impeach trumps. Under any given circumstance, you can find yourself locked up. But more importantly, we’ve seen the situation in California with the state Senator and where voting on your budget, we’re responsible for regulating your behavior.

    Speaker 4:

    We arrest

    Stephen Janis:

    You.

    Mansa Musa:

    You don’t give me the common decency. Come forward and let me hear what you got to say. You say arrest them, get ’em out, and then come back and say, anybody would know that that was out of order. With that person did.

    Stephen Janis:

    Let me give you the most important point of why blue cities are so important and how they prove progressive policies despite the fact that this authoritarian impulse, which of course was imposed by a political regime that wanted to bolster tax breaks for developers and gentrification, all sort of stuff. But this year Baltimore’s homicide is down significantly as it is across the country, and most people are giving credit for that to community-based programs, not police. While this is happening, the Baltimore Police Department is down between five to a thousand officers, in other words, at historic low staffing level. So less policing, less crime, less crime, community programs, less crime, less crime. And these all things like safe streets started in places like Baltimore in blue cities, and yet they have proven to be more effective. So that’s why I think it’s so important for the Trump administration feels like it’s so important to attack blue cities because here we are open to progressive ideas and that’s the last thing he wants.

    Mansa Musa:

    And to go back to your point, you can pick up from this, go back to your point where the impact that it has on the psychic of the population, because if you attack of Blue city, which is progressive and have the potential to do progressive things, that’s going to become the standard across the country. If I can attack that thinking, if I can get people to become apathetic, if I can get people to become fearful, then now I can come in and say, well, crime is up, carjacking is up. I’m your savior, I’m doing this for you. But now you know it ain’t for you, but I’ve been beat down so much psychologically I don’t care. I say, well, long as they ain’t come and knock my door down, I don’t care. I know ain’t nobody carjacking. I know this neighborhood is safe, but I don’t have they done beat me down psychologically. Talk about that.

    Taya Graham:

    This is something that is really important for people to understand. The Trump administration is purposefully attacking progressive cities. The arrest of Senator Alex Padilla, that was no accident that occurred that that man was taken out of that meeting with Christie Nome, that he was forced face down on the floor, forced to have his hands behind his back and put in cuffs. That was a message loud and clear to the rest of the country to let you know that any form of dissent, even a senator can be arrested and cuffed and have his rights taken away. We saw the mayor of New York Baraka when he was simply trying to take a look at one of the detention centers in his city,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right? He was mandated,

    Taya Graham:

    Right? He was simply doing proper oversight. He was arrested, representative vers, she was charged with resisting arrest interference and the charges, these are federal charges against her. They actually carry one to eight years as actual sentences. Representative McIver is facing this. So this is very purposeful to tell the public that if this can be done to a mayor, if this can be done to a senator, we’ve seen members of the media detained. We’ve seen members of the media. I don’t know if people saw that video of that Australian reporter where you saw, and this was during the LA protest against the raids of ice. And she’s standing there talking, it’s obvious she’s a reporter, has a big blue microphone, and you see a police officer turn around behind her and shoot her right in the back of the leg. You can see it clear as day. It was purposeful. There’s no other way. There’s no way to describe it. And that was a message to the American people. Just lock your doors, stay home and don’t speak up.

    Stephen Janis:

    How you were talking about why did people know about Dr. Fowler and his bad science? Well, similarly, Baltimore had unconstitutional racist policing for decades. But you know how we finally found out about it and was certain about it was because a bunch of people in Baltimore rose up and had the uprising and the uprising brought such attention to Baltimore and also the people not comprising and saying, we’re not going to take this anymore. That the Justice Department came in, did an investigation and found that we had unconstitutional policing. Now Tay and I knew this and we had reported on it, but the people of Baltimore rose up and some people look at the uprising and say, oh, it was a riot. No, it was an uprising of democratically conscious people who didn’t want to live under the regime of fascist policing anymore. And they show the world and then the world listen, and now we have all these reforms and now we have lower crime.

    Mansa Musa:

    You know what? And crazy part about, for the people that don’t know about the history of Baltimore, all the figureheads, Bishop Robinson Black, everybody that was in authority in terms of the police, you would never think, oh, racist police. But they was complicit

    Stephen Janis:

    Absolutely

    Mansa Musa:

    With that. But talk about the connection between, because this is interesting, and I think our orders really need to understand this, the blue cities and sanctuary cities, because most of the sanctuary cities are blue

    Speaker 4:

    Cities.

    Mansa Musa:

    Talk about that because you said that they’re intentionally targeting blue cities. But to give our audience an understanding what a blue city look like and why when we say a blue city, what that is,

    Speaker 4:

    Because

    Mansa Musa:

    Most people might think otherwise, oh, sanctuary city people got same-sex merge anywhere. Anything that’s progressive in terms of supporting the populace and adhering to the descent or the views of the

    Speaker 4:

    Population.

    Mansa Musa:

    If you not that then you rock robotics. So talk about that.

    Taya Graham:

    The one thing I would say, I know Steven has a really interesting theory behind this of the authoritarian impulse of the Trump administration, but the one thing I’d say is one of the reasons why they’re attacking these progressive cities and the ice raids are happening in la, San Diego, Denver, Austin, Texas, Chicago. Why these raids are happening in these cities is very purposeful. It’s because it’s in these progressive cities where we are most likely to push back. We are the ones who stand up for constitutional rights. We are the ones who have fought for civil rights and they know they have to essentially make the population here fearful of coming forward, of coming out. If you can make the population fearful, you can make them quiescent and you can keep them silent because they know the toughest points of resistance is not coming from rural America. It’s coming from these blue progressive cities where we have fought day in and day out for our civil rights. So that is why they’re doing their best to que descent in this way. Well,

    Stephen Janis:

    Just to add on to the thesis of how blue cities incubate new ideas that create progress. So yes, places like Baltimore are technically sanctuary cities, but if you look at the statistics of this country, we have a lower birth rate, 75% of our workforce growth, the growth of the people that work in this country came from immigration and blue cities have embraced those people because we need those people economically. Without them, we can’t grow without them. We can’t take care of our elder or farm our food. So that’s why progressive cities have pushed a welcoming. It wasn’t just the idea of America being open, which it is, but it’s also the idea that we need more people and we need to grow our cities and we need to embrace people from other

    Speaker 4:

    Countries.

    Stephen Janis:

    They bring vitality and strength and that’s why they’re attacking it because it’s an idea that actually is a counter to their idea, which is Baltimore. The country has to go backwards somehow, intellectually and morally, and also legally has to go backwards. And here are these blue cities that are diverse and thriving. I mean, most blue cities are the economic engines of this country.

    Speaker 4:

    That’s right.

    Stephen Janis:

    Like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Washington, DC are the economic engines that make this country grow. And it’s just ironic that they’re attacking them, but I think they’re attacking them for a reason because if we prove these progressive ideas are right, what hope do they have to push their faster?

    Mansa Musa:

    And to the professors, he said authoritarianism, it’s just experiment is working, is like they looking at blue cities and if this is the case, we’re in trouble. And so how do we unpack that? Because

    The reality is we know that we are dealing with the fastest authoritarian government right now. There’s no question about that. Monuments is being like, next thing we are going to see is confederate flag in the White House, simple as that confederate flag, American flag and a Nazi flag and saying that this is not the flag, what the flag represent, this is history that we’ve been ignoring. And that’s not right. But the reality is that we dealing with a fastest regime, and like you say now, the attack of the blue city, and to your point, Jan, that’s a correct because the migration to

    Speaker 4:

    Chicago, when

    Mansa Musa:

    You look at everybody,

    Speaker 4:

    Great migration,

    Mansa Musa:

    Regardless of what went on, the contradiction that went on between the groups they eventually found, got together and say, okay, it’s better to work together than work against each other because all of us come out the same

    Speaker 4:

    Area.

    Mansa Musa:

    But talk about that. Talk about how do we counter this or what is the counter to this?

    Taya Graham:

    Well, one thing I would say is that this is an ideological battle because as student rightly said, these progressive cities and progressive states like California, California has one of the biggest economies in the world.

    Stephen Janis:

    Six largest economy in the world,

    Taya Graham:

    Sixth largest economy in the world compared to other whole entire countries. So we know progressive policies work. We wouldn’t have an iPhone if it wasn’t for letting immigrants into our country. So we have to understand that they are part of the economic engine of growth in our country. And that these progressive policies, these freedoms actually make us more productive. They make us innovators and it actually makes money. And I do think behind this that for years even see the old school Republican party, they knew that we needed immigrants. I mean even George W. Bush was trying to find a path to citizenship for people.

    Speaker 4:

    But

    Taya Graham:

    I think in the background that big agriculture people who like Tyson’s chicken people have those meat processing plants, those folks wanted to keep a certain segment of the population undocumented so they could remain exploited. So they could pay them nothing so that they could hold deportation over their heads as a threat. So they couldn’t bargain for any type of labor rights whatsoever. And now they’re realizing, oh, we might’ve pushed it too far because we’re about to lose all of our farm markers. We’re about to lose all the people who work in that meat processing

    Speaker 4:

    Plant.

    Taya Graham:

    And the thing is, this is an ideological war because we literally have economic proof that these progressive policies work. When you take a look at red states, they’re the ones who have the worst education. They’re the ones where people have the lowest medium incomes,

    Speaker 4:

    Progressive

    Taya Graham:

    Policies work. But what the Trump administration is trying to do is say he’s fighting the ideological war to say no. See, their cities are chaos. Their cities are in disarray. Their cities are crime ridden. And that’s one of the reasons he’s putting that military on the streets. He wants to condition the American public to be used to seeing military on the street. And he wants our military to get used to trying to pacify the American public.

    Stephen Janis:

    I think at its core, this fight and how we fight against it is over America’s original sin, which of course is slavery. And the idea that you have an economy that’s purely extractive, that exploits one set of people for the benefit of another. And I think that’s really what underlies Trump’s and the conservative movement here in the United States. That’s why they worry about Confederate statues and that’s why they worry about naming bases after Confederates. They do not want to acknowledge the original sin of this country because for some reason they think it challenges the order of things for them, which is to exploit people, is to make well, to have an extractive economy. And that’s where this battle, and that’s why what we have to do is call attention to that. Call attention to the root

    Of what? Yeah, the root of racism, the drives, all of this. Racism drives every aspect. There’s nothing. That’s why it’s so irrational. That’s why you look at it and you’re like, why do they keep making these ridiculously counterintuitive moves like the trade wars and things? It’s because Trump’s brain is baked by racism in many ways, and so is the conservative movement at this point. So I think the best way to fight back against it is to acknowledge that and to understand it through that prism, and then it starts to make sense and then you can fight back.

    Taya Graham:

    Steven, I think you make a really good point. My concern in this ideological war is that to some extent the Trump administration and their allies have been telling the American public that the media cannot be trusted. Good point. And we know as members of the media that our job is to help people tell their stories, to help amplify their voices. And if the public doesn’t trust the media to help them get government accountability, the public, our community has lost one of the weapons in its arsenal to push back against this government. So there’s so many different ways that the Trump administration has tried to isolate the public from their natural sources of government accountability, whether that’s the freedom to protest, whether that’s trusting a member of the media to tell your story and amplify your story. There are all these different ways that the Trump administration is trying to silence people. And it really does concern me. And I’m just hoping that the public can know that they can trust their independent members of the media to help amplify their voices because everybody needs to get into the fight. You cannot be on the sidelines anymore.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I agree, and as we close out, I agree with that because at the end of the day, we recognize that one thing about this country, we can say what we want to say, but people, we’ve been spoiled and believe that we have our rights. We have a right to self determine. We have an inevitable. So this is something that we’ve been indoctrinated to think. So regardless of how they try to beat us down, know saying, when they go low, we go high. Well, this is our logical battle. And I think at the end of the process, our ideas going to prevail because our ideas is ideas of humanity, our ideas and ideas of inclusiveness. DEI, you doing DEI and you doing the same thing that you opposed to you’re doing in the form of bringing back statues. You’re doing in the form of saying that I’m bringing these South Africans to this country because they’re being, oh, oh my God, it even hard to get out.

    But I appreciate, and you know what I really appreciate y’all my best, my favorite couple. Now when we sit down, we had these conversations. It’s like when I was in the prison in the penitentiary, we used to be sit on milk crazy and we used to do political, have political conversations, but we always had an area where we were always politics. And this is what I get when y’all come, y’all very knowledgeable in what y’all talking about. Y’all very invested in making sure the pigs be held accountable. Y’all very invested in making sure the people rights be recognized and that they don’t be trampled on. This is something that we take for granted, but I think at the end of the day, we’re going to be better off because we got people like yourselves. Thank you. And then you have it real news, rallying the bars. As you can see, I got the heavy hitters on the couch today. We unpacked this police state, this authoritarian state, but more importantly, we pulled back the cover off of so-called Expert Witnesses, and that’s not the last you’re going to hear on that. But we asked that you continue to support the Real News and Rambling Bar because guess what? We are really the news.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • I Am But the Mirror: The Story of American Cop Watching is the first documentary to ever cover cop watchers as a grassroots people-powered movement. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report discuss the documentary, which examines the life and sentencing of controversial cop watcher Eric Brandt, with First Amendment activists John Filax and Otto the Watchdog.

    Credits:

    • Produced by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Taya Graham:

    Hello, my name is Taya Graham and I’m the host of the Police Accountability Report. Today we’re going to be reporting on a controversial topic, the work of a cop watcher named Eric Brandt. Eric is known for his flamboyant, often confrontational style of filming. Police is an approach that garnered attention for his cause, defending Denver’s homeless, but also criminal charges as well. Although he successfully fought over 100 arrests related to his protests, there was one case he wasn’t able to beat in 2021. He pled guilty to three counts of attempted retaliation against a judge through an act of digital harassment. He made statements that were interpreted as threats. These words were deemed disturbing and deeply offensive. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and he’s still incarcerated. Four years ago, we decided to make a documentary about Eric along with the community of Cop Watchers. We covered on our show, the Film I’m But The Mirror, the Story of American Cop watching seeks to understand Cop watching through the lenses of dozens of its practitioners, one of them being Eric. In today’s show, we will discuss what we learned. We just wanted to warn you, our viewers, that some of what we discuss may be offensive or even uncomfortable to watch, but we never shy away from the truth, good, bad, or ugly, and I hope you’ll join us now onto the show.

    Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to a special Police Accountability Report, a discussion with a special preview of our latest documentary. I Am, but The Mirror, the Story of American Cop watching. And of course, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis. Stephen

    Stephen Janis:

    Aya, how are you?

    Taya Graham:

    I’m doing great. How about yourself?

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah, I’m good. I’m good. I’m just glad to be here with you talking about this film.

    Taya Graham:

    Well, me too. It’s always good to have the intrepid reporter Stephen Janis with me

    Stephen Janis:

    When it can coax me inside. Yeah. But thank you for doing that.

    Taya Graham:

    Oh, absolutely.

    Stephen Janis:

    I would’ve missed it.

    Taya Graham:

    Now in this show, we are going to unpack the result of our four year process of telling a very important story about a very intriguing group of cop watchers. But it’s not just a film about that alone. It’s a tale about exploring the boundaries of the First Amendment. It’s about crime and punishment. It’s about the limits of activism and the impact of YouTube on journalism. Stephen, do you think I missed anything?

    Stephen Janis:

    No, I think you got it. I mean, it’s a broad story about a movement that goes beyond I think the confines of cop watching, and it’s important to remember that we kind of explore the boundaries of digital activism, YouTube, and even YouTube journalism. So yeah, you’re right. It’s not just about cop watching.

    Taya Graham:

    Now we are going to preview some of the parts of the film with you and we’re going to discuss what it means to us, and then we’re going to have a conversation about the First Amendment with two of our favorite cop watchers that happen to have exceptional senses of humor,

    John Flacs and Otto The Watchdog. But first, let’s just give you a little background on our project. Now we have been holding police accountable on YouTube for more than six years, and during that time we have met spoke with and interviewed and covered people known as Cop Watchers. Now, most of you’re familiar with the uniquely chaotic camera people who go out and film cops on a daily basis, YouTube activists who pick up their cell phones and document police in both routine and extreme situations. But for those who aren’t familiar with it, please allow me to give you a brief overview across this country. On any given day, hundreds, if not thousands of people turn their cell phone cameras on police and monitor what they do. These people have colorful personalities and often creative approaches to their work, and many have built substantial audiences of viewers who watch their videos and support their push for accountability, but they’re also controversial.

    There are critics who say they’re often colorful antics and sometimes bizarre behavior is all about attracting clicks and YouTube views. They argue watching Cops has nothing at all to do with a push for law enforcement accountability, but rather it’s just a way to garner attention. Well, me, myself, and my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, as members of the Independent Media, thought this was the perfect opportunity to provide fulsome coverage of a topic that warrants nuanced storytelling and complex investigation to say the least. And we noticed that the rest of the mainstream media was acting as if these cop watchers and First Amendment auditors didn’t even exist. So we knew we had to dig in here. Now, we started covering cop watchers almost from the beginning as we were producing and developing the police accountability report. And today we’re going to talk about how we took that coverage a step further in the form of a feature length documentary titled I Am But Mirror the Story of American Cop Watching.

    Now, I promise you this film is not your typical documentary both in the way it’s produced and the way it’s put together. But before we get into that, I want to discuss the focus of the story and how we chose it. The focus was not just about cop watching, but a very specific cop watcher named Eric Brandt. Now, Brant is a controversial practitioner of cop watching to say the least, his wild antics. And some say his over the top approach brought him notoriety and some people think infamy and the attention of law enforcement. Stephen, can you talk to us a little bit about Eric?

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah, I mean, in many ways Eric is at the intersection of like, we have another show called The Inequality Watch. Now he is kind of crazy to watch. I mean, if you watch his videos, you’re going to be challenged, you’re going to be offended, you’re going to have a lot of emotional reactions. But I think one of the reasons we chose him besides stuff we’ll talk about later in terms of how law enforcement responded to him, was that he marks in a sense where he’s a symbol of the cross between policing and inequality. He advocated for homeless people and he fought the cops. And many times for us, and when we reported inequality, we run into policing. And I think in this sense, Eric’s extremes reflected the extremes of the world that he was living in.

    Taya Graham:

    In essence, we decided to not just make a film about cop watchers, but examine the phenomenon through the prism of Eric’s story. And part of that involved examining Brant’s wild videos and his encounters with law enforcement and how his activism and influenced others. Why don’t we watch a clip now?

    Speaker 3:

    Okay,

    Speaker 4:

    That was awesome. You a happy, happy. I hope you’re watching. Be happy for the cops play every day

    Taya Graham:

    Of the week. Everyone told me I had to talk to this guy Eric Brant,

    Speaker 5:

    And he is an into fatiguable. He’s relentless.

    Taya Graham:

    So I went and checked out his YouTube channel,

    Speaker 6:

    These Are the Children, and Stop using profanity is what this officer incident says. Well, go fuck yourself, Denver Police.

    Speaker 5:

    Wow. He’s obnoxious in the best way.

    Stephen Janis:

    So the first time I heard the name Eric Brent was from Taya,

    Speaker 6:

    Sorry, be mad at RTD shoes on. Come on. I don’t believe that you’re correct on that.

    Stephen Janis:

    And she was like, we need to report on him. And I’m like, okay, what does he do? RTD, stop abusing

    Taya Graham:

    The homeless. So I know Cop Watchers can sometimes be confrontational, but Eric really took it to a new level.

    Speaker 6:

    You’re the warn coming out of the streak. You see me in the streak. You were in the name, the Streak you fat fucking worthless bed. I’m here with the Luminator 64,000. It’s our first prototype.

    Speaker 7:

    That’s the kind of impression that it made to me. It was just like, fuck this guy. Where did my team go? Yelling at somebody is going to only get you so far. He’s going to take your head off that to threaten you because I’m trying. Are you going to? No, because you’re coming at him. I didn’t think that it was actually going to solve anything

    Speaker 6:

    Because I was standing next to Thomas, Dr. Lee Slam a fucking wall.

    Speaker 7:

    I thought that I’m going to watch this poor guy get his ass whipped on tv.

    Speaker 6:

    Yo, shame yourself. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Huh?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I met Eric through YouTube. I really fucking, I really didn’t like the guy when I first saw him.

    Taya Graham:

    Well, it wasn’t just Eric’s extreme behavior that made his story an effective way to explore the broader topic of cop watching. I think it was something else, namely how YouTube and digital activism impacted the real world, the tactile world as well, how and other cop watchers connected through a common cause and bonded and work towards a mutual goal through a platform that is often blasted for being divisive and conspiracy laden. Now first let’s just run a quick clip on how some of our subjects actually get into Cop watching.

    Stephen Janis:

    The police weren’t the message. It was the fact that they were focusing on police.

    Speaker 9:

    I started out watching crash videos and then the auditing videos and the cop watching videos started getting recommended to me.

    Speaker 6:

    Rockwall PD obviously had an attitude from the second he got out of the car.

    Speaker 9:

    I started seeing how the cops were doing people. So about four months later I got a camera

    Taya Graham:

    And one could honestly critique that some of their interactions were intentionally provocative.

    Speaker 6:

    Hi, did you need something? Did I ask for something?

    Taya Graham:

    That’s actually really interesting, and I think that’s a lesson YouTube teaches you also through the algorithm as well. They let you know the moment someone stops watching you. I was fascinated by the role reversal that Cop Watchers often create. And what I mean by that is when they pick up that cell phone camera and they point it at the police, they no longer just become the watch. They become the watchers too.

    Speaker 3:

    Yes, true.

    Taya Graham:

    And if you don’t think that represents a potent inversion of power, just consider how much power government and law enforcement and corporations derive from watching us. Now the other important dynamic is how YouTube offers a platform of equivalence or even democracy for regular citizens. It gives them a means to tell their side of the story to an expansive audience that had not existed until recently.

    Stephen Janis:

    Stephen,

    Taya Graham:

    I think a little bit about that.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, yeah. I mean, the thing is that one thing you learn as being a former member of the mainstream media,

    That with that media construct comes power. We construct sort of a power perception around us that gives us the ability to influence the actual world. And I think for the first time and maybe the history of humanity, an entirely group of people who weren’t professional journalists or professional media makers were given that same equivalent platform where they were able to tell their side of the stories we like to call it on our show Police accountability report, reverse Cops, the show Cops where they file cops around and they arrest working class people on the worst day of their lives and it turned into television fodder. Well, we’re reverse cops. And I think that is representative or illustrative of the dynamic power shift that YouTube presented for the first time, I think for many of these people, and for the first time I think were a community grassroots movement, had access to the same tools in media that the mainstream media had in some sense.

    Taya Graham:

    Stephen, I think that’s really important context you just added there. And all of this converges in our film as we tell the story of Eric as he attempts to push back strongly against the treatment of unhoused people in Denver, Colorado. Now, Denver is a typical US city that has grown in popularity but has struggled to build affordable housing, and therefore the unhoused population has grown significantly. Eric and his supporters said police harass them, and that the cop watching was a means to push back. Let’s hear it in Eric’s own words. We spent time in Denver and homelessness is a serious issue there. And Eric, like many people has struggled with homeless

    Speaker 6:

    People are coming to me and they’re complaining to me about what the Westminster police are doing to them. And one of the big complaints that I had is that they would be somewhere sleeping and the Westminster Police would roll up on them at two o’clock in the morning and they would get on their bullhorn and then drive off. Well, that’s really shitty, right? So I moved out of my apartment and I moved onto the streets of Westminster in order specifically to address this question.

    Taya Graham:

    And so what we’re seeing here is that Eric and other cop watchers are trying to influence a lived reality by changing the ground rules. He sort of imposes his outrage through an electronic medium that he performs in the real world, but it becomes fodder in the digital world and especially for YouTube. Stephen, can you talk a little bit about the dynamics of digital and tactile worlds colliding while Eric and the other cop watchers are performing their activists?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, to give the most, I think, direct response to Eric’s art, I guess we could call it for lack of a better word, art, but I think it is art in many ways. His response is as garish as inequality is in this country. And let me just explain that just a teeny, teeny bit. The people on the other side of the inequality equation in this country rarely have their stories told in a way like you see on HBO or other mainstream medias where we have constant fascination with the elites and the people who are rich. And so Eric, I think in some ways created something so outlandish because there was no notice of this great inequality divide that had consumed Denver where there was homelessness and people unhoused in greater and greater larger proportions. And the city, according to Eric, used police to push back on that. So I think it is really essential here that we see the aesthetics of inequality in Eric’s sort of, some people would say offensive, other people say colorful response to this.

    Taya Graham:

    Stephen, I think you’re giving an excellent context here

    Stephen Janis:

    Because

    Taya Graham:

    There are so many layers to what the story that we’re trying to tell. And so we are trying to do this essentially in a feature length film with two distinct stories. And so one is about Eric and the community of cop watchers who embraced him and how their individual styles impacted police reform. And then I would say the second is how YouTube and independent journalism created a different process for storytelling, which resulted in an entirely different audience for receiving those stories. But what I think is really important to note is that the audience didn’t just watch, but they became engaged and activated. Now, there is a lot more that happens in this film

    And Eric is sentenced to what many of his supporters say is an extreme amount of time, a sentence that shocked his friends and his YouTube supporters. Also the cop watchers who created the community around Eric ended up working together in the real world to accomplish something amazing. But to see that you’re going to have to watch the film, which is free on folsome tv.com, which you can find by clicking on the link in the comments. But before we get to our guest, and I really do want to get to our guest, John Flac, I want to let everyone know who is in this film. Now, there are a lot of names and I know I’m going to miss one, but I want to give it a try. Okay, here it goes. Liberty freak, cut, the plastic, all the watch. Dog Monkey 83, Joe, cool Friends and Code, Tom Zebra, Laura Shark, Pikes Speaks, audits, blind Justice, NC Tyrant Hunter, James Freeman, pajama audits, Carol Funk, lackluster DJ Kate out the party, Abdi and Johanna and activist and supporters, Chris Powers and Noli D. Now, this is not everyone, but it’s most everyone, and it was their work along with Eric’s story that we tried to depict and document and portray in a way that was worthy of their efforts. And I have to emphasize that we had Noli D in this film because I think this is the first time a YouTube mod was really given their due and highlighted for their work and their support for their community.

    Stephen Janis:

    Agreed.

    Taya Graham:

    Now Stephen, that’s quite a cast.

    Stephen Janis:

    That is an amazing

    Taya Graham:

    Cast. I mean, do you want to talk about how you approach this story?

    Stephen Janis:

    You start to put the film together. There’s one aspect of the film if people watch it, we’ll see where I tried to give some substance to each person because really you could do a documentary on many of these people. My gosh, when I was talking to Cut the Plastic about his life, his life is so complex and so many things happen that you could literally do a documentary about him. So I had to again refer to or use the technique and aesthetic of technique of accelerated storytelling where I put a lot of people’s lives, which are very complex and very interesting into sort of a condensed version to give people a 12 to 14 minute primer on cop watching and their personalities. So we’re open to doing more on that. And we have the American Cop Watcher Channel, which we try to post other interviews we did that we couldn’t conclude completely in the documentary. So it’s there for people who are interested in hearing about the lives of the people we featured in the film.

    Taya Graham:

    And I’m glad you mentioned that channel because we’re going to continue to add interviews there

    Stephen Janis:

    Because

    Taya Graham:

    There is so much there.

    Stephen Janis:

    So

    Taya Graham:

    Much we had to cut out of the film because otherwise it would’ve been an eight hour long

    Stephen Janis:

    Film. It would’ve been Lord of the Rings uncut version

    Taya Graham:

    Basically. It really would’ve been like a trilogy. So we made a point kind of like how people do DVD extras to put the full interviews there and we’re going to continue to add to them, we’re even going to add people that weren’t in the original film because I feel like this is more than just a documentary that we’re documenting a movement.

    Stephen Janis:

    And so one of them is our next guest who we’re going to go to right now. Right, John Felix?

    Taya Graham:

    That’s right.

    Stephen Janis:

    Okay. Is he here? That’s

    Taya Graham:

    Right.

    Stephen Janis:

    Do you have him?

    Taya Graham:

    Let’s bring on John Felix,

    Stephen Janis:

    Can you hear

    Taya Graham:

    Us? Hi, how are you doing? It’s great to have you here.

    John Filax:

    Thanks for having me.

    Taya Graham:

    It’s really a pleasure. So Stephen, I’m going to give you the first question for John.

    Stephen Janis:

    Okay, so John, so I just want to give you a brief kind of moment to talk about what you think about Cop watching at this particular moment, if you’re still doing it, and if you still think it’s important and how you go about it, if you still do it. I know you do a wide variety of things and we’ll ask you about that. But since this documentary is about cop watching, just give us your overview of Cop watching Now.

    John Filax:

    Cop watching is wonderful. It’s come a long way. It started with about 10 guys. Now there’s so many cop watchers, you can’t even keep track of all of them. And that’s great because we need more than we can count and there’s good that goes a long, there’s bad. That goes along with the good, of course, like the people who take our stuff and repurpose it. There’s so many short videos out there where I’m an FBI agent and I’ve made a million dollars suing people even though I’ve never sued anybody in my life. And that’s the bad part of it. But at the same time, there’s exposure and people start to look you up and can see more about who we are and what we do. And we also have haters, which is fine because in this movement if people don’t hate you, you’re not doing something right. And what I like to say is you get the most flack when you’re over the target.

    Taya Graham:

    It’s really interesting that you mentioned haters because as reporters, there’s the adage we’re supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the powerful and in doing so, and Stephen has a lot of experience with this. Powerful folks do not enjoy being held accountable and they can react in very strong ways. I think how many times has a member of government tried to get you fired from your job?

    Stephen Janis:

    Good deal times

    Taya Graham:

    A few times. But what I wanted to ask you though is for you to share what you think some of the impact of cop watching is. Because one thing that we know for sure and that we’ve learned through talking through so many cop watchers is that it can really have a deleterious effect on your life. You can lose your freedom, you can lose your livelihood, you can lose access to your kids. There’s a lot that can happen to someone when they choose to put themselves on the line for cop watching. So I wanted to know what kind of impact you feel cop watching has, what kind of positive impact it has?

    John Filax:

    Well, the positive impact is that you start to break the conditioning of the normal American because most Americans think that the police are heroes and they can do no wrong, and they deserve all this undeserved respect. Meanwhile, Americans generally speaking don’t know the Bill of Rights. They don’t know the First Amendment. They don’t know that you have the right to say what you want to say whether people like it or not. You’re supposed to be able to say it. And it was created for offensive speech because you wouldn’t need a First Amendment if everybody agreed with everybody. And that’s the cornerstone of this country. Whereas in other countries, if you say the wrong thing, you get locked up in the gulag. Well, our country is kind of going in that direction. And then people like, which I like to say are modern day founding fathers, we kind of sacrifice ourselves to show meanwhile we’re not spilling blood, but we’d still, we put ourselves out there.

    And like you said, like Otto for instance, lost his family, lost his house, and just for doing what? Speaking, putting up a sign. Well, this country has become so tyrannical now, and we have shown the tyranny firsthand with all the shows on tv, the cops, the this, the that. And it wasn’t up until George, George Floyd happened to where people are like, oh my God, maybe they’re not the heroes. We think they are. Maybe we should know the Bill of Rights. Maybe if I could tell you a quick story. I was a restaurant owner and I was talking to one of my servers and I was quizzing her a little bit. Do you know the Bill of Rights? You know what the First Amendment is? So after that she goes out in the dining room and she asks, one of my other servers is John and his mom illegals. And she goes, no, why? She says, because only illegals know their constitutional rights.

    Taya Graham:

    Oh wow. Oh my God.

    Stephen Janis:

    Wow.

    Taya Graham:

    She’s not wrong.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah,

    Taya Graham:

    I mean that’s funny. You’re right. Your average American would fail a citizenship test.

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s

    Taya Graham:

    So funny. That

    Stephen Janis:

    Brings something up. So what do you think about all these ice agents with mass on and no warrants and not identifying themselves? Does that concern you and the cop watcher community?

    John Filax:

    That’s beyond concerning because you let ’em all in here. I understand cracking down on violent criminals and anyone who’s done damage or some actual crime and created a victim, get ’em out of here. But the one you let millions of them in here now you just want to do some blanket sweep with unnamed people. Anonymous guys in groups with masks on and stuff. No, that doesn’t fly. You take the peaceful ones. You work out a system to where they can assimilate and become citizens instead of rounding ’em up and sending ’em to El Salvador. So you could do what score political points because you still have these police forces who think they’re basically a Gestapo of America and that you need to respect them. You need to obey everything they say. And constitutional rights aren’t part of the equation when it comes to police and policing.

    Taya Graham:

    Gosh, you make such excellent points and I want to address each one of them, but one thing that just sort of stuck in my mind is when you said we need the First Amendment, not because we’re always going to agree with each other, but because we are going to disagree with each other. And that I think something you also mentioned that’s really important that I learned from watching Cop watching, which is that it’s sort of deprogramming the public. You mentioned all the cop again that we see on TV and how we’re pretty much indoctrinated from middle school. This police officer’s officer friendly and he’s your friend, but the cop watching showed that you could reverse that power and that was really transformative for me personally. But I did want to ask you to maybe share some of your thoughts on Eric Brandt. Some people said he’s over the top or that even that he’s brought this on himself. Other people think he’s an inspiration and that he helped this grassroots movement. Where do you stand? How do you assess Eric’s actions and his activism?

    John Filax:

    I love Eric. He does get over. Even for me, people say the same thing about me. You’re over the top. You go too far, you’re yelling and screaming. But if I didn’t do that and I wasn’t so brash, nobody would be watching. My biggest video is 20 million views now. It’s because I got stopped for speeding when I wasn’t speeding. I recorded it and then I stood on my rights. I didn’t roll my window down. I followed the law to the letter, but it still wasn’t good enough for the cop. And I got half people are like, you’re a hero. And the other half of 20 million views now are like, you’re horrible. So you got half the population that watched the video, you’re horrible. To me, those are the indoctrinated, brainwashed people who can’t get past the surface level of anything who still watch TV for their news.

    And then you got the other half of people who live in reality and see what the cops are doing to people every day. So I wish he didn’t say the things he said that landed him in jail. He didn’t deserve to go to jail because ultimately it’s just speech. He didn’t have the wherewithal to carry out anything. And if you want to get technical, he really didn’t make any threats. He just said something they didn’t like. He doesn’t deserve to be in jail. He’s inspiration of this movement. Is he brash? Do you have to like his style? No, but he has every right to do what he did and say what he said.

    Stephen Janis:

    Wow. Okay. Well said. John, we’re going to put you on the spot. You watch the film, what do you think? I mean, it’s okay, you can criticize us because it wouldn’t be fair for us to bring you on here and then ask you to give us some sort of snowball review. So

    Taya Graham:

    Well, you don’t want to ask him what does he think? What does he think?

    Stephen Janis:

    General thought,

    Taya Graham:

    But that’s good about it. Not everything. You don’t want him to share all his thoughts, right? Or we want you to be honest. Be honest, be honest. What do you think?

    Stephen Janis:

    I mean, it’s kind of cheesy. I understand, but we were trying to promote the film, so we want to get what your thoughts.

    John Filax:

    I think everyone should watch it. I loved it. Oh good. It was great. I liked that it focused on Eric. I love that you had all them people. I wish I could have been in it. I told Teia that earlier. Me too. It was good. What I don’t like about it is the people that don’t like us in the grand scheme of things, they’re this much and we are the rest. I wouldn’t have put them in there. They work tirelessly to restrict our freedom of speech. They don’t like our style, they don’t like words, but ultimately they can never call us liars. They can never say we’re wrong and they can never attack the actual points. And one of the people you had in the documentary actually came after me and hurt me in real life. And I’ve never that’s

    Met this person. I’ve never done anything with this person. All I did was ask them to debate me on the substance and the merits of what we do. But instead of doing that, they came after me behind the scenes and started contacting YouTube and stuff. But overall, that’s awful. It was a great film. My wife even watched it. She doesn’t watch this stuff. She thought it was great. I thought it was great. I think you guys do wonderful work. And like Taya said earlier, I’m one of the very first YouTubers who discovered you guys and put a permanent link to the police accountability report in the description of my videos for 3, 4, 5 years now at least.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well,

    Taya Graham:

    We appreciate

    Stephen Janis:

    That. We appreciate so much. You don’t know how do tremendous amount wisdom, and maybe what you’re saying is we need to do a sequel and have you start up with your life and some of the things that you do.

    Taya Graham:

    Right? I know.

    Stephen Janis:

    Selfish,

    John Filax:

    Selfish.

    Taya Graham:

    We should do

    Stephen Janis:

    Sequel,

    Taya Graham:

    Selfish. We should

    John Filax:

    I being selfish there, but that’s fine. Yeah. You have enough content to make 17 of these. Honestly.

    Taya Graham:

    We really do. We

    Stephen Janis:

    Really could.

    Taya Graham:

    We really do. I mean each person, there’s a complex story in themselves inside each individual person. One last question. You’re not just a cop watcher. You have more to your activism. I’m curious how you would describe yourself and if you could share with us one of the most important outcomes that came from your cop watching activity. Was there a time that you performed cop watching that you believe you helped prevent arrest or you helped educate the public? Or could you share with us a moment that you said to yourself, I’m really doing the work that I signed up for here that you felt good about?

    John Filax:

    Again, I was going to sound like I’m bragging, but when I got pulled over and I got the video with 20 million views, that’s when my channel really took off. That was like 20 17, 20 18, and I came up with a lot of stuff. You hear the word cops explain. I made that famous, the I don’t answer questions. That was me. The ID crack line, that’s me. The ID thing again, when I first, it was the income tax, and then I started really focusing in on the constitution. And if you read the Constitution, it’s very plain, it’s very simple. It’s very reasonable suspicion for the right to privacy. So when I’m watching police stuff and they’re asking for id, I’m like, what happened to the Fourth Amendment? So the whole ID thing now that came from me because I exposed it and I said, listen guys, every time they ask you for id, they’re literally asking you to surrender your right to privacy voluntarily. And most Americans at that point thought, when a cop asks you for id, you got to jump to it and relinquish your right to privacy because most of them don’t even know that you have a right to privacy. And your right to privacy is to protect you from tyranny in the government. So the ID thing, all the catchphrases, you hear a lot of the accountability when I got that viral video in 2018 that really, if you want to track it back, that really caused a snowball effect in this movement.

    Stephen Janis:

    We are so appreciative that you decide to make an exception to you. Don’t answer questions, to answer questions for us, right?

    Taya Graham:

    Yes, that’s right. You don’t answer questions, but you answered them for us and we

    Stephen Janis:

    Really do

    Taya Graham:

    Appreciate it.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. Yeah. So we appreciate you.

    Taya Graham:

    We want to thank you so much for joining us, and we look forward to doing an interview with you

    Stephen Janis:

    Soon. I met the mayor, part two, starting with him or the story of American Top Watch and part two starting. Can

    Taya Graham:

    I blow a couple things? Absolutely. Go right ahead.

    John Filax:

    Okay, so last year I did Auto Palooza. This is something I launched Auto Palooza 2024. This is the T-shirt. You see, it says suspicious person on the back.

    Taya Graham:

    I can’t see it unfortunately, but

    John Filax:

    It says suspicious person. It was basically an event I had in Pensacola. Lots of auditors came, and a lot of the people who watched us came, they actually paid for tickets. We had a barbecue, live music, comedy, et cetera. It was wonderful. We’re doing it again this year, October 18th. I would love for you guys to show up there and you could get tons of content. Also, I started a Bill of Rights Coalition nonprofit. It’s called Tac Transparency Accountability Coalition, T tac-us.org. And that’s what I got going right now. And thank you so much for having me, guys.

    Taya Graham:

    Cool, man. It was absolutely our pleasure, and we appreciate your work. Catch you later.

    Stephen Janis:

    I find See you. See you guys. Bye.

    Taya Graham:

    See you.

    Stephen Janis:

    Bye bye. I find, yeah,

    Taya Graham:

    No, go ahead. Go ahead.

    Stephen Janis:

    No, I was just going to say, because what I find fascinating is just hearing their personal stories of how they arrived, and he’s the second person who said, or we’ve learned that they started cop watching or the process before the technology,

    Taya Graham:

    Which

    Stephen Janis:

    Is interesting because remember Tom Zebra?

    Taya Graham:

    Yes, yes.

    Stephen Janis:

    Took those videos. Tom

    Taya Graham:

    Zebra has VHS tapes,

    Stephen Janis:

    Who by the way, is featured extensively in

    Taya Graham:

    Film. Absolutely.

    Stephen Janis:

    But he told us that

    Taya Graham:

    Story. He considered one of those OGs cop watching.

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s how he had a VHS in his trunk of his car. So that impulse, it shows the technology, how it melds with human impulse. There has to be human impulse or that human impulse to tell your story or to give your perspective is so innate that people did it prior to the technology existing. I think a lot of people picked up and did it just because the technology existed. But I think there was a human part of this that I want to tell my side of things when I get pulled over. And so it’s kind of fascinating, not the only one who actually did that before there was even YouTube.

    Taya Graham:

    And something that always strikes me is the power reversal. And for me as a Baltimore City resident, my story,

    Stephen Janis:

    I do,

    Taya Graham:

    I grew up here in Baltimore City. I experienced the brunt of zero tolerance policing where I could not leave my house without my driver’s license. Even if I was getting on a bus to go to work, I still had to have my driver’s license on me because at any time a police officer could stop me and ask me for id, and you would say, that’s illegal. Well, in Baltimore at the time, during the odds between 2000 and 2007, 2008, it happened. People would be arrested for not providing ID for loitering, which meant a cop told you to get off the sidewalk and you didn’t move fast enough. You didn’t clear the sidewalk fast enough or spitting in public.

    Stephen Janis:

    Maybe you shouldn’t have been hanging on those corners. Te

    Taya Graham:

    I should have moved faster. I should have moved faster apparently, and I should have been ready to present my papers at all times. So for me, I didn’t even question that police had the right to treat me that way. That’s what,

    Stephen Janis:

    Because if YouTube had didn’t existed in the S when you were dealing with that, I wonder if it would’ve changed your thinking about how, and you see how that becomes a reality in and of itself, right? Because suddenly what a John Lacs or Otto the Watchdog is teaching you about the First Amendment,

    Taya Graham:

    That’s the thing

    Stephen Janis:

    They taught me, would’ve been embedded in the way you approach it and you say, wait a second, these cops can’t stop me on the sidewalk.

    Taya Graham:

    When I would watch

    Stephen Janis:

    Them, you really had no idea person.

    Taya Graham:

    When I would watch them and they would reverse the power in this way, to me it was absolutely unfathomable that you could talk to a police officer this way, that you could refuse their id, let alone use

    Speaker 3:

    Profanity

    Taya Graham:

    And say, I have a First Amendment right to tell you to go F all the way off. I never would’ve crossed my mind because on a regular basis in our city at the time, we had about a little bit over 600,000, 630,000 people, and roughly 100,000 people per year were being arrested during the zero tolerance period. Now, some of them were repeat arrests, but that’s an incredible number one in six people. So my fear of being taken down the central booking because I didn’t provide my ID, was not a stretch of the imagination by any sense.

    Stephen Janis:

    I don’t think zero tolerance could have occurred, could occur in today’s age of people having cell phones and YouTube channels. I just don’t think what they were doing, they were just taking people and putting ’em in the back of a van even though they hadn’t committed a crime. I don’t think that could have occurred without, in this particular era. It just can’t occur. It could not have occurred in an era where people can film police and put it on YouTube, I just don’t think it would happen. Not that bad things don’t happen, and over policing still occurs, but I think it’s much harder to do now without people noticing.

    Taya Graham:

    I wanted to share with you, and actually with everyone, actually, you do know this story, but when I give this example of not being able to leave the house without id, you might think, well, Taya, why would anyone suspect you of doing anything wrong? Well, I agree. Why would you suspect me of doing anything wrong? Well, the problem was, is that I lived and worked in what was considered high crime areas.

    Stephen Janis:

    That was a curse,

    Taya Graham:

    And that was part of the problem. So I’ll give an example. I was working part-time at a music studio, and I was sent to get lunch for the people in that music studio. And a police officer stopped me and I provided my id, but he said, I don’t think you are supposed to be in this neighborhood. I do not believe the information you’re giving me. I do not believe you work here. And that police officer said he was going to arrest me unless I could prove that I had a job. And so that police officer followed me back to where I worked, and he actually came into the building and I had to get the boss’s wife to validate that I did work there and that I was sent to go out and get people’s lunch. I mean, how embarrassing is that? And another place, it could have cost me my job to have a police officer follow me into the office because it would cast suspicion on me. Because people think where there’s smoke, there’s fire. So that’s just an example of how police really overstepped in our city and why it’s hard to break that kind of indoctrination when you grow up with it.

    Stephen Janis:

    So do we have Otto now to,

    Taya Graham:

    I hope we have Otto the Watchdog.

    Stephen Janis:

    Do we have Otto The Watchdog? Yay.

    Taya Graham:

    We have Otto the Watchdog. We are joined by the Incorrigible Irrepressible Otto, the Watchdog. Otto, thank you so much for joining us.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Hi. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here.

    Taya Graham:

    Oh, good. Good. That sounds familiar.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. And actually, oh my God, was he mocking me? Not sure he was mocking me. Are you sure? Stephen Otto, come on. I spent six years outside

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Wearing blue shirts.

    Stephen Janis:

    Wearing blue shirts. Yes, exactly.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Welcome to the air conditioning, Stephen. It truly is a pleasure to be here. It’s an honor. I thank you guys for what you’re doing. I watched the documentary. I particularly enjoyed how you told how you got into this and how that it was difficult for you, just like it was for many of us. Like I said, I didn’t like Eric when I first watched him. I don’t like everything he does. I like some of the stuff he does, but some of it’s, it’s pretty out there. So I totally understand the reservations that you had trying to tell the story, and it is difficult. It

    Stephen Janis:

    It is a tricky story.

    Taya Graham:

    It is.

    Stephen Janis:

    But weren’t you the person who came up with Olay, was that song yours

    Taya Graham:

    Or yours,

    Stephen Janis:

    Happy F

    Taya Graham:

    The Happy F the Cop Day

    Stephen Janis:

    Song? Which one was yours? I can’t

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Remember. So they’re both mine. I write. Oh, wow. And it was kind of a spontaneous thing. We were driving around one day, and I don’t even remember how it happened, but I was like, Olay, and it is so easy to say. And then there’s that soccer song and one thing led to another. I actually drove Liberty Creek. He was in the front seat and Eric was in the back of my truck, and we were driving around downtown Denver from Coing. And that’s where you just wish everybody a happy fuck the cops day. It’s a lot of fun. If you’ve never done it, you should try it. It’s fun. Anyway, I started singing the Olay song, and it was just slowly developing. Every time I would say it, it was slowly developed into what it is today. And it actually drove Liberty Freak out of the front seat into the back of the truck with Eric, because Eric was less annoying than I was.

    Taya Graham:

    I love the origin story there. That’s

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So funny. I absolutely knew I had something when he was like, pull over, I can’t take it. I was like, oh, that’s a thing. That’s a thing now. And it did. It became a thing, and now it’s a phenomenon

    Taya Graham:

    Just for people who are watching. You mentioned that you went out F Cops sing. That’s a verb that people might not be familiar with. Can you explain what that means?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Yes. So it’s exactly what it sounds like, really. We just drive around or you don’t have to drive. We just go around and just wish everybody a happy the Cops day. And they’re like, what? I mean, nobody’s ever heard of it. It’s not a national holiday, but it will be.

    Taya Graham:

    Not yet.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    When I become Emperor of the Universe, it will be, and it’s every day, and it’s twice on Tuesday, Andric on Thursday. And that’s something, yeah. So they’ll be like, what is that? And I’ll be like, oh, well, it’s today. It’s every day. And then they get it. It’s all just a joke.

    Stephen Janis:

    I have to say, when I had to try to put the beeps on one or two of those clips, it was so much, it started to, it was actually

    Taya Graham:

    Hilarious. Shouldn’t bring up, it was like a ten second beep.

    Stephen Janis:

    It just kept beeping and beeping. And then you have your other one. This pretty famous S is fd up and stuff, which we saw covering a protest in dc. Someone had that sign. We

    Taya Graham:

    Saw someone with that sign.

    Stephen Janis:

    They had that sign.

    Taya Graham:

    This system is FD up and stuff. And then there was S is FD up and

    Stephen Janis:

    Stuff, but it was S in F Up.

    Taya Graham:

    And I was like, do you know, out of the watch doc,

    Stephen Janis:

    We get auto twisting us into pretzels with his ingenious work just going Ss, fff and S. It doesn’t make any

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Sense. It makes no sense. Good luck on the transcription of this one.

    Taya Graham:

    Oh, good point. Good point.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    But that’s kind of the point too. When Cohen was going through court, even the justices had a very difficult time even talking about the case because of that one word, and they twisted themselves into pretzels because it’s clearly not dignified speech. This is not appropriate for Portland rings and settings of that sort. And if you saw somebody on TV saying that, it would be like, oh, you know what I mean? But that’s why YouTube is important. And now so many other platforms, each individual can have their own website if they wanted to.

    Stephen Janis:

    Just so people know, just the Cohen case you cited from 70, that’s where the draft protestor put F, the draft,

    Taya Graham:

    Just so people know. Yeah, it was Coen v California, and he was wearing a jacket that said F the draft on it.

    Stephen Janis:

    He was in the courthouse or something. But it’s really funny because Otto has been updating the test on police officers in Texas and they’ve been failing

    Taya Graham:

    Miserably. Yes. You have been performing some First Amendment test.

    Stephen Janis:

    I think Otto is kind of like a weird genius because he comes up with these ways of showing very complex things, very simple ways, and people, because he just,

    Taya Graham:

    And with a bit of humor too, which is what amazes me,

    Stephen Janis:

    Just so people know he was showing the signs of the cop and is this one, okay, is this one, okay. Basically, like you said, giving them street depositions to the point where they violate the law and you trick them into doing that. Was that the intention?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Absolutely. That’s the intention. That is absolutely the intention. I’ve been through this enough times now where I kind of know what their answers are going to be. At least I have a presumption of what I believe their answers is to be. So I lead them into questions because I’ve seen others do it before me. One of the things that I enjoy most about this community is that we are very open and we share things that nobody else gets to ever see unless you have a law degree or you’ve been a victim. And that’s the depositions you never get to see, rarely get to see depositions. And our community posts it on a regular. It’s like that’s the thing, because that’s where the attorney is asking the defendant officer very specific questions about how they came to the conclusion that a person needed to be arrested and against very, very detailed. And sometimes it’s quite uncomfortable for everybody in the room, and I love it. I love that.

    Taya Graham:

    I had a question for you, and I think it ties into Eric, because we’re talking about the use of profanity and how some people are very much offended by it. There are areas where we’re not supposed to use it. The amount of profanity that we’re allowed to use is limited on broadcast tv, let’s say, or in the courtroom. But something that Eric said that really stood out to me is that he was doing his protest against police brutality, but no one really paid attention. He didn’t get any traction until he used the four, excuse me, eight magic letters, which was F-U-C-K-C-O-P-S. And so I’m just curious what you think the role of profanity is in testing the First Amendment?

    Speaker 3:

    Yeah.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, you said that you can’t use profanity on tv, but you can. There’s just a fine associated with that. It’s not a criminal actor, but there is a fine associated with that. Anything FC, C, the FC, C. And it’s also not illegal to use those words in court. It’s not as example in my cases. It’s required, which is also, that’s also kind of why I use that language, because eventually it anytime that you’re allowed to say things in a courtroom that typically you’re not allowed to say, I get giddy.

    Stephen Janis:

    Didn’t you get in trouble though, for giving the finger to a judge in Denver or something?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I certainly did, and that was a direct contempt of court charge. I disagree with obviously, but I did get in trouble for that, and I don’t recommend it. It’s a most unpleasant experience. I believe that my behavior was justified under the circumstances. And

    Taya Graham:

    You were just flipping the bird leaving, right? It wasn’t like you weren’t approaching the bench, for example.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    No, no, no. I was already out the first set of doors. There’s double doors on these courtrooms. I was already out the first set of double doors, and it was almost an involuntary reaction, if I must say. So I was just disgruntled with the whole situation, asked for an attorney. There was a kerfluffle in the public defender’s office. When I was applying for the attorney, they wanted me to donate blood and bring the receipt back to them to show that I was homeless and poor. Oh my gosh. That’s a real thing. So they literally wanted me to sell my blood to prove

    Taya Graham:

    That you were indigent,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    To prove that I was indigent. So that, oh, gosh. Before qualify for attorney. Yeah. I just couldn’t believe that that was thing. I thought that I would have an attorney when I showed up to court because I applied for one, and obviously I didn’t have the means. So I was upset with all that. And then the judge wouldn’t even hear my argument on that. I’m just nobody. I don’t really know anything. I understand that when I’m on YouTube, the topic I’m covering, I’m well versed in, but that’s a very narrow topic, really just and only in Texas. And if I went to another state, I wouldn’t know their laws as well as I do Texas laws. Right. That’s point. So that’s a complicated thing too. I’m a very narrow window. That’s why I try to stay in my lane, you know what I mean? So that I don’t get in trouble for needing an attorney and flipping

    Taya Graham:

    Up what you do know very well.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I know what, yeah,

    Taya Graham:

    You really do. And I was wondering, you’ve been a cop watcher and involved in this kind of activism for quite some time now. A lot of members of the community. If you had to describe the impact, the real world impact that cop watchers are having, if you had to convince someone, cop watching actually makes a difference, what would you tell them?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    If I had to tell somebody that convince somebody, okay, I got this. All right, here we go. When I started cop watching 10 years ago and producing videos for the internet, it was very difficult and nobody liked it, and I got a lot of hate for it. Five years ago, people started responding positively, and now I’m signing autographs and people are wearing my shirts and they’re bringing me bottles of water on the side of the road. And during that time, I’ve noticed that the citizens have responded by registering to vote, and they turn up. I have a pretty good track record of doubling the people who vote in these small towns after I expose something terrible. Incredible. That’s amazing. So I understand that my signs are offensive and that my language is coarse, and it’s not for everybody. And a lot of people tell me that they don’t want their kids seeing my signs. But the alternative would be that we continue to allow bad government, whether that be police officers, city council or otherwise, to run amuck, unchecked. And that’s far more offensive than my signs could ever be.

    Taya Graham:

    Well said.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. I mean, that’s part of the point we made about Eric, that he was ugly, but he was also exposing something that was ugly too. The ugly side of a country that’s extravagantly wealthy and at the same time has homeless people in abundance. Very true. So it’s ugly, but the underlying reality it reflects is ugly. I guess that’s what you’re kind of saying, right? In a way.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Yeah. Yeah. The alternative, I think Eric said the consequences of silencing speech are unspeakable.

    Stephen Janis:

    And I mean, just so we have an update on his situation, he was just denied parole, I believe Otto and Eric was concerned that the justice system wasn’t going to, even though he is had perfect behavior and his crime was not violent. What does that say to you that the system is trying to keep him in, even though he served his time and the sentence was 12 years, but he’s been good and they’re not letting him out?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, it speaks volumes on a bunch of different categories. I think. I’m going to have to pick one. So Eric is on violent, he’s never been charged with, he’s never been convicted of violence. He’s been charged with it as many, but we can’t help what we’ve been charged with. All we can do is help our behavior. So Eric has never been violent with anyone, and he is been at this for a very long time. And after a period of time of dealing with these heavy topics, he let it get to him. And he said things, but it was a prayer that was offensive. That gets complicated. So let’s just dodge past that and just assume that what he said was so terrible that he needs to be in prison 12 years.

    That’s a long time. I mean, there are people who do some pretty terrible things to, let’s say children way more offensive than my signs could ever possibly be. Mind you. And they get far less time, and a lot of times they will get probation. Also, they stacked the deck against Eric. He was supposed to get four years on these charges. They were supposed to run together just like anybody else would. So he would serve two to four years and be out and be over with it. They ran them concurrent so that he would have to serve sentence one at a time, which is unusual. And then they deny his parole on top of that. I mean, there’s a lot of things. There’s a lot things to talk about with that. And whether you like the guy or not, I think we can all agree that that’s a lot of time it a lot of time, life changing time, not just for him, but everybody who loves him.

    Taya Graham:

    That’s such a good point. And for the people who’ve only seen videos of him dressed as a Pikachu or the

    Stephen Janis:

    Things that he said

    Taya Graham:

    Or even heard the things that he said,

    Stephen Janis:

    Which more offensive, but

    Taya Graham:

    I would ask you this, what would you tell people to explain why Eric Brandt had a positive side to his activism, that what kind of positive impact did it have? Why when people say Eric Brandt, people know who he is, cop watchers know who he is, and he’s an inspiration to them. Why would you say people should give Eric Brandt a chance?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So people should give Eric a chance because he legit made a difference. He changed laws, he forced body cameras when they did not want body cameras, he forced them to get body cameras as part of one of his settlements. So Eric was making changes. That’s why he had to go, that’s why you should care, because he didn’t do anything besides upset a lot of people who didn’t want to be upset anymore. And they thought that by sending him into a dungeon, that it would erase his memory and taint his name. And it did. And it did. But what actually ended up happening is it emboldened a lot of people to say, Hey,

    As long as I don’t share my thoughts and prayers, if he can get away with all the things that he had been getting away with, then surely I can go to the council meeting and tell my counselors that I disapproved their behavior. And now people are doing it on YouTube and they’re filming it, and they’re sharing it with others. And every time somebody shares a video, it encourages somebody else just a little bit, maybe. Maybe just a little bit. But it is growing and it grows so fast. Like John said earlier, there’s hundreds or thousands of YouTube channels that I have never heard of with 40 and 50,000 subscribers who are out there exposing their local city. And there’s Facebook pages, there’s more people actively engaged in their government today than there was 10 years ago, at least, from what I can tell. And that is a net positive. And Eric definitely had something to do with that.

    Taya Graham:

    Yes, absolutely.

    Stephen Janis:

    So I mean, last question, ask let’s,

    Taya Graham:

    You had a question.

    Stephen Janis:

    I was just going to say, it seems to me like you’re saying that YouTube changed your life. The algorithm changed your life. I mean, not to put it in that way, but the connections you made. And what’s interesting in the documentary, we go, how those connections went beyond YouTube, they became real Monk. 83 goes out to Denver, you go out to Denver, right. Those connections, this weird thing called YouTube actually put you together in real life, right?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh, for sure. Yeah. So YouTube as a platform where we were sharing all of what we were up to was just a way for us to connect. And then once we connected, we ended up meeting and finding out that, hey, we can do a lot of change if we had just worked together a little bit. And since then, man, we’ve been rolling. So yeah, YouTube did life, but it wasn’t the platform. It was the people behind it.

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s a good point. That’s a

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Good point. And man, since then we have been rolling. We still use the analogy cell phone video, but most of us don’t use cell phones anymore. Right now we’re like, I do interviews and actual reporting on the side I guess, but I wanted to be a reporter that did YouTube on the side and it turned the other way around.

    Taya Graham:

    I think we rubbed off on each other maybe a little bit. Maybe a little bit of our journalism rubbed off on you. You and a little of your cop watching rubbed off on us. Maybe

    Otto the Watchdog:

    You guys are, don’t count yourself short. So Eric pushed the boundaries of what you can say and showed everybody that it could be done. And you guys have led the way on how to bring that to a wider audience because I mean,

    Taya Graham:

    Thank you.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Eric’s difficult to watch. I understand that I’m not everybody’s cup of tea, but if we all share our stories and tell ’em in our own way, then we can get the message across to a wider audience that you guys have been able to bring this to a wider audience that normally wouldn’t appreciate somebody like Eric, or even me for example, but I like Lord of the Rings. But some people prefer dark drama or something like that,

    Taya Graham:

    Or telling the story in a different way. And I’d like to think that we helped give some legitimacy to the community because there were a lot of people who I would say thought the cop watchers were simply looking for attention, looking for cliques, looking for money. And I think we are one of some the first journalists that actually said, Hey, this is a grassroots movement. People are trying to have an impact in their communities. Please pay attention to these folks. You can judge for yourself, but you need to know they exist. Because for years, New York Times, Washington Post local news ignored the watchers existed.

    Stephen Janis:

    I think more importantly, we brought some of our, since we’re mainstream media refugees, we brought some of our techniques to the practice of storytelling on YouTube and tried to make it appealing to an audience so that we could grow. And that’s part of the story in the documentary.

    Taya Graham:

    But I do have just one question for you. I know you might be slightly biased in the film, but what do you think this documentary says and why would you tell someone to go watch it?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Because I like the documentary because it shows a lot of different people who have a lot of different perspectives from across the country who are united very loosely mind you, to toward a common goal that is somewhat controversial. It’s getting a lot less controversial. The more we do it, more and more people understand why we’re doing it and we’re getting more support for doing it. And that’s important. And you guys tell the story beautifully, and I think that your story is intertwined with ours because you are now also cop watchers. Whether you like it or not, you’re part of the story right along here with us, just like our audience is. Because if we can encourage them, if they can watch, for example, if they can watch one of my recent ID refusal videos and be inspired by that to stand up even a little bit, then man, that’s a huge thing. If the officer never knows person, which is the next person that’s going to know their law,

    Taya Graham:

    That’s right.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Then maybe they’ll just stop violating people in general. Maybe, I don’t know. Well, I guess time will tell, check back with me in another 10 years.

    Taya Graham:

    Alright, we’ll do so

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s a good,

    Taya Graham:

    We’ll do that for the sequel. Otto, we appreciate you. Thank you so much, Otto. Thank you so much for joining us.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Thank you guys. I hope you have everything works out for you and you have a fantastic day.

    Stephen Janis:

    You so much, Otto.

    Taya Graham:

    Thank you. You too.

    Stephen Janis:

    Take care. It’s interesting because Otto’s little First Amendment test remind me of, I knew a person who was internal affairs and they would do integrity tests where they’d leave drugs out and see if an officer would take it. So he’s kind of doing an internal affairs integrity and test in some ways there.

    Taya Graham:

    Interesting. I mean, for me, this film has been a very personal journey. And what I mean by that is when I look at the piece, it’s a testament to the people I’ve connected with along the way. That’s because just like the cop watchers who joined together through YouTube, I was connected to them via that same media and that media has engaged all of us. And so the film is an extension of how that connection affected me. I mean, because as a journalist, you’re supposed to be objective about any community you cover. There’s supposed to be a distance, an arm’s length distance. But that idea really fails to comprehend the passion that’s required to cover a community, especially one that’s often ridiculed and objectified by mainstream media if it’s even covered at all. And this movement has democratized media essentially.

    Speaker 3:

    So

    Taya Graham:

    Both of these factors, one technological and one social, have drawn me into this story in a way that’s very new for me and actually quite personal. And as you will see if you choose to watch the documentary, we talk about the challenges we face trying to make an independent show about policing actually work and how we struggled at times and how the pandemic changed everything in ways that we’re still grappling with. But also how covering that community of cop watchers led us to new ways of thinking about journalism and new ways of approaching the process of storytelling and new ways of thinking about how to hold power accountable. But really in essence, what this film is about is telling a story, telling the stories of people who, despite being all over YouTube, are in other ways overlooked. And their work goes unacknowledged, creating a long form story and really delving into the detail of a person’s life in a way that actually changes you as you unpack and try to understand their lives. And that’s what’s been the most astonishing thing for me. The process was genuinely enlightening and the act of filmmaking was communal and therefore it was truly meaningful. So I am thankful for that opportunity for the people who are willing to speak to us and for the honesty and candor and courage of all the people who participated. Thank you all. Now, I do think we should just give a little update on Eric.

    As many of you know, he’s still in jail in Colorado, and despite his excellent behavior, he was denied parole for this year. His next parole date hearing is not until 2026, and we are currently working on a story to try to get to the bottom of the factors that went into that decision. Stephen, I don’t know if you want to mention where you’re going to begin your investigation

    Stephen Janis:

    There. Well, we’re going to look at some of the other parole decisions and see what kind of people were actually allowed to parole. So we’re going to try to go through the records of the Colorado Parole Department,

    Taya Graham:

    And I want to thank Otto the Watchdog and John Felixx for joining us. Two men who have the amazing gift of being able to make you laugh when you feel like you could give up and start crying. So I want to thank them both so much for joining us. We appreciate you and I want to thank everyone who’s been with us since the beginning in the live chat, in the comments section on the police accountability report, or even on our community posts. I appreciate all of you and you never cease to amaze me with your insights, your passion for justice and your kind support. And thank you to my Patreons and thanks to all of you and of course I have to thank MOD’s Noli D and Lacey R for their help and support. Thank you both. Noli D introduced me to my first cop watcher to interview, and it has been a wild ride ever since. I appreciate you and of course I have to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen, Janis for his research writing and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

    Stephen Janis:

    Thanks for having me. I appreciate

    Taya Graham:

    It.

    Stephen Janis:

    Was that accurate?

    Taya Graham:

    That was perfect.

    Stephen Janis:

    Okay.

    Taya Graham:

    That was perfect.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah,

    Taya Graham:

    And if you have evidence of police brutality or misconduct we might be able to investigate for you, please reach out to me on my social media or email us@therealnews.com. My name is Taya Graham and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Incarcerated people in the US are routinely forced to work for low pay or no pay, while state governments are saving billions of dollars—and private corporations are making billions of dollars—exploiting the slave labor of prisoners. And yet, incarcerated workers have been largely excluded from the ranks of workers the public in general, and organized labor specifically, cares about. What will it take for unions and union members to embrace incarcerated workers as part of the labor movement? In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa explores the history of labor exploitation and labor organizing in America’s prison system.

    Guests:

    Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, around 60% of formerly incarcerated people struggle with unemployment. The ACLU has reported that there are over 800,000 incarcerated workers in state prisons. This does not include jails and detention center in the US. People are exploited for their labor, either working to maintain the prison, or reduce commodities for low pay, or no pay. In contrast, the state saves billions, and multinational corporations make billions. This episode of Rattling the Bars will explore these relations with one of the labor organizers of the year for Indy’s Times Magazine, Katherine Passley, a grad school organizer and co-director of Beyond the Bars in Miami, Florida. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, Katherine has ran successful campaigns in Florida prison system to lower the cause of phone calls and assist formerly incarcerated people in obtaining employment. Her efforts have saved millions of dollars for loved ones of incarcerated people.

    Katherine Passley:

    We managed to pass free phone calls inside of our jails, and not just free phone calls, but we wanted everyone to have tablets so that way they have unrestricted access to calling their family members, access to the libraries. We ended up getting pushback from our commissioners because we wanted movies for them. Like, come on now.

    Mansa Musa:

    And in the later segment, we will speak with author Kim Kelly about her book, Fight Like Hell, which brings to the forefront workers who have generally been left out of the history and imagination of the labor struggle.

    Kim Kelly:

    I’ve been heartened to see labor unions, some of the unions whose members have been trapped in these drags, speaking up for farm workers, for grad student workers, for people that are just being disappeared saying, “You can’t do that to our members.” There are people.

    Mansa Musa:

    But first, my conversation with Katherine Passley. Welcome, Katherine.

    Katherine Passley:

    Thank you so much, Mansa Musa. It’s amazing to be here.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I open up by acknowledging that you was Labor Organizer of the year. How did you feel about that? How did you receive that?

    Katherine Passley:

    I mean, I’m just grateful to all the folks that allow me to be a leader in their space and developing leaders as well. So, it came as such a joy, but also bittersweet, because it’s just like, we’re just scratching the surface, there’s so much left to do.

    Mansa Musa:

    The reality is that when our peers acknowledge our work, our work is the reflection of our work, and it’s a reflection of how we doing our work that get us these accolades, these boots on the ground. This ain’t you wrote a poem, or you wrote an essay. This is labor. So thank you for your contribution.

    Let’s talk about how do you look at the correlation between the prison movement, labor, and social conditions that exist in society today?

    Katherine Passley:

    Yeah, I think it’s really interesting to know, this system is working exactly as it’s designed to do. When we think about converse leasing to what we’re dealing with now with modern day slavery, and that clause in the 13th Amendment that allows for people to become slaves once they’ve been convicted of a crime. And even folks that haven’t been convicted of a crime. Right now in Florida, in my city, in Miami, 60% of our jails haven’t even been to pretrial yet, they’re in pretrial. And they’re the ones that are the trustees that are giving out the place, that are doing all of this cleaning the jail and all of this labor for free, and they’re still innocent of what they’re being accused of. So, we understand jail to jail and prisons to be a form of labor control. They’re incarcerating surplus labor, for anyone that is politically attuned, understand, this is also a way to cheapen labor. The moment you get out, your labor isn’t valued as much because of your record.

    So now you’re forced into temp industries, you’re forced into accepting minimum wage. Your disadvantages are similar to our brothers and sisters that are immigrants. And as a child of immigrant parents, my father who’s currently incarcerated, I understand that when we talk about abolition, we need to talk about labor. We need to talk about that intersection. And also, we need to bring to the forefront the fact that most of the struggles for folks that have been inside, and out, when we think about Attica, the revolt, we’re talking about people that were fighting for better working conditions. It was always about labor, and our time. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was also like, “These corporations are exploiting us. Let’s attack their money.”

    So, it is always going to be about how we can take back our power from the current political structure, and the current economic structure. So it’s like, how do we fight capitalism, basically? So that’s what we’ve been doing here at Beyond the Bars, is trying to bridge these two movements, bridge the abolition movement with the labor movement. And there’s so many challenges, right? Because if you are convicted of a crime, you also can’t hold union leadership for 13 years and have legal standing. So it’s just like, okay, we want unions, but our voices can’t be represented in unions because of our record, but we know that that’s the only way for us to get upward mobility. And so it’s like, how do we get unions to now fight for our interests, knowing that that’s also in the best interest of unions that need density. They need us as well in order to… So it’s really marrying these two self-interests to get to that class union that we need. We need all of us together.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. For the most part. Your major unions don’t look at prisons as an entity when it comes to labor movement or union. Do you have a view on that?

    Katherine Passley:

    Yeah. I think a good chunk of that is education. We need to educate and bring our union brothers and sisters into the mix to understand that historically temp workers, prison labor, like you’re mentioning cheap labor, has been used to kind of bust union strikes. So it’s just like there’s that tension of like, oh, these people have been used against us for so long that there isn’t this realization that, well, what would it look like if we were to bring those people into the union so that they can’t bust these union efforts?

    So I think it’s going to take some creativity, and just the will to actually bring in our incarcerated brothers and sisters into the union fold in ways that just hasn’t been done before. And I think it’s hard for people to reckon with something that they haven’t experienced, or haven’t even tried. And I think we have the conditions now, and that are getting worse, where it’s just like, “We need to.”

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. And we look at the latest assault on labor workers from this government, and we recognize that in a hundred days, this government been in existence for a hundred days, in a hundred days they have managed to take people’s jobs, force people out of work, they decimated the middle class. Now most people got PhDs and certain skill set, they’re trying to get jobs at basically anywhere. My question here is, how do we make the connection between that right there and the fact that on top of that people are going to be released, and going to be put in the same pot competing for jobs with other workers, and are unskilled? How do you look at that?

    Katherine Passley:

    That is quite the question, because it’s just like when we talk about competition within the working class, the reality is it’s like, this many folks at the top that are making these rules and making these jobs, and then there’s thousands, millions at this point, of job opportunities for folks. And so it is just like, we really have to fight for not just any kind of job, but it’s just like, how do we shift who’s making the amount of money? And the reality is these heads of these corporations are making billions of dollars, millions of dollars, and then saying, “Okay, you are in competition with that person because that person is an immigrant and they’re trying to take your 725 job.”

    So it’s just like we need to actually know who the actual culprit is. And this is why I say union is important, because bargaining is important. So it’s like, when folks come out, it’s just like, how do we fight for good jobs? And folks that are currently unemployed, all of folks that are looking for jobs, it’s not that there aren’t jobs available, it’s just that there aren’t good jobs that pay living wages. And it’s not to the fault of the working class. It’s really to the fault of the ruling class, the capitalist class, that are putting profit above all things. And it’s just like, well, we actually need this competition, because we want you guys to keep fighting amongst yourselves, versus actually turning and trying to fight us for better working conditions, and for better pay, and for livable wages, and for all of these things that are due to us if we were able to get together and actually fight for them.

    So I think, if anything, we all need to strengthen our organizing skills, and bring in our folks, because it just doesn’t make sense for us to fight each other for what these bad bosses say we deserve. I think we need to start coming together and fighting for better jobs, better conditions. And we can get it. If we fight for it, we can get it.

    Mansa Musa:

    In March, I went to the University of Massachusetts Amherst to speak on a panel after a screening of the film Strike, with the filmmaker and one of the elder revolutionaries in the movie, Bobby Dellelo. Strike was a film and a documentary about how California prisoners struck using the hunger strike as a means to get the solitary confinement as it was being used in California prisons to become no longer used.

    JoeBill Muñoz:

    One of, I think, the dynamic things about the moment in time that we’re in, that the film really brings to light, but it’s oftentimes overlooked, is really the past 15, 20 years has been a real dynamic moment of prison struggle, beginning with a statewide prison strike that was called in Georgia back in the mid-2000s onto several rounds of national prison strikes that have been called really by different sensible organizations. We’ve seen really a heightened level of strikes and other forms of collective action behind bars. And the Pelican Bay hunger strike is kind of a signal example of that, but it’s unique in a lot of ways in that many of those strikes have also been work stoppages. They’ve been strikes where folks have refused to leave their cells.

    Mansa Musa:

    General practicing prison. Once you call a collective action and it’s understood that’s what it’s going to be, there’s consequences for calls in the picket line. There’s consequences, because you’re not arbitrarily calling an action saying, “Oh, oh, we want to call the strike because we want to enjoy it.” The issue that we calling this strike about is life and death. So if you cross this picket line, then you’re saying you with the enemy. And it’s understood, and it’s not a matter of everybody, people will be running around like, you cross the picket line like, no, it’s an understanding that the conditions are so bad that it’s behoove you to understand this, that people dying in the medical department, the garbage we’re being served, we ain’t making parole, we’re not getting out here, and we’re trying to get this changed. So we are saying the peaceful resolution for this is, don’t go eat.

    Bobby Dellelo:

    What struck me was the attitude that I’m dying here, so it don’t matter what I do. And I’ve escaped three times with a bunch of almost, and each time that I went over that wall, I took my life in my hands and said, “I’m going to be free, or I’m going to be dead, but I ain’t living like this rat hole.”

    JoeBill Muñoz:

    This is our 75th screening, in-person screening, which has been amazing. The film came out last April at a film festival, and then since then you make a film and you’re like, “Man, I hope my parents show up to watch it.” But the way it’s been embraced by folks of all stripes, we’ve been in churches, we’ve been in film festivals, we had the opportunity to take the film into Sandpoint in state prison and screen it there, into juvenile detention centers in California. And that work is just expanding.

    Mansa Musa:

    I highly recommend that you review this documentary and make your own determination on how effective this strike was, but more importantly, how simple it was to organize and get something done when the problem seemed insurmountable.

    Recently, I sat down with labor journalist Kim Kelly, author of the book Fight Like Hell. I spoke with Kim about her chapter on incarcerated workers and other workers who I generally undermined as organizers and leaders in the labor movement. In this segment, I explore how the prisoner rights movement and class struggle connects as a social issue. You took the position that in your book primarily about labor, that you going to specifically put a section there about the prisoners, but more importantly about the prisoners, and you looking at them as workers. Why was that? Why did you see the need to do that?

    Kim Kelly:

    Because for some reason that I don’t really understand, not that many other people who’ve written labor books have. It makes the most sense in the world to me. Of course, if we’re going to talk about not only workers, people performing labor, my book focuses on marginalized workers, vulnerable workers, workers who have not been given the respect and the treatment they deserve throughout the centuries. Of course, I would write about incarcerated workers. They’re part of the movement, they’re part of the working class, they’re the most vulnerable population of workers we have. And it always sort of rankled me that I didn’t see that expressed in a lot of the writing about labor, and the books about labor that I was reading.

    And of course, there’s some people like Dan Berger, for one, has done a lot of incredible work. Victoria Law too, incredible work talking about incarcerated workers. But it seemed like incarcerated workers in prison, that whole subject was kind of kept in its own little bucket, much like how we see, I think there’s this impulse to silo out different struggles, like women’s rights, and queer and trans rights, and labor rights, and racial justice, and prison issues. But they’re all connected, because sometimes the same person is experiencing all of those struggles at once.

    And so when I got the opportunity to write this book and to do it the way I wanted, I was like, okay, of course I’m going to write about auto workers, and farm workers, and so many of the people that are in the book, but I’m also going to specifically make sure that I’m able to include people like disabled workers, who are also kind of siloed out in a complicated situation, and sex workers who are criminalized, who are also dealing with all these different layers of oppression. And incarcerated workers, because not only are they part of the working class that doesn’t get their due and doesn’t, I feel, get the level of solidarity and support that other workers do, it’s also just not telling the real history of labor in this country if you’re not focusing on the organizing efforts and the labor of people who are in prison. That’s just not the whole story.

    Mansa Musa:

    And you know what? I want you to unpack that, because you’re making a nice observation on how we look at labor movement. But more importantly, unpack why you think that we don’t have that, we don’t have a general attitude about labor. When we say union, we say AFL-CIO, we say certain, it’s the hierarchy, the union hierarchy. When we say labor, we got a certain attitude on what that institution look like. But as you just said, we got sex workers, you got disabled workers, you got, like before the United Farm Workers became unionized they call them migrant workers. And then when they became unionized, they got their just due in terms of who they were, and they were. Why do you think that in this country, because it’s in this country in particular, why do you think that in this country we had this tendency to put things inside, mainly around labor?

    Kim Kelly:

    So, I think there’s a lot of reasons, some more understandable than others. First, I think a lot of folks in this country just don’t know that much about the labor movement in general, right? Unless they’re part of a union, part of a union family, unless they go out and seek that information. Because as much as it’s this crucial aspect of our lives, of our society, union density, only about, I think it’s down to 10% of workers are in a union in this country, down from much higher percentages in previous decades. So, already there’s fewer people that have real life experience with unions.

    And then, how many of them are reading history books, are looking into the political and cultural aspects of the movement? How many people are going to their middle school, or their high school, and learning about this history? Not that many. Even when I was getting interested in it as I was organizing with my first union, I come from a union family. I’m third generation. And even I, and I am a big history nerd, even I didn’t really know that much about it until I went looking for it. And then I kind of had to take what I could get, because I wasn’t approaching it in an academic sense. They’re obviously labor historians, and researchers, academics. That’s a whole different ball game. They know more than I ever will. But there’s only so many of them.

    All that to say, I feel like the labor movement is just not as well known in general. And then on top of that, the labor movement itself, especially when we’re talking about these bigger bureaucratic kind of entities like the AFL-CEO, and its predecessor, the AFL, sometimes they were perpetuating some of this exclusion, this oppression. I mean, for a very, very, very long time. Unions were segregated in this country. Black workers were not able to join unions. And there have been these threads of exclusion going back to the 1800s when the AFL supported the Chinese Exclusion Act, they intentionally decided they didn’t want to organize Latino workers. Women weren’t allowed to unionize for a very long time. There’s all these different aspects of the labor movement that are exclusionary. So that’s also kind of part of the stories that are told.

    So now when you see a politician going on, whatever, news, and saying, “Oh, the working class,” they mean a guy like my dad: a white guy with a beard and a hard hat, and bad political opinions. They don’t see someone like you or someone like me as part of the working class, as part of labor. Even though if you look at the actual data and the actual reality, the person who is most likely to be a union worker in this country is a black woman who works in healthcare or the service industry. That’s what the present of future looks like. And that’s what the past has looked like too.

    When I was writing the book, and even in just the other work I’ve done, I was always so interested in finding out those stories of the people that didn’t fit that stereotype, that easy stereotype, because that’s where the real stuff was happening. Back in 1866, I believe, when the Washerwomen of Jackson, one year after emancipation, a group of black washerwomen in the south, they organized the first labor organization in Mississippi. That is labor history, and that’s black history, and that’s women’s history. And that’s just one story. How many other stories are like that? I packed a bunch of them in the book, but there’s so many more out there. And if you want to understand labor in this country, you have to look below the surface, because otherwise you’re just not going to get the real story, and you’re going to not care as much about the people that have done all the work.

    Mansa Musa:

    How did you see that, the impact that had on the prison populations throughout the country? Because you cite some marquee cases. And I remember, we attempted Eddie Conway, we attempted to unionize in the Maryland system. And all this came from the attempts that was being made throughout the country.

    Kim Kelly:

    Yeah. As you know, California is kind of where it kicked off in Folsom with the PU, Prisoners Union. So obviously, prisons have been a site of rebellion, and resistance, and dissent organizing since people started being thrown into these places. But it was really in the 1970s when organizing just kicked off in a big way. Like I said, California, it kind of lit that spark with this push to unionize, to push for better working conditions and higher wages at all, right? But better wages as workers. And as you know, it spread throughout the country. And there was just this really dynamic and widespread effort, and an amount of interest around unionizing specifically. And there were in a variety of institutions across the country, incarcerated workers organized their own unions. And this was happening at the same time that a ton of people organized around black power, and brown power. Outside the walls, there was women’s lib; there were the first stirrings of the liberation movement; there was Vietnam, anti-war movement. There’s all these movements happening at the same time.

    And of course, people, even if they’re inside, they still know what’s happening outside. Just seeing the way that organizers connected those issues inside and outside, I mean, one of the most consequential rebellions in prison history, Attica, when I was researching this, I learned that the year prior to that rebellion, there had been a strike in the machine shop of that facility that was led by Jorge Nieves, who was a brown panther. And throughout that organizing, that organizing takes a while. A place doesn’t just erupt. Throughout the organizing those conversations about the way they’re treated, the working conditions that are happening in that machine shop, it seems pretty clear that, cause and effect, that first strike led to a much bigger rebellion. And that’s a little piece of the history that I think is lesser known, that a strike led to this kind of monumental event. And it just makes you wonder how many other labor-focused, work-focused bits of organizing, bits of rebellion, led to these bigger events.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. Rattling the Bars was intentional about showing the labor movement and its relationship to the prison industrial complex. But more importantly, we were intentional in bringing real life people into this space. People that are in this movement, people that are organizing, people that are moving around the country trying to abolish the prison industrial complex as we know it, by removing the 13th Amendment is one of the ways they’re trying to do it. But we’ve seen from these segments how labor, the prison industrial complex, prisoners has come together to eradicate the prison industrial complex and the 13th Amendment.

    We ask that you look at these segments and make your determination on how you think this reporting was, how important this information was, and more importantly, what views you had on expanding or offering your critique on what we can do to improve this reporting. We ask that you continue to support the real news in Rattling the Bars, because guess what? After all, we are the Real News.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on July 24, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    Israel is accelerating its efforts to cement its permanent control over the West Bank through a number of sweeping legal and institutional changes, according to a new report from Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

    The 87-page report, Legal Structures of Distinction, Separation, and Territorial Domination, describes the ways in which the Netanyahu government is rapidly building on a long-standing legal matrix that further threatens Palestinians’ right to self-determination. 

    “These developments are not something new to us,” Dr. Suhad Bishara, Legal Director of Adalah and lead author of the report, told Mondoweiss. “All eyes are on Gaza, justifiably so,” she said. “However… it is important to highlight the intensity of the structural changes that have taken place since the current government took over in December 2022.”

    “What is happening in the West Bank is dangerously fast-forwarding annexation policies in a blatant violation of international law,” Bishara said. “Israel is intensifying measures to change the status of the West Bank, the status of many Palestinians living in Area C who are subject to intensified displacement induced by settler violence and Israeli policies.” She said, “This is in addition to settler expansion and further restrictions on Palestinian development in the area.”

    Thoroughly researched and footnoted, the report documents how the current extremist government has built on what Adalah describes as “foundational mechanisms through which Israel has entrenched a land regime that facilitates territorial domination and racial segregation.” 

    Area C comprises over 60 percent of the West Bank, and is under full Israeli military control. 

    Here are the mechanisms of territorial domination Adalah examines in these areas.

    Civilian governance for Israeli settlers; military rule over Palestinians

    Beginning in the late 1970s, Israel abandoned its security-based justifications for approving settlements and adopted a policy based on civil, not military grounds. The report describes how, soon after, the Civil Administration — the Israeli body governing the West Bank — was established to formalize the division between military and civilian affairs.

    As a result, “Israel has steadily transferred governance over Israeli settlers in the West Bank from military to civilian control, entrenching permanent territorial dominance and greatly expanding the settlement enterprise,” according to the report.

    Most recently, structural reforms — such as the appointment of Bezalel Smotrich to serve as both Finance Minister and a Minister in the Defense Ministry — have resulted in increasing legal authority for the pro-settler civil servants working with Smotrich in the West Bank. These reforms have cemented the two distinct legal structures that govern life in Palestinian villages and Israeli settlements: the former, in which the military rules, and the latter, administered according to Israeli law. 

    1. Administration by local authorities

    Adalah’s report dives into the weeds as it describes one of the more concerning mechanisms that reveals Israel’s intent to annex the whole of the West Bank. Having transitioned the settlements from military administration to civilian rule — and having handed over significant legal and administrative decision-making to pro-settler civil servants — Israel can argue that the settlements operate now under Israeli sovereignty. But applying Israeli law in occupied territory, Adalah maintains, is a violation of international human rights law and constitutes “a measure of de facto annexation.” 

    2. Financial incentives for settlements 

    Readers of the report won’t be surprised to learn that, as Adalah writes, “Israeli settlements receive extensive financial benefits through direct government subsidies, preferential policies, and financial incentives… [covering] multiple sectors, including land allocation, housing, infrastructure, and agriculture.” 

    Still, it is remarkable—as documented in the Adalah report—how in contravention of international law, Israel continues each year to pour billions of shekels into the development of settlements in the West Bank. Readers of the report will learn of “the legal mechanisms behind these incentives and how Israeli law facilitates their distribution.” 

    3. Declaring State land 

    According to Adalah, Israel’s designation of State Land in the West Bank is “the primary legal mechanism through which Israeli authorities have taken possession of Palestinian land since the late 1970s.” Those already familiar with Israel’s use of this means of de facto annexation will be surprised by the extraordinary amount of Palestinian land so designated. The report includes information obtained by Peace Now through a Freedom of Information Act request that shows a shocking fact: in under a one-year period, Israel has designated more Palestinian land as State Land than it had in an 18-year period.

    From 1998 to 2016, just over 21,000 dunams were declared as State Land. But in just over nine months (from the end of February 2024 through early December 2024), over 24,200 dunams were declared as State Land. This acceleration is historically unprecedented.

    The planning system in Area C

    Adalah includes an entire section on the legal and structural framework in place in Area C to further expand Israel’s settlement project, fulfilling one of the Netanyahu government’s guiding principles shared the day before his swearing-in as Prime Minister in December 2022: “The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel,” promising to expand settlements throughout “Judea and Samaria,” the Israeli term for the occupied West Bank. 

    Paralleling the judgments of the ICJ, UN experts, and international, Palestinian, and Israeli human rights groups, the report ends by listing the five international crimes that Adalah finds Israel guilt of: violations of International Humanitarian Law; the deepening of the illegal mechanism of de facto annexation; the denial of Palestinian people’s right to self-determination; the deepening of the apartheid system in the occupied Palestinian territory; and the commission of war crimes and crimes of aggression on the part of Israel.

    The most recent newsletter from Ir Amim, an Israeli NGO, describes Israel’s expanding control over illegally annexed East Jerusalem. Asked to comment, Tess Miller, Public Outreach staff at Ir Amim (“City of Nations” or “City of Peoples” in Hebrew) told Mondoweiss that “the mechanisms of displacement that we monitor and advocate against within Jerusalem are not separate from the mechanisms seen today in Gaza and the West Bank.”

    “What we are witnessing,” Miller said, “time after time, place after place, is violent control granted to those willing to advance the state’s agenda of expanding Jewish presence and diminishing Palestinian presence.” Ir Amim’s newsletter documents home demolitions, evictions, and starkly discriminatory housing and land confiscation policies.

    “Together,” Miller said, “they all contribute to the accelerating erasure of the Palestinian people from their own cities, neighborhoods, and lands — enabled by the complicity of an increasingly radicalized Israeli public and the international community’s persistent refusal to take meaningful action.”

    According to Adalah’s Dr. Bishara, it is hoped that the Adalah report, read by advocates for Palestinian rights, stakeholders, and states alike, “will generate international pressure against these long-term changes in the West Bank that violate international law and threaten the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on July 24, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    A Trump administration appointee has been going hard after demonstrators in Los Angeles who in recent weeks have been protesting against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations—but it seems like he’s having a hard time getting grand juries to go along.

    The Los Angeles Times reports that Bill Essayli, who was appointed by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this year to serve as the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, recently became “irate” and could be heard “screaming” at prosecutors in the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles when a grand jury declined to indict an anti-ICE protester who had been targeted for potential felony charges.

    And according to the LA Times’ reporting, this failure to secure an indictment against demonstrators was far from a one-off.

    “Although his office filed felony cases against at least 38 people for alleged misconduct that either took place during last month’s protests or near the sites of immigration raids, many have been dismissed or reduced to misdemeanor charges,” the paper writes. “In total, he has secured only seven indictments, which usually need to be obtained no later than 21 days after the filing of a criminal complaint. Three other cases have been resolved via plea deal.”

    It is incredibly rare for prosecutors to fail to secure indictments from grand juries, which only require a determination that there is “probable cause” to believe a suspect committed a crime and which do not hear arguments from opposing counsels during proceedings.

    Meghan Blanco, a former federal prosecutor and current defense attorney representing one of the anti-ICE protesters currently facing charges, told the LA Times that there’s a simple reason that grand juries aren’t pulling the trigger on indictments: Namely, prosecutors’ cases are full of holes.

    In one case, Blanco said she obtained video evidence that directly contradicted a sworn statement from a Border Patrol officer who alleged that her client had obstructed efforts to chase down a suspect who assaulted him. When she presented this video at her client’s first court hearing, charges against him were promptly dropped.

    “The agent lied and said he was in hot pursuit of a person who punched him,” Blanco explained. “The entirety of the affidavit is false.”

    One anonymous prosecutor who spoke with the LA Times similarly said that ICE agents have been losing credibility when their actions and statements are put under a legal microscope.

    “There are a lot of hotheaded [Customs and Border Protection] officers who are kind of arresting first and asking questions later,” they said. “We’re finding there’s not probable cause to support it.”

    Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, was floored by the failures to secure indictments against the anti-ICE demonstrators.

    “Incredible,” he wrote on social media website X. “Federal prosecutors are seeing many cases of people accused of assaulting Border Patrol agents being turned down by grand juries! Los Angeles federal prosecutors are privately saying it’s because CBP agents are just ‘arresting first and asking questions later.’”

    Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) similarly bashed prosecutors for using easily discredited statements from ICE officers to secure indictments.

    “I’m a former prosecutor and can confirm that any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich,” he wrote. “Except the top prosecutor in L.A. Why? Because this article points out ICE AGENTS ARE MAKING SHIT UP. You want your agents respected? Tell them to stop lying.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • This story originally appeared in Truthout on July 17, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    The Trump administration is reportedly handing the personal information of all 79 million Medicaid enrollees to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), giving vast power to the rogue agency as it ravages communities across the U.S.

    The data includes names, addresses, ethnicity and race, birth dates, and Social Security numbers of Medicaid enrollees, per an agreement signed between Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Homeland Security. The agreement was reported by the Associated Press.

    The deal stipulates that ICE will not be able to download the data, and will only be allowed to access it between 9 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, through September 9. However, the Trump administration has previously faced lawsuits from states over the sharing of Medicaid data with ICE, saying that the laws providing for the protection of such data are clear cut.

    The agreement says that the information sharing is meant to help ICE track down “the location of aliens” in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that the agreement exists for the purpose of “exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans.”

    Crucially, undocumented immigrants are not allowed to enroll in Medicaid, and other immigrants in the U.S. have to meet certain qualifications in order to be eligible. Conservatives have long made claims of widespread fraud within Medicaid and other welfare programs, but there is no evidence to back them up.

    Further, there is no reason to give ICE access to the data to investigate fraud, as there are already Medicaid fraud investigators in every state and territory tasked with doing just that.

    But, using fraud and unauthorized immigration as excuses, Trump administration officials have worked relentlessly to expand the police state — replacing public services meant to help working class Americans with law enforcement officers who enjoy anonymity and impunity.

    Republicans have used lies about fraud and immigration to help push their marquee budget bill, which will force millions of Americans off of Medicaid coverage when the bill’s cuts take effect in 2027. In other words, some Medicaid recipients may be targeted by the Trump administration as a result of the data-sharing agreement and later kicked off of their life-saving benefits anyway.

    At the same time, fear over being racially profiled or surveilled by the data-sharing agreement may prevent people from enrolling in Medicaid to begin with.

    By targeting Medicaid, the Trump administration is targeting some of the poorest Americans in the U.S. Medicaid provides health care coverage for households making around or under the poverty level, as well as people unable to work like those with certain disabilities.

    “It’s unthinkable that CMS would violate the trust of Medicaid enrollees in this way,” said Hannah Katch, a former CMS adviser, to the Associated Press.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on July 15, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    In yet another controversial move from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons recently told officers that immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally are no longer eligible for a bond hearing as they fight against deportation and should be detained “for the duration of their removal proceedings.”

    The Washington Post first revealed Lyons’ July 8 memo late Monday. He wrote that after the Trump administration “revisited its legal position on detention and release authorities,” and determined that such immigrants “may not be released from ICE custody.” He also said that rare exceptions should be made by officers, not judges.

    The reporting drew swift and intense condemnation online. One social media user said: “Unconstitutional. Unethical. Authoritarian.”

    In a statement shared with several news outlets, a spokesperson for ICE confirmed the new policy and said that “the recent guidance closes a loophole to our nation’s security based on an inaccurate interpretation of the statute.”

    “It is aligned with the nation’s long-standing immigration law,” the spokesperson said. “All aliens seeking to enter our country in an unlawful manner or for illicit purposes shall be treated equally under the law, while still receiving due process.”

    The move comes as President Donald Trump and leaders in his administration, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, attempt to deliver on his promised mass deportations—with federal agents targeting peaceful student activists, spraying children with tear gas, and detaining immigrants in inhumane conditions at the so-called “Alligator Alcatraz.”

    In a statement about the ICE memo, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that “President Trump and Secretary Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep Americans safe.”

    “Politicians and activists can cry wolf all they want, but it won’t deter this administration from keeping these criminals and lawbreakers off American streets—and now, thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill, we will have plenty of bed space to do so,” she added, referring to $45 billion for ICE detention in Republicans’ recently signed package.

    According to the Post:

    Since the memos were issued last week, the American Immigration Lawyers Association said members had reported that immigrants were being denied bond hearings in more than a dozen immigration courts across the United States, including in New York, Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia. The Department of Justice oversees the immigration courts.

    “This is their way of putting in place nationwide a method of detaining even more people,” said Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “It’s requiring the detention of far more people without any real review of their individual circumstances.”

    Rebekah Wolf of the American Immigration Council told NBC News that her group has also received reports of some immigration judges “accepting the argument” from ICE, “and because the memo isn’t public, we don’t even know what law the government is relying on to make the claim that everyone who has ever entered without inspection is subject to mandatory detention.”

    The Post reported that “the provision is based on a section of immigration law that says unauthorized immigrants ‘shall be detained’ after their arrest, but that has historically applied to those who recently crossed the border and not longtime residents.”

    The newspaper also noted that Lyons wrote the new guidance is expected to face legal challenges. Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda—like various other policies—has been forcefully challenged in court, and there has been an exodus from the Justice Department unit responsible for defending presidential actions.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • After being stopped for an alleged traffic infraction, 29-year-old Timothy Michael Randall was shot and killed less than a minute after stepping out of his car at the request of an officer. Cop watcher Otto the Watchdog arrived on the scene in Henderson, TX, to protest and was promptly arrested for disorderly conduct related to alleged profanity on his signage. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report engage the officer’s credibility issues as a state trooper, the dismissal of his criminal charges for the death of Randall, and the potential loss of qualified immunity for the shooting.

    Credits:

    • Produced by: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
    • Written by: Stephen Janis
    • Studio Post-Production: Adam Coley
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Taya Graham:

    Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of a deadly police shooting. It is a questionable use of force that raises multiple questions about if American law enforcement is properly trained and if they have knowledge of the law itself. But we’ll be discussing the aftermath of the shooting by showing you this video of what happened when a popular activist tried to protest against it and what happened when he did. Only makes my initial question more relevant and in need of an answer. That’s because after the body camera was released, a well-known cop watcher named Otto the Watchdog, decided to protest the killing and test if a few of those police officers actually knew the First Amendment at the same time.

    And what happened when he did so is something you’re going to want to see. But first, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter at tes Baltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show off what a great community we have. And we do have a Patreon called Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do it. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

    Alright? Gotten all that out of the way. Now, one of the most important reasons we have to hold police accountable is because our government bestows upon them a unique and terrifying power. The legal authority to take a life. It’s an extraordinary exercise of state authority that should come with unique obligations for transparency and when warranted criminal liability when misused. But that’s not what happened in Henderson, Texas just two years ago, not hardly there in Henderson, a police killing occurred That was so terrifying and disturbing. We are going to break it down for you today. This troubling case started How many police killings begin with a routine traffic stop in this case in Henderson, Texas. There, Sergeant Sheen Iversson of the Russ County Sheriff’s Department alleges he saw Timothy Michael Randall, age 29 roll through a stop sign. That’s right. Failing to completely stop on a deserted road in the middle of the night. That was it. But even if that was true, what happened next is more than troubling because for this heinous crime, Sergeant Iverson not only pulls Timothy Michael over, but he immediately escalates. Take a look.

    Deputy Iversion:

    Good evening. How you doing, sir? Good. I’m Sergeant Iverson, the Russ County Sheriff’s Office. Yes sir. The reason I pulled you over is he blew that stop sign back there.

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    No, I didn’t. I came to a complete stop with that stop sign.

    Deputy Iversion:

    Alright.

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    I mean I did. I came to a stop.

    Deputy Iversion:

    No, you didn’t. What do you mean? I mean, what do you mean step out of the vehicle for me? Okay. I mean,

    Taya Graham:

    Now I just want to take a second to note how quickly the officer asked him to get out of the car if indeed this was a traffic violation when the officer first asked for his driver’s license or insurance. The only reason I can imagine is that this stop was purely pretextual, meaning it had nothing to do with the stated reason for stopping itself and overuse of law enforcement power that becomes obvious when the situation quickly unravels. Just watch.

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    Can you show me that I put step

    Deputy Iversion:

    Out of the

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    Okay. What? I’m just wondering.

    Deputy Iversion:

    Turn around. Put your hands right there real quick. You got anything on you? You should keep your hands out of your pocket. I

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    Wasn’t.

    Taya Graham:

    Now I am going to ask you to watch carefully here as I replay the video. Notice that the officer makes physical contact with Timothy thrusting his hand down into Timothy’s pockets and in the front of his pants. This is not a pat down. This is a physically obtrusive use of force. I say that because the officers essentially trapped him and in that sense arrested him almost within seconds of the stop. This is law enforcement overreach, but it gets worse. So much worse behind your back. I don’t have anything on me. Officer

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    Hand behind your back. Officer. I don’t have anything on me behind your back. Officer, why are you? Can you just tell me, officer, please, can you tell me what I’m under arrest for? Please, please,

    Taya Graham:

    Officer, please. So a man is driving home from work, not accused of any crime. Suddenly finds himself trapped in police restraint with the officer’s hands rummaging under his clothing. And like any normal human being, he pushes back not because he doesn’t want to comply, not because he hasn’t tried to comply, but because the officer’s actions are so aggressive and so invasive, he instinctively responds. In other words, all of this, every move up until now is caused by the officer and just watch what he did next. That’s right. In a horrifying move, the officer shoots him while he is running away after a stop for allegedly running a stop sign in under two minutes. Deadly forces used tragically Timothy Michael Randall died after collapsing about two blocks from the scene and the bullet slashed through his lungs and his heart. Now, as you can clearly see it on the video, Timothy is running away, but Sergeant Iversson told investigators he thought the victim was running towards him. I want you to watch the video closely to determine if that is true, because it is critical to what we will be discussing later. It’s also important to note that officers do not have the right to shoot someone who is simply running away to avoid arrest. They can only do so if they feel the suspect is an imminent threat to themselves or others. And it’s hard to conjure any sort of real threat from Timothy, a man simply driving home from work. Let’s watch a bit as the officer responds.

    Deputy Iversion:

    Dude, you Okay? Five 17 County, Hey, I need an ambulance. Call everybody. I’ve got a shooting.

    Taya Graham:

    But here’s where the story really becomes dicey and leads us to the next chapter of the saga that perhaps we’ll call the trials and tribulations of holding police accountable. That’s because after the case was brought to the grand jury, the judicial body which heard the case declined to indict Sergeant Iversson. Even with clear and compelling evidence on camera, there were no charges for what we just witnessed. And that’s when one of our favorite cop watchers sprang into action. His name is Otto, the Watchdog, and he is one of the most innovative and confounding YouTube activists we know. And like his fellow professional law enforcement documentaries, Otto finds creative ways to protest and hold police to account. In this case, he chose to give the officers in the same town where Timothy Randall was killed a bit of a law, review, a test while he protested the killing, and perhaps expressed his displeasure with a department that would kill an unarmed young man during a traffic stop.

    Or maybe there was more to it. Maybe he wanted everyone to know that a police department with the legal right to kill didn’t even understand the first Amendment, let alone when it is authorized to use deadly force. And to make that highly relevant point, Otto decides to stand on a public sidewalk with a series of signs that have a variety of intriguing messages. Some could be considered obscene, some are not. Some call out bad cops, some do not. Again, like I said, the perfect test for law enforcement’s understanding of the First Amendment and likewise, a more telling assessment if the officers from the department who killed Timothy understood the law at all. Just watch.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh yeah, they parked. Oh shit. Nope. Nope, I’m leaving. Why not?

    Police Officer:

    Because you got profanity on your sign.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Am I being detained right this second?

    Police Officer:

    Yes you are.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh boy. Okay. What do you want to do?

    Police Officer:

    Well, I’m just trying to figure out what’s going on. Why are you out here? Because you got that profane sign. We’ve had multiple calls.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh, I’m so sorry about that.

    Police Officer:

    You got your idea

    Taya Graham:

    That guy’s being disorderly. So just to be clear, it is not a crime to say an obscenity or hold a sign with an obscenity That has pretty much been case law since an appellate court ruled in 1971 that a man could not be charged with a crime for wearing a jacket that said, and I quote F the draft, but apparently the Henderson police are not aware of that law. Take a look. Okay.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well you’re being detained and you’re, am I under arrest?

    Police Officer:

    No, but you’re required to identify yourself.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Am I? Are you sure about that?

    Police Officer:

    Yes.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    It’s Texas penal code 38 0 2.

    Police Officer:

    The proclaimed language is cause disorder of the

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Conduct. Is it? Are you sure about that?

    Police Officer:

    Yeah. We’ve got multiple calls.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Are you a hundred percent sure about that? Yes sir. So I’m standing on the sidewalk, you know what I mean? So I’m standing on the sidewalk,

    Police Officer:

    Right? But

    Otto the Watchdog:

    When

    Police Officer:

    You’re

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Inside and breach of the

    Police Officer:

    Piece, you got multiple.

    Taya Graham:

    So the officer seems to double down on the premise that holding a sign that he or someone else finds offensive is a crime. Interesting. So governments get to editorialize on what we say and how we say it. That sounds rather authoritarian to me. But Otto lays an interesting trap for the officer and another cop who joins him. A clever on the spot. First amendment aptitude test that has some interesting results. Take a look.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Am I under arrest? Okay, well I under Texas penal code 38.02, I do not have to identify unless I’ve been lawfully arrested. Okay. That’s not how that works. That’s exactly how it works. I can give you

    Police Officer:

    The, you required, hey, look it up once you’re detained. Okay. Is

    Otto the Watchdog:

    That true?

    Police Officer:

    A video camera across the street?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh no,

    Police Officer:

    He couldn’t help.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh no, that’s terrible. Is that about me? What’d they say? Can I get back to what I was doing or am I still detained? No, you’re still detained. Can I hold my sign right here while you figure it

    Police Officer:

    Out? No, sir. Not the profane one.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Not the profane one. Is that a content view and viewpoint restriction that you’re issuing to me right now? What are talking about? I’m talking about what you’re doing to me. I want to stand over here and hold my sign without you standing here saying things You can’t. I can. Oh, yes I can. Oh, yes I can. Yes I can. As a matter of fact, do you like this one?

    Police Officer:

    I got my supervisor on the way.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Okay, good. Do you like this one? Can I hold this one? Okay, I can’t hold this one. You said I can’t, I’m not going to run or nothing. I’m just going to step over this metal thing so I don’t fall. Can I hold this one? Okay. How about this one? This one’s okay too? Yeah, this one’s fine. Okay, how about that one? Not this one. This is the one disorderly. Oh no, this sign is being disorderly. You can have it. You can arrest this sign. I didn’t mean to hit you. I’m sorry. Please don’t shoot me. Please don’t shoot me. How about this one? So which one of these are you? Are you this one put the signs? Well, I don’t want to put the signs down. So if I do that, it’s because you’re going to order me to do so, not because I really want to. Are you going to arrest me if I don’t put it down?

    Taya Graham:

    Okay. So if I were to interpret the law based upon the officer’s decision to become a free speech arbiter, the police accountability report would pretty much be shut down. I mean, it is really hard to understand how the cops are so unfamiliar with the law that they actually deem themselves legally empowered to tell us what we can and cannot say on a public sidewalk. I guess this is their stop the presses moment when we have to check in with the cops before we release our reports. And this particular cop not only seems comfortable with that state of affairs, but is joined by another impromptu speech arbiter. Just watch

    Otto the Watchdog:

    What if I sneak one of these other ones in here? I’ll do this one. I’ll do it like this. That way the sign can say whatever the people think it says, and then if they think it’s offensive, then that’s on them. Right? So I would definitely just me, honestly, me personally, I’d prefer to stand right here on this public sidewalk and do exactly what I’ve been doing. Okay. Without now two police officers showing up. I told you he was coming. Yeah.

    Police Officer:

    So we do have city ordinances

    Otto the Watchdog:

    As

    Police Officer:

    Well as state statutes.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Correct. Okay, fantastic.

    Police Officer:

    So as part of that,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    If you

    Police Officer:

    Are in violation of one, which we are investigating because we’ve received three complaints about your son.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Okay.

    Police Officer:

    Okay.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    This one?

    Police Officer:

    No, the other one, obviously the other one. The one with the propane

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Language? Yeah.

    Police Officer:

    Okay. Which is a violation of our city ordinance

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Where

    Police Officer:

    You are required to identify yourselves due to fact a criminal offense has occurred.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    A criminal offense. City ordinances are usually civil offenses where I could get a ticket or something. You

    Police Officer:

    Could, but you could also be arrested for violation of city

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Ordinances. Okay. So you might want to make sure that the city ordinance applies to a sidewalk.

    Police Officer:

    Okay.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Underneath an American, it’s not a public. You see that flag right there? Yeah, exactly. That’s why it’s a public place. I’m not arguing about where you can or, well, I don’t care what you think you’re doing, you are arguing.

    Taya Graham:

    And so rather than realizing their erroneous read on the law, the officers doubled down on Otto, both seem to embrace the idea that they can on the spot deem a sign. A sign no less illegal. And that seems to be the impetus behind this statement. Just listen,

    Police Officer:

    I don’t mind that you’re doing it. They don’t mind that you’re doing it. They just don’t want the profane

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Language. Oh, well

    Police Officer:

    That’s

    Otto the Watchdog:

    What

    Police Officer:

    It comes down to.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Tough titty. I’m sorry that they don’t like it. That’s on them. If they don’t like it, they can look away way. There’s a whole lot of things I don’t like.

    Police Officer:

    I understand that. But as for being civil,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Yeah, I think so.

    Police Officer:

    Yeah.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I’m going to stand right here and continue to do exactly what I was doing.

    Police Officer:

    Okay. Do you mind identifying yourself?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Am I under arrest? Have I been arrested? Am I simply being detained for an investigation

    Police Officer:

    At this time? You are being detained for an investigation,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    But

    Police Officer:

    You could escalate to arrest.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, when you guys decide to arrest me, I’ll tell you my name. But until then I would like to continue standing right here and doing exactly what I’ve been doing. If you don’t mind,

    Taya Graham:

    The officers seemed confused and they should be because Otto has led them into a quandary of their own making. In fact, they have literally revealed in front of not one, but two cameras, just how little they know about a basic constitutional right. But I think one of the most crucial moments of this entire encounter, the most important interaction towards understanding why this matters and why the work of cop watchers like Otto matters is what happens next. Just look,

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I told you, you said to wait until

    Police Officer:

    You’re

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Arrested. Yes. When you’re Yes, there’s a prerequisite there. That’s not a refusal. If you arrest me, I will follow the law and identify once I’ve been lawfully arrested Texas penal code 38 0 2 as dispatch to look it up. So once you’re detained, you’re required to id. Am I driving? It doesn’t matter. It does. What you’re referencing is traffic code.

    Timothy Michael Randall:

    I need that damn call. Thank

    Otto the Watchdog:

    You, sir. I appreciate that. How is that guy smarter than you? Are you big dummy? Jesus, this guy, this guy, this guy. You know how much this lady pays each year to have you guys here? $109. It looks like she can care less. That’s fine. I’m standing up for her rights too, because one day she might get a little bit pissed off and want to say something that somebody

    Taya Graham:

    Might find offensive and there you have it. One day she might want to exercise her rights one day she might be a victim of police overreach. One day she might want to protest. And as Otto encounter reveals, in order to preserve that, right, you have to be willing to stand up for it. And that’s what he’s doing and that’s why it matters. But I will have more to say about Otto’s work later because this is not the end of Otto’s push for justice for the family of Timothy Michael Randall. And for more than that, we will be joined by the man himself who will tell us what happened and why he continues to hold cops accountable in such demonstrably revealing and unique ways. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Steven Janice, who’s been researching the law and reaching out to police. Steven, thank you so much for joining me,

    Stephen Janis:

    Dave. Thanks Harvey. I appreciate it.

    Taya Graham:

    So first, Steven, what does the law say about profane signs or the use of expletives in general? I mean, how deep is the case law?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, the case law goes back for decades. There’s really no government agency, no official in any capacity who can tell you what to say or how you can use the First Amendment. Absolutely nothing that supports it goes all the way back to the seventies when a veteran was wearing a jacket that said, fuck the draft. And the court ruled that that was okay, that it wasn’t up to the government to tell you what or what not to say. So clearly there is no law or no legal basis to tell Otto what to say or what sign he can hold.

    Taya Graham:

    So you’ve reached out to the Henderson, Texas police. What are they saying about Otto’s protest and how their officers responded?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, I reached out to ’em. I’ve not heard back. I think the department is pretty sensitive right now because of the pending lawsuit. And in those kind of cases, departments don’t comment. I think in Otto’s case, because he was not arrested, they really don’t have much comment. So really nothing said right now, but they’re under a lot of scrutiny and I think Otto is really testing the department and maybe they’re having First Amendment training right now because of it.

    Taya Graham:

    So back to the police involved shooting, is Timothy Randall’s family planning to sue or take some other action against the department or the officer? Have they even received an apology from the department?

    Stephen Janis:

    I’ll tell you, this is really interesting. The family did indeed sue in federal court. And what came up was, again, qualified immunity, which we know police use to shield themselves from liability and lawsuits. But of course, qualified immunity means that the right has not been established in that district. In other words, the right not to be shot when you’ve done nothing wrong and you’re unarmed has not been firmly established. Well, the judge said that is just not the case in this case. And in fact, the judge said the fact that he didn’t really give him warning where he just shot him almost immediately disqualify any right of the officer to be shielded from liability in this suit. So this suit is moving forward and we will update you when we hear more, but really this officer will probably have to pay in court for what he has done

    Taya Graham:

    And now to break down his efforts to push back against police violence with his own unique form of activism. We are joined by Otto the Watchdog. Otto, thank you so much for joining us.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh, yes ma’am. Taya, it’s always a pleasure to be here. Thank you.

    Taya Graham:

    So you recently decided to go back out onto the street and protest. Tell us why you made that choice. Was there an incident that made you say to yourself, I have to get back out there and protest?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    What made me decide to go back out and protest was that people never stopped sending me their stories. So people kept reaching out to me and telling me what happened to ’em. And sometimes they were just so egregious that I wanted to go out, but things were going, were not situated in my life well enough to be able to do that. So I situated things in my life so that I could go back out and do that. And now I am. And now I’m here.

    Taya Graham:

    Otto, you sent me this body camera video, which honestly really upset me. Can you describe what happened in that encounter with the young man and the police? What are we seeing in the body camera footage? I mean this traffic stop led to his death in just under two minutes.

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Yeah, so you’re talking about the Michael Randall story. He was a young man that lived in Rains County and he was coming home at the end of the day and a police officer claimed that he ran a red light or well, it was a stop sign with a blinking red light. And then he was pulled over and ordered out of the car and then shot almost immediately. And that story touches me because it was completely unnecessary. It was a minor traffic violation if the allegations were true. And there there’s some legitimate questions on whether or not the young man actually did run the red light to begin with. And then everything that happened after the vehicle stopped is very telling in my opinion, because the officer walks up and puts his fingerprints on the license plate, which or on the brake light, which we’ve seen a lot. And it’s like they do that so that if they happen to not survive the encounter, if the vehicle’s found again, they can prove that it was that vehicle which gives them the mindset going in that something bad is about to happen. And in this case, I think that he invented a reason to do so.

    Taya Graham:

    Now, Otta, we watched a horrible death on camera. What happened to the officer involved in this case?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh, so Officer Iversson quickly resigned right after the incident with Michael Randall. And so he was charged, which is kind of amazing given the circumstances that he was charged. But when those charges went to the grand jury, they no billed him. So he will never go through the process of court, which for so many Americans is a punishment in and of itself. And in my opinion that is a miscarriage because at least, at the very least we should have that due process. He should have to go through the process just like anybody else. And for it to be no build. I mean the rest of the community is outraged, is absolutely outraged. Local citizens are outraged as well as people around the country because we all see ourselves. And Michael Randall, he was just going home one day and he got pulled over and things escalated very quickly.

    Very quickly, an officer immediately tells you to get out of the car and then you comply. And the first thing he does is put his hands down your pants up to his elbow. That would be offensive for anybody. And then he got thrown to the ground, not once, but twice. And just because Michael Randall happened to be in better physical shape than Officer Iversson does not mean that you get to shoot him dead. And Iversson said that he was reacting because of his experiences in the military where he was an active duty combat veteran. But I’ve spoken to his service buddies and they say that he never fired a shot and that he was never in combat. So he may have been combat adjacent, but that does not make you a combat veteran suffering from PTSD. So this whole story to me shines a light on a whole bunch of different issues and the police officer and his behavior is just one minor facet of what’s going on here.

    Taya Graham:

    Now you had an encounter with police that went viral. You were holding a series of signs with a variety of messages. Can you explain why you did this and why you chose the signs you did?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I do have a variety of signs. I have a ton of signs and some of them are more intriguing than others, but most of them don’t get any attention whatsoever. There’s only a certain very few signs that get posted on Facebook. For some reason I don’t really quite fully understand why. Actually, I do understand fully why, because it is surprising and shocking and because it gets posted on Facebook, people want to know what is wrong, what is this guy doing? What would cause somebody to do that? Can he do that? There’s a lot of questions that come up with that. And I can’t put all of these things on a sign. And when I ask the citizens what their problems are, they always say the same things. It’s the roads, our justice system, our local justice system, not some abstract thing that we can’t identify exactly. We’re talking about the local courts are screwed up, our local cops are screwed up. And then they’ll tell me, well, this is the most corrupt town. This is the most corrupt city in the state, and it might be in the country. Well, that can’t possibly be true because every single town that I cover, the citizens there say the exact same thing.

    This just happened to be in one small town in Texas, but this is every town that I’ve been to. So it makes me feel like it is the ones that I haven’t been to also, I just don’t know about that yet. So I go out there to protest Michael Randall. What am I supposed to put on that sign that draws that attention? Well, I mean, I know what I would put on that sign, but if you don’t, I have a sign for you too. If you don’t know what to put on your sign, you can put whatever you want to on this one right here and that’s fine with me.

    Taya Graham:

    Do you know why the police in this situation decided to approach you?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    I mean, the police say that they were called. I have no doubt that that is true. I don’t know who called or why I could get that information if I really wanted to, but it’s not super important to me why I was approached. I really don’t know why I was approached. Do you’d think that somebody would’ve heard the call go out over the radio and advised someone that nothing was actually going on there and they had plenty of time before they showed up that they could have called somebody, but that, I mean, clearly it’s because the first officer that showed up didn’t know. And then obviously the second officer that showed up didn’t know. And apparently, and I’m just assuming here, that none of the officers listening in on the radio knew so and the dispatcher didn’t know and nobody in that office knew. So I’m guessing it’s because they thought that they could take somebody to jail. I only assumed that they thought something terrible was going on some sort of a major crime and they came out there to stop me and that didn’t work out so well.

    Taya Graham:

    So what crime did they accuse you of and did they ever formally say you were detained?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, they alleged several crimes and they always do. Once you shoot down one, there’s always another one. And then when it gets past crimes, now it’s in ordinances. And then once you spill all those, it turns into public decency or something like that. Why don’t you be civil about it or whatever. So the officers initially said that they were called out there because of the profane language on the sign, which is exactly, I’m sure that’s exactly what the caller said, that he’s out here holding profane language, which I mean to in the common tongue that would be accurate. But legally speaking and a police officer should know that my signs are not profane. They’re merely vulgar. They’re also not obscene because these words have very different meanings in the common language than the legal ease of things.

    That’s the crux of it. Then it was failure. I have to ID and then it’s failure to id. I don’t think they tried to. Oh, and then I think it was blocking the sidewalk or something like that. I hope you understand. I have these interactions quite often and not always with police. So sometimes I get these things mixed up a little bit, but that’s generally the way it goes. And again, once you dispel all of their initial concerns, they just make up another one. So I do the best I can. I don’t want to talk to ’em. I really don’t. My whole purpose is not to talk to them. I’m here to talk to the citizens and I’m just shaking a tree for information because when somebody sees a guy out there who’s mad or madder than they are at the same things that they’re mad about, oh man, I got to talk to that guy. They will bust a U-turn. They will look me up, they will send me an email. And I appreciate every one of you. I read your comments, I read your emails. I respond to as absolute many of them as I can. And if I can’t help you, I try to find somebody that can. I’m just one guy. Well, I do have a team now, but we can’t do it.

    Nobody, I don’t think that there’s enough reporters on earth that can cover the amount of corruption that’s going on. Just, I mean, pick a spot. Just pick a spot. If we were to tell every story, there would be nothing else ever talked about. So we do have to find the most compelling stories for the widest possible audience. And I think Michael Randall’s a good story because everybody can identify with just trying to get home at the end of the day, maybe he oozed through the red light and the blinking stop sign. Okay, it’s just a blinking stop sign in a podunk town with basically no one in it. So maybe he did blow past the stop sign. I don’t think he did. I don’t think he did. But I’ve grown up in the country my entire life and there’s just some places where you don’t stop for that stop sign.

    Nobody stops for that stop sign because there’s only three cars that come by there in a seven day period and you just happen to be the one of ’em if you meet another car at the stop sign, sometimes we stop, but everybody just knows. And that’s what we do out here. So because that becomes a pattern and practice for the citizens, the police start knowing that because sometimes they live here and then they set up a trap to catch you. The same thing that they do when you’re traveling across and you come up to a small town, you better slow down. You can bet your ass that there’s a cop sitting there ready and waiting and just itching at the bit to write you a ticket for going five miles over their tiny little town. Why? Because you’re leaving and you’re never coming back. You’re never coming back. So you’re just going to pay that ticket because they scare the hell out of you. They’ll send you notices and they start out just a plain piece of paper, oh hey, just want to let know you got a ticket. You should take care of that. And then it’ll be a different color. It’ll be yellow, right? And then it’s yellow with red letters saying You got a warrant. They scare the hell out of you until you pay it.

    Taya Graham:

    Okay. So there was this brilliant moment when you asked the police if one sign was acceptable and if the others were not and he fell for it first. What did he get wrong with their choices and why did you ask him to be judge and jury on the sidewalk for your signs?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Oh yeah. So I carry a couple different signs and I do that because as the series goes, I’ll show the back the blue sign and then no matter what the person who sees it reaction is, whether it’s this or they just ignore it, then I’ll whip out the other one and then they read that one. And then it’s usually either a laugh or absolute disdain. And either one is acceptable is an acceptable reaction to me. And I do that because if you’re going to back the blue, then we have to get rid of the bad ones. But I wrote the bad one, very small because it’s supposed to be only just a few of them. And it is fun. It’s funny, objectively in my opinion, it’s funny. And I asked him which one he liked because that’s exactly what my attorney asked the other officers in their depositions.

    So I didn’t come up with that. My attorney did, and he’s a smart man. So I thought that it was a good idea to continue doing that. And this officer had no idea. He had no idea what was going on there, which is a problem because when the government is very restricted on how they can limit speech and a content and viewpoint restriction is the most obvious thing that they’re not allowed to do. That’s like the first thing that they should know about the First Amendment. The very first lesson should be content and viewpoint restriction issued by the government. And he had no idea. He didn’t even understand the phrase. So either he had never heard it or he hadn’t heard it enough to know what I was talking about. And then of course they do like the back, the blue sign, but they don’t like that.

    I disagree with you signs. They don’t like those. And that’s exactly what he said. And that just adds clarity to the fact because when you get into court, it’s very difficult to prove what was in somebody’s mind unless you get them to express what was in their mind. So if the whole point of them coming out there is because of an actual disorderly conduct, which is very specific behavior, incitement of violence causing alarm, intentional infliction of terror, that kind of thing, then you have to get them to say so. And that just happened to be what that particular officer did that day.

    Taya Graham:

    What do you think their actions say about law enforcement’s concept and understanding of the First Amendment?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, those officers showed that they clearly do not understand the First Amendment. And for some reason they believe that because somebody called then they have to do something. And by doing something, that means that I have to do something, whether it is stop using those particular signs or I need to leave or I need to go to jail or I deserve a citation of some kind, it falls upon me. And if I don’t know the law, I go to jail. Okay, alright, let’s get that right. And if they don’t know the law, the officers that show up don’t know the law, I also go to jail. Okay, so I’m the only one here that has anything to risk by this. They’re protected by qualified immunity unless they somehow trip themselves up by answering questions that they shouldn’t have been answering.

    Even a dumb attorney, even a dumb attorney will tell you, don’t talk to the police. Okay, well, when an officer shows up and he sees me, I’m miked up with a body cam. I got freaking five microphones and I’m holding signs expressly devoted to him. Well, maybe not him specifically, but somebody that dresses exactly like him. And you think that, I mean, what did he expect? What do they expect when they show up? Do they think that I’m just going to apologize for hurting? I mean, I guess I’m hurting their feelings, but what am I supposed to do there? What do they expect me to do? I guess that they’ve gotten so used to people just folding and leaving that the moment somebody puts up the slightest bit of resistance, well now I need backup. And they do need backup. They need a lot of backup.

    I can’t believe that they only show up at two officers. They should wheel out the Texas State penal code, which would take multiple dollies. So as a common citizen, I should not have to have a law degree to stand out there and express my displeasure with the government. I should be able to be a lowly common peasant with no education, and my sign could be misspelled, and that should be fine too. And I should be able to protest something that nobody else cares about, nobody else cares about, and I should not, no one should be fearful that they’re going to be taken away and not be able to go home to their families that night for expressing an opinion. And the place in which I was doing so on a public sidewalk underneath an American flag in front of a clock, it’s just the most iconic possible place in my opinion, that I could have protest. I was going to go down the street to the courthouse, but it wasn’t near as majestic as the place where I chose. So I have no idea what they were expecting when they showed up. But what they got is a face full of watchdog.

    Taya Graham:

    Now, they did not arrest you, but they also became aware of your cameras. How were they tipped off and do you think your cameras prevented your arrest?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So these officers did become aware of my cameras because somebody called dispatch and told them that I had been setting up cameras before they showed up. And it would be very difficult for me to set up my camera equipment without being noticed, especially on a very busy corner. And the equipment that I currently use while I was setting up my first camera, people were asking me if I was with the news because I’ll use professional equipment. So it was already kind of rumoring around the local area that something was going on and then something went on and then they called. So it would be very difficult to not notice me setting up for one of these protests. Obviously I use multiple cameras up, body cammed up. I’m hard to miss what I mean I’m, it’s very hard to miss me. So obviously somebody saw me, this is a busy area in the neighborhood, and somebody saw me and just wanted to let the police know that they were being filmed, why that was an important thing for dispatch to let the police officers know.

    I’m not entirely sure. I mean we can make our own conclusions upon that, but if the police officer’s being recorded or recording me, what are they so concerned about? I guess it would be important information. I mean, I guess I understand why they told them because that does kind of add a level of complexity to the whole situation, doesn’t it? It’s not just a guy out there holding a sign, it’s also a guy holding a sign with a bunch of cameras. That’s funny. Anyway, and do I think that the cameras prevented my arrest? No. No. I absolutely do not think that it prevented my arrest. I think that the verbal judo prevented my arrest. I talked those officers out of taking me to jail. I talked them out of violating my rights and forcing me to id. So the standard is not going to jail. Your rights are not violated just because somebody took you to jail unlawfully. Your rights are violated when you are unlawfully stopped. And any reasonable officer in their positions should know that I was engaged in a first member protected activity on a public sidewalk. I was not inciting violence. I was not causing fear or alarm. So there was nothing for them to do.

    Taya Graham:

    Otto, what do you think finally prompted the officers to give up? I mean, why did they finally leave you alone?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So one of the officers wisely decided that he was going to make a phone call after he informed me of a city ordinance. And I asked him if that applied to a sidewalk, which one? I know that there is no ordinance because such an ordinance would be unconstitutional. Two, if it did apply to a sidewalk, then that would also be another added level of complexity to the lawsuit at the end of it. So if they did take all that was just in case they made a bad decision that day, all those questions and all that was just in case they made a bad decision, which should have been a fricking clue. They should have been a clue to these officers that something was going on and wisely. The second officer that showed up decided that he was going to call somebody, and whoever was on the other end of that phone was obviously better educated than he was. And I’m certain that they told them that there was nothing that they could do and to disengage, which they did. Thankfully, very thankfully, I do not want to go to jail even for a moment.

    Taya Graham:

    So based on this encounter, do you think police are worse or better at understanding the Constitution than they were when you first began your activism over 10 years ago?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    So I’ve been an activist for 10 years officially, and probably longer than that unofficially. And in that time I’ve noticed that police officers understanding of some constitutional rights have improved. For example, we don’t see anybody, very rarely do we have anybody arrested for merely filming in public like police departments or even anywhere in public, from public publicly accessible spaces. But we do still have people being Now the big thing is arrested for walking the wrong direction to traffic. So if you’re walking the wrong direction on traffic, you’ll be arrested for that. Is that a constitutional violation in and of itself? No, but the purpose behind that arrest is a constitutional violation, which is something that we’re going to have to work out in the courts somehow because if the courts don’t say that they can’t do that, then they’re going to continue to do so.

    So I guess in that part, it’s a necessary evil. I think that police officers in general are being better trained on constitutional rights, but it’s such a complicated issue from their perspective that it’s going to take decades of dedicated study for these guys to have a proper understanding of it. I’ve studied a very niche corner of constitutional law, first Amendment, basically First amendment with that 38 failure to identify disorderly conduct and those things. And I don’t know everything about that. And I’ve been studying that hardcore for over a decade. So I can’t imagine what it would be like if every day I was faced with the opportunity to violate somebody’s rights. And I genuinely care about not violating other people’s rights. And I am certain that I would do so on accident if my job was literally to try and circumvent people’s rights to get them in trouble for things.

    Taya Graham:

    I know you have risked a lot and endured personal sacrifice and hardship to protest the police and advocate for the First Amendment. I mean, you were jailed, you went through intense court proceedings and intimidation, and you were even separated from your children for a period of time. You’ve sacrificed a lot and you’ve had friends and other activists who have endured a great deal of hardship. Do you have any fear of going out and protesting again? And is it worth it? Is it worth the risk because you know the price it can be paid. Why are you doing it again?

    Otto the Watchdog:

    Well, that’s a heavy question. So I certainly have endured a lot. I personally have been through a lot. I’ve been through a lot adjacent, meaning that a lot of the people around me have been through a lot and are going through a lot as a direct result of what we do. We’re not just reporters, we’re also activists, which is a very dangerous line. It just being an activist on its own is dangerous. And then reporting on some of the things that we report on and the people that we report on is dangerous sometimes, especially when they’re known for making threats of violence. And some of these cases, that’s exactly what they’re being accused of. Is it worth it? I guess time will tell. I certainly hope that all these sacrifices and pain and suffering wasn’t for naugh. I can only hope. But what I know for certain is that the alternative is worse than doing nothing.

    If we continue to let this happen, somebody has to do something and I wish that it would be somebody else, but I’m the one that, I’m one of the ones that has been tasked with this and I don’t really have a choice in it at this point. So I’m going to have to continue doing what I’m doing. And it’s not because I do enjoy, I love protesting. I think it’s fun. And I think if you don’t enjoy it, then you couldn’t do it at least as frequently as I do because it is scary. And I’m terrified every single time, every time I see a cop go by, you don’t know if the guy inside that car is going to think it’s funny or if he’s going to hate it. Just like you don’t know if the guy that pulled you over is having a fantastic day or if he’s maybe not.

    And then they might take it out on you and they might take it out on me. And if somebody calls and they’re sufficiently upset, then they might also take it out on me. They might take somebody else’s frustration out on me. They could just have a complete misunderstanding of the law. And nothing that I say or do convinces them that they should call somebody and then here we go again. And I don’t want that. I sincerely do not want to go to jail or getting in any kind of trouble. And I shouldn’t. I shouldn’t, but I don’t do this because I enjoy it. I enjoy it, so I do it, but I don’t do it for those reasons. I do it because at the end of a protest, mothers and fathers email me and message me and contact me and thank me for what I’m doing.

    And other citizens in the town email me and message me and let me know that they’re also going through a very similar situation and they tell me what else has been going on that I’ve never heard about and nobody will ever hear about because nobody ever said anything. And that’s exactly what I want to do. I want to go out there and fight and shout for the little old lady who owns the barbershop or the ice cream parlor or the coffee house who has to make a living in these towns. And they’re not going to go out there and hold these signs or any signs because their livelihood is inextricably based on the community around them. And any perceived, even if it’s Ill-gotten any perceived slight, could be devastating to a business in one of these small towns where they might have 1500 or 15,000 people that can be rough. So they don’t want to say anything. And then you get the judges and the cops not liking you, and you have to drive through this town every day with the heightened risk of being pulled over and harassed and ticketed into oblivion. So they’re not going to say anything either. So that’s why I do it for them.

    Taya Graham:

    Okay, there is a lot to unpack here, and I want to make sure I talk about what we’ve just seen in a matter that is insightful, compassionate, and hopefully adequate to the task at hand. What I mean is ultimately this entire story is not just about one man’s life, but how his death affects all of us. It’s about a country where a traffic ticket can be a death sentence. An ordinary and routine disagreement over a stop sign can turn into a profound and life-altering event that consumes all of us. And what’s most important to realize about this is that we have in part accepted it as normal order of things. In other words, police violence has become so routine that a man dying during a traffic stop, a man who was provably unarmed, doesn’t really seem as disturbing as it actually is. Now, there’s an idea that some used to explain this phenomena, an idea that highlights how an uncommon event can seem common depending on the way it’s portrayed and how often we encounter it.

    Some people describe this as a process of normalization, meaning we become accustomed to police violence because we see it so often. In other words, there’s nothing unusual about dying during a traffic stop because it happens all too often. And it is in some case, understandable. As the guardian reported in 2023, since 2017, 800 people have died during routine traffic stops by police. Now, that’s an appalling number of deaths when you consider that police are generally only authorized to use deadly force in response to deadly violence from a suspect. But I have a different idea of why the death of a young man perhaps goes without much pushback except for activists like Otto, perhaps a more illuminating way of comprehending why police killing seem so unexceptional and almost inevitable to understand this idea, let’s turn around what we just witnessed and consider another aspect of what it means if we are indeed willing to accept it.

    Throughout the roughly two minute video depicting the killing, there is one aspect of it that predominates that is the unremarkable and unquestionable exercise of police power. And by extension state power, I mean the officer doesn’t hesitate to begin giving orders. When Timothy exited the vehicle, he was almost instantly manhandled without any obvious recognition of his rights. It’s like from the second the officer engages him, he controls him. And so when he is shot running away, it is like the state has extended its authority to the even most human form of dissent, protecting one’s body and one’s life. But like I said, I think there’s a reason for this, something beyond the confines of a traffic stop that pretends a more disquieting aspect of American policing that we rarely dissect, namely its role in projecting state power and quashing dissent. So what I mean is that the officer’s action and lack of legal pushback amount to a stunning and symbolic display of government power.

    And when that dark theater of power is performed over and over again, the message is both appalling and subliminal. Do not resist, do not dissent because the government has both political and legal authority to take your life. Do not push back or run away obey at all times. Now, I know this might seem like a bit much like what does police authority have to do with state power? How can a car stop over traffic violation have anything to do with the expansive powers of government? And most importantly, how can a police killing be related to the way power is exercised in other facets of our lives? Well, please let me explain. There are obvious symbols of state power like a flag or a monument or a seal that are fairly common and seem unexceptional. These are static portrayals of state authority intended to create a sense of the ubiquity of government as if it were everywhere all at once.

    But there are also more active demonstrations like a military parade or a televised session of Congress or even the simple presence of police on patrol. But what we saw in that video and the way police push back on Otto is a different way to project power. It is inherently active and it is inherently more potent and disturbing. What it does beyond causing the unnecessary and unjust death of a young man is show that the process of state power is as extreme as it is routine. It reveals, and most importantly projects that we are subject to extraordinary force and provocation in the most ordinary circumstances. That if we at any moment, if at any moment we dissent or refuse a lawful order or otherwise do not comply with the power of the state, then needless to say, the state can act without limit to ensure we obey.

    And that’s the point. Unfortunately, that’s why a routine car stop turns into a deadly tragedy. Why police officer can escalate an encounter from a traffic infraction to a death sentence in a split second. And why even with a video revealing how unnecessary Timothy Michael Randall’s death was, a grand jury decides not to indict, I simply don’t understand how anyone could watch that video and hear his last words, officer please and not feel compassion and want his family to have justice. But as much as we protest and push back and recoil from the use of force like we just witnessed, we are also inured to it. Remember, American police kill 1000 people a year. Not all are unjustified and not all are avoidable, but many are like Timothy Randall’s, which are stunningly excessive. But we watch and I think we’re supposed to learn, I think we’re supposed to be indoctrinated.

    We’re supposed to internalize the idea that what the officer did was legal. We are expected to absorb the fact that a formal process was followed and then unbiased legal system came to an objective conclusion that fatal force was necessary. This is what I mean by projection of power. And these are the consequences of its symbolic strength, which means what we all need to do is what Otto did, reverse the symbolism and take back the power and put it where it belongs in the hands of the people. I mean, that’s why YouTube activists are actually so powerful. They challenge not just a narrative but the symbolism of power. In videos like Ottos, we see police put on the spot, not just us. We see a digital expose of the inner workings of state power, and in Otto’s case, the absurdity and the extremes that Ibu Street cops with the supposed ability to judge whether your First Amendment rights can be exercised.

    That’s why cop watches armed with cell phones and cameras are actually so important. Why subjecting police to on the spot? Accountability is so essential to preserving our rights because without their perspective, without their ability to convince truisms about police power, we would have the symbolism of police power that is absolute without their constant presence and their commitment to the constitutional rights of everyone. What other narrative would we have that tells us their use of power is not always justified? What other symbolic reveal what exists from the perspective of the people, not just law enforcement? This is a critical idea to understand that the symbols of the state power and dominance are often crafted to deceive us and make us compliant to rhetoric that argues against our own best interests. Just look how mainstream media continue to show the same images of unrest and pepper spray and the same darn car burning while people protested peacefully against federal power, noticed how the CNN anchors showed up wearing goggles and helmets while a little more than four blocks, four blocks in a city of 500 square miles was engulfed in what could be described as a low intensity standoff with our soldiers.

    It is symbolic state power at its best images to justify using the military against its own people were conjured and cooked up by network, staffed with multimillionaire anchors, the forward guard of inequality, stoking passions with exaggerated reporting so the armed forces of the United States of America could be manipulated into going to war against own people. That is not a democracy. We are a democracy. We the people who stand up for each other and the people who stand up to power, the people who refuse to relinquish their rights no matter who is trying to persuade us that we should. I would like to thank Otto the watchdog for speaking with us, sharing his video and standing up for the First Amendment and for Timothy Michael Randall. Thank you Otto. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Steven Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you Steven

    Stephen Janis:

    Te thanks for me. I really appreciate it.

    Taya Graham:

    And I want to thank mods of show Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thanks Noli D and a very special thanks to our accountability reports, Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally. In our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny, David, k Louis P, Lucita, Garcia, and Super friends, Shane b Kenneth K, pineapple Gold Matter of Rights, and Chris r. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out. You can email us tips privately@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on X. And of course, you can always message me directly at tia’s Baltimore on X or Facebook. And please like and comment, I really do read your comments and appreciate them and I think we have a fundraiser link on the screen somewhere below. And we also have a Patreon link pinned in the comments. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Labor Notes logo

    This story originally appeared in Labor Notes on July 08, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    It was the morning of June 9, and Genie Kastrup, president of Service Employees Local 1, stood in front of Chicago’s Daley Plaza and bellowed into a microphone. “What is happening right now is about silencing voices,” she said, flanked by members of her union holding signs that read “Free David Huerta.”

    “It’s about dividing working people,” she continued. “It’s about dividing our communities against the have and have nots. It is abusing power.”

    The demonstration was one of 37 taking place that day across the country to protest the June 6 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) assault and detention of Huerta, the president of SEIU California and SEIU-United Service Workers West. Huerta had shown up to defend members of his Los Angeles community from federal raids. Images of the long-time labor leader with his head pressed to a curb by ICE agents touched off anger—and mobilization. Huerta was released after three days and hit with charges of felony conspiracy.

    Facing an emboldened Trump administration, union members across the country are in an intensifying battle to keep their members—and all workers, whether or not they are in unions—free and safe from federal immigration authorities. They are holding emergency rallies, organizing in their workplaces, knocking doors in their communities, using contracts to defend members, and building coalitions that can respond rapidly to detentions and raids.

    While unions cannot guarantee workers’ safety, many are mobilizing to protect them against an administration that is increasingly targeting workplaces and labor leaders themselves.

    “We’re on the line, we’re targets,” Minnesota AFL-CIO President Bernie Burnham said about labor leaders and organizers. It was June 9, and she was addressing a rally on the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul. “They’ll come after anybody if you disagree with them. I think it’s just a matter of time. Watch where you’re at. You’re stronger in numbers than you are on your own.”

    David Huerta is not the only unionist who has been targeted by ICE. At least three other people affiliated with SEIU were also recently detained, though have since been freed: Lewelyn Dixon, a member of SEIU 925; Rümeysa Öztürk, a member of SEIU Local 509; and Cliona Ward, a member of SEIU 2015. Alfredo “Lelo” Juarez Zeferino, a farmworker and leader in the militant union Familias Unidas por la Justicia, is still in detention, as is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a member of SMART Local 100, and Maximo Londonio, a member of Machinists (IAM) Local Lodge 695.

    The vast majority of workers targeted by ICE have no union. They are day laborers, textile workers, and caregivers, or work in other parts of the informal economy.

    But some unions are mobilizing to defend not only their own members, but non-union workers and communities that are under attack. SEIU, for example, is calling for an end to “the brutal ICE raids terrorizing our neighborhoods and tearing families apart.” This points to the underlying reality: Whether the Trump administration is targeting labor leaders or workers who are perceived to be powerless and unable to fight back, their attacks intimidate workers and undermine their fights for better wages and conditions.

    At events across the country, union leaders and members have emphasized that detaining workers—whether or not they are union members—is unjust. But the Trump administration’s targeting of organized labor might reveal something about how it is trying to consolidate power.

    “It’s not a surprise to me that a fascist government starts their crackdown by going after labor first, undocumented workers, and going into work sites,” Sheigh Freeberg, secretary-treasurer of UNITE HERE 17 told the crowd in St. Paul. Freeberg’s union represents hospitality and food service workers in Minnesota. “They know the real power in this country is labor, and they’re afraid of us.”

    ‘KIDNAPPED OFF THE STREET’

    On June 30, SEIU members and Starbucks baristas gathered from across the country to protest outside of the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center. “We cannot wait for things to be happening to us to start fighting, because when we wait for that level, then we’re left with no one to fight with,” said Siti Pulcheon, a barista and shift supervisor who attended the demonstration.

    In response to immigration raids across the country, Starbucks Workers United recently offered a Know Your Rights training open to all Starbucks baristas. “A lot of really important questions were asked, like ‘How can we protect not just the baristas in our store, but also our customers?’” Pulcheon said.

    The Trump administration has portrayed its widening ICE dragnet as targeting dangerous criminals, but that has turned out to mean legal permanent residents with traffic citations, nonviolent crimes committed 20 years ago (like Londonio), misdemeanors like vending too close to the curb, or no record at all. And with no opportunity for detainees to make a case before a judge, and an ICE quota of 3,000 arrests a day, no one is safe.

    “Anybody who thinks we have to ignore certain issues or avoid certain political conversations in order to grow the base, they don’t understand what it means to grow the base,” said Ryan Andrews, an English teacher and member of the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA). Organizing around immigrant justice has actually pushed some members to engage more closely with their union, he said.

    Andrews pointed to a student walkout in February protesting President Trump’s immigration policies. After protesting students were assaulted by two adult men, teachers and students met to discuss a path forward. Teachers circulated a petition demanding that the district denounce the attacks, meet with students and their families when attacked, ensure the safety of students at student-led actions, and provide mental health resources for affected students.

    “Almost every co-worker signed the petition,” Andrews said, including those who felt left behind by their union. “After careful organizing conversations, those co-workers signed because they care about their students and are open to perspectives that differ from their own.”

    Andrews’ union is now building on past contract wins. UTLA’s 2019 strike resulted in the creation of an immigrant defense fund. Workers are now trying to further expand collective defense, said Andrews: They’re fighting to protect members who need to take a leave due to their immigration status and pushing the district to invest in legal and mental health support for immigrant students.

    MOBILIZING AGAINST THE RAIDS

    Beyond organizing on the job, workers are joining mass mobilizations in the streets. UTLA members have been canvassing their neighborhoods with door hangers informing residents of their rights if ICE agents come to the door. “Teachers are connected to the very fabric of the communities where we work,” Andrews said. “These things are not abstractions. We are seeing our students and their family members kidnapped off the street.”

    Workers in major cities across the country are organizing against workplace raids. After the Trump administration set an aggressive new quota late May demanding that ICE officers arrest 3,000 people per day, agents began flooding federal buildings, said Ben Mabie, a staffer with IFPTE Local 98 in New York City. “It was horrific to watch the [lack of] of personal dignity [afforded to] the people that were getting caught up, and it was also a really grave safety issue. These people weren’t identifying themselves as law enforcement,” he said.

    On June 25, federal workers in New York, Chicago, and Seattle held informational pickets demanding an end to ICE’s workplace raids.

    “It is a profound attack on our civil institutions,” said Colin Smalley, president of IFPTE Local 777 and a co-founder of the Federal Unionists Network who attended the ICE OUT demonstration in Chicago.

    Smalley’s job at the Army Corps of Engineers is to ensure environmental compliance. He said that ICE’s presence in federal buildings affects his work: “If we have ICE agents that are conducting these raids without identification, without showing their face, without warrants, that makes it more risky for me to do my job,” he said. “If folks feel like submitting a permit application to us makes it more likely that they’ll get targeted in a raid, they’re not going to do it. Then, by not engaging in our permit process, they are less likely to do the work in a way that balances the needs of economic development with the best practices for environmental protection.” Smalley stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of his employer.

    UNIONS FIGHT FOR IMMIGRANT WORKERS

    Even as the Trump administration cracks down on immigrant workers, union members continue to face the day-to-day challenges of organizing against the boss and fighting for a good contract. And sometimes that includes fighting to protect immigrants in the workforce.

    More than 100 Teamsters Local 705 members at Mauser Packaging Solutions in Chicago are on strike, supported by fellow union members in Los Angeles and Minnesota. Protections for immigrant workers are part of what they are fighting for. The Chicago workers want contract language that protects immigrant workers from intimidation, modeled on language Seattle workers won three years ago. “Local 705 is fighting to win similar protections for our immigrant brothers and sisters that live in the very community where Mauser’s Chicago facility is located,” reads a press statement from the local.

    In Chicago, labor, community groups, and workers’ centers have been holding “Know Your Rights” trainings since before the Trump administration came to power, prompting Trump’s “border czar,” Tom Homan, to complain in late January that Chicagoans were too well educated “on how to defy ICE.”

    This work is more critical than ever, says Shelly Ruzicka, communications director for Arise Chicago, a workers’ center. “One of the biggest things we’re telling people is to be informed and be connected,” Ruzicka explains. “Know what your rights are, have conversations with your family, and practice so that if there is an altercation, you are prepared.”

    CHICAGO’S COORDINATED RESPONSE

    The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to target Chicago, because it is a sanctuary city, where laws restrict collaboration between the police department and ICE. Labor has been part of the effort to defend the city’s sanctuary status, established in the 2006 Welcoming City Ordinance, against recent attempts to weaken its provisions.

    Chicago has an extensive network of labor and community groups that rapidly respond to the presence of immigration authorities in the city. “We are trying to deepen and strengthen our capacity to do coalition work here in Chicago,” said Jackson Potter, the vice president of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). “Labor and the community are coordinating responses to ICE in real time, because the attacks are becoming heightened, and putting a drain on our existing infrastructure and resources.” The coalition includes elected leaders, like Alderman Byron Sigcho Lopez, who serves in the 25th Ward, often a port of entry for migrants and refugees.

    In recent months, these coalitions have been tested—labor has had to quickly mobilize in response to reports of ICE. In late February, parents reported that they had “witnessed law enforcement agents… arrest a father in front of his children as he dropped them off for school at Idar Elementary,” according to a CTU press release. Parents had already been planning to hold a vigil to oppose the proposed closure of three schools. But after the alleged detention, the vigil expanded to incorporate opposition to ICE, and CTU members and elected officials joined in the demonstration February 26.

    Potter said that the rally was intended to provide a layer of safety in case ICE carried out more raids in the area. “We had multiple conversations with a number of moms expressing fear, and they decided along with us that we should move forward to make sure people felt defended and protected in this terrifying incident and the aftermath,” he said.

    “I don’t care what agency they turn out to be, targeting a father as he tries to provide an education to his children at their place of learning is a deliberate act of terror on behalf of this government,” said CTU President Stacy Davis Gates in a press statement about the vigil. “Chicagoans have already shown that we are who keep each other safe by knowing our rights and by organizing to have each others’ backs.”

    The aim of ICE’s dragnet is not to deport every undocumented worker: Trump himself has acknowledged that many industries rely on their labor. The aim is to spread terror, and in the process, scare workers from pushing back against the boss. The Trump administration’s strategy is poised to intensify. The president’s budget bill, signed into law on July 4, allocates $170 billion towards the immigration crackdown, an amount that exceeds the funding of most of the world’s armies.

    The labor movement can keep its head down, as the Trump administration hopes it will, and watch standards for every worker erode. Or it can fight—and grow stronger in the process.

    A WIN FOR IMMIGRANT STREET VENDORS

    In one case, that fight looked like winning legislation that reduces interactions between a largely immigrant workforce and law enforcement, a reduction that keeps workers safer. In 2022, 800 NYC street vendors discussed their shared struggles through the Street Vendor Project. After six months of discussion, they voted on issues they wanted to see addressed through legislation, creating the Street Vendor Reform Package, bills that would help protect NYC’s 20,000 street vendors.

    For years, street vendors have reported abuses at the hands of the NYPD: from being ticketed hundreds of times in one year to having their food carts illegally crushed before their eyes.

    Criminal charges for minor violations like standing a few inches too close to the curb can have life-altering immigration consequences, and fear of deportation has pushed many to cease vending altogetheroften with no back up plan.

    In May, more than 100 vendors and advocates gathered on the streets of City Hall demanding that City Council advance the reforms. On June 30, New York City Council passed a key part of the reform package which replaces criminal misdemeanor charges for street vending with civil penalties.

    “I’m so thankful that this new law passed,” said Ahmed Fouda, a halal food vendor who organized with other Midtown Manhattan food vendors who felt beleaguered by constant police presence in the tourist-heavy areas they serve. “I hope that the police will respect the law and respect the vendors and treat us for who we are.”

    This article is a joint publication of Labor Notes and Workday Magazine. Amie Stager contributed reporting.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • “What Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s family is going through is just unimaginable,” says Baltimore-based journalist Baynard Woods, “but it is also what we’ve all allowed to happen over generations of letting the drug war and our deference to police departments erode the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which should protect us all from illegal search and seizure, such as these seizures that ICE is committing all around the country right now.” In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa and Woods discuss the US government’s case against Abrego Garcia—whom the Trump administration finally returned to US soil from El Salvador in June—and what the government can do to citizens and non-citizens alike when our right to due process is taken away.

    Guest:

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    • Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a household name, and what makes him a household name is the manner in which he was kidnapped from this country and taken to El Salvador prison under the pretense that he was a gang member.

    Where did the information come from to say he was a gang member? You’ll be surprised. Joining me today is Baynard Woods, a writer and journalist based in Baltimore. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Guardian and the Washington Post, Oxford American Magazine, and many other publications.

    He’s the co-author with Brandon Soderberg of I Got A Monster: The Rising Fall of America’s Most Corrupt Police Squad.

    Thanks for joining me, Baynard.

    Baynard Woods:

    Great to be here. A long-time fan of the show.

    Mansa Musa:

    And so, you heard when I opened up. And the reason why I opened up because you was the one that reported on Garcia, Kilmar Garcia and the pretext that was used to initially say that he was a gang member. Talk about that.

    Baynard Woods:

    Yeah, so it was a couple months, actually, I think already into early May after he was first taken in mid-March off the streets, leaving a work site in Baltimore, headed down home to Prince George’s County. Pulled over into the Ikea right by the Ikea down there, parking lot. And then his family never saw him again.

    And the federal government was citing a 2019 case in which he was pulled. He was stopped with three other men at a Home Depot. And one of the cops, Ivan Mendez is his name, identified and claimed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was a gang member of MS-13.

    And that was the case that banned him from being sent to El Salvador. The judge said that he couldn’t, and this was months later. He was locked up for months before the judge ruled that he couldn’t be sent back there because there was a good chance he could be tortured or harmed by a gang that he had refused to join there. Another irony of the story.

    But three days later, it was only three days after writing that report that Ivan Mendez remained a police officer. He was suspended after those three days. He had already committed a crime in giving information about an investigation to a sex worker that he had a relationship with to help them avoid a police sting.

    And so, he was ultimately criminally charged. The New Republic did some great reporting that revealed his name. And so, once we had that name, I was able to go in and find the do-not-call list of the Prince George’s County [inaudible 00:03:15]-

    Mansa Musa:

    State’s Attorney, yeah.

    Baynard Woods:

    … Prosecutor, State’s Attorney, and his name was on that list as someone that’s not allowed to testify.

    And what that means is if they stop you for a traffic stop or anything else, their word isn’t good enough to hold you on or to be used in court. And so, the federal government was using the word of this cop that couldn’t stand up in traffic court to justify sending a man with no due process whatsoever to a offshore Gulag in the CECOT prison in El Salvador.

    Mansa Musa:

    And so, do you think it was in terms of that right there, because this was public information, so do you think that this was premeditated on part of federal government, one? And two, in your investigation, did they ever contact Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Aisha Braveboy to see why she put him on do-not-call list? Because they’re relying on the report of this officer. To your knowledge, one, why did they ignore it? And two, to your knowledge, did they ever contact Prince George’s County [inaudible 00:04:31]?

    Baynard Woods:

    I don’t think they did contact Braveboy or, I tried to speak with her and got a comment from her office, but I did get a copy. Part of it was one of the charges was redacted, but with Brandon Soderberg, who I wrote the book with, got a copy of his disciplinary, Mendez’s disciplinary charges from before.

    And so, we do know that was why he was put on the do-not-call list. I don’t think that Homeland Security looked at that at all. I think they were all covering afterwards. I think they were just, we’ve over the last decades, as you well know, we’ve given up the Fourth Amendment in this country in many ways by allowing a racist drug war, making the worst assumptions about people that are arrested, newspapers running police allegation. Police say stories all the time.

    And so, we have so little transparency around policing and so little accountability that I don’t think they ever bothered to look at who the cop was who wrote this. They had on paper that he was a gang member, and that’s all they wanted or needed.

    Mansa Musa:

    And let’s talk about that, because United States Senator Van Hollen, he had went to Visit Garcia. But he said, initially he went down there and tried to find out why, try to get them to send him back. And they pretty much ignored him because they saying, “Well, this is under Salvadoran jurisdiction. United States don’t have nothing to do with this no more.”

    As it worked its way out, they just became more and more ridiculous in how they dialed down on hold on to the abuse. But he said, and I want you to address this, he said that Garcia’s, this is not unique case, that this is a particular practice that’s going on in the United States as they round up and kidnap people that they consider illegal aliens or undocumented workers.

    In your investigation, have you seen that or have you maybe get a sense of that this particular mythology, and the mythology being, “Oh, you’re a gang member. You got locked up for and because of that, we can send you out.”

    Not saying how the resolution of the case nor the fact that they saying, “I’m going to take you before the court and let the court, was supposed to make the determination on whether or not you had probable cause to proceed with this act.”

    Have you in your investigation or do you see this as something that’s developing as we speak?

    Baynard Woods:

    Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it’s both a new strategy and the same old strategy of criminalizing street culture and street fashion. One of the reasons he was deemed a gang member was because he was wearing Chicago Bulls hat and jacket. And there’s been some great reporting on all of the Venezuelan… The signs of Venezuelan street culture that don’t necessarily have anything to do with gangs have been used as evidence to deport the hundreds of Venezuelans that have been just snatched up in exactly that same way.

    The real difference with Abrego Garcia’s case is that there was a protective order prohibiting him from being sent to El Salvador. So, when they sent the Venezuelans to El Salvador, many of them thought they were being sent home, and so their mothers were preparing their rooms for him. They called, “I’m coming home,” and then they get sent to a prison for indeterminate length of time in El Salvador instead.

    The reason that we know Abrego Garcia’s name, one of the main reasons is that it was illegal to send him to El Salvador, which was his country of origin because he had to flee from threats on his life for not joining a gang.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I read in your article where you cited that his family had a business. The gang was extorting them. They was paying. The gang wasn’t satisfied with that. They wanted the family members to join. Eventually he wound up in the United States. And Garcia, they paid to try to prevent him from being recruited by the gang.

    When that didn’t work, they sent him them to the United States. So, all this information came out. All this was evidence initially, but let’s talk about now fast-forward. Okay, so after all this, they finally, in the face of being cited for contempt and possibly being the consequences of that being more severe than maintaining this farce, they finally sent him back. Where’d they send him back to?

    Baynard Woods:

    So, they sent him back to Tennessee, central Tennessee district, which is a pretty white and very conservative district, federal court district, much more so than Maryland where Judge Xinis is the one who’s been really at war with the administration to make sure that they facilitate his return. The Supreme Court agreed with Judge Xinis. So, the last thing they wanted to do was give him a fair due process in Maryland.

    He was pulled over and videotaped in Tennessee in 2021 with a car of people. And the troopers believed that they were undocumented and that he was transporting them. They’re now using that. Just the same way that they used his earlier encounter in Maryland, they’re now using that as part of a two-count criminal indictment, charging him with trafficking. With transporting, not trafficking, they keep using the word, but of transporting undocumented people.

    What they did, though, as they do in so many federal prosecutions especially, and they made it a conspiracy case, so it’s much harder for him to beat, and then they threw out all of these allegations and the indictment that they’re not charging him with, which means that they don’t have the evidence. They claim that he was transporting children. So, then they bring up both, child trafficker. They say that he was alleged to have abused women.

    No evidence for any of these things. And this is what they do, as you know, in so many, especially in federal conspiracy cases, they’ll just load the indictments with other information that the press can pick up and use. And it colors our understanding of not only the individual case, but the way that justice works.

    And so, it’s a real miscarriage. And they say they’ll be trying him in Tennessee, and they want him to remain incarcerated there until the trial.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. And that right there, to your point, that discourages people from wanting to participate in the process. That discourage people from supporting people like Garcia because the arbitrary nature of the charges, one. And for the benefit of our audience, it’s standard procedure in this country that you be having the right due process of the law, the 14th Amendment.

    It’s standard procedure that once you’re allegedly charged with something, then in order to be charged, they have to bring evidence, information to support those charges. This is standing practice in the country. You can’t just come up and say, “Oh, a person is a pick-pocketer or a shoplifter,” and then put me on a plane to El Salvador or put me or take me to a prison in California.

    You have to have bring me before someone that’s going, and the accusing party got to submit their information to say, “This is why we believe that he fit this criteria to be sent to El Salvador.”

    But they avoided that and avoided detention because they could never present that information. So, going forward, how do you think it’s going to play out now? Because now seem like, well, initially the reports were, and President Trump and the president of El Salvador, Bukele, I think is, pronounce his name, they was in the White House. And both of them was like, “Well, he not coming back,” or, “He’s not a United States citizen.”

    I mean, so therefore we’re entitled to it. But going forward, how you think it’s going to play out in terms of what I just said? Because now it comes down to, okay, he had a day in court where he pled not guilty, but now it comes down to is he going to be allowed to submit information to exonerate him of this? Is the information that they had going to be looked at in order to exonerate him? Or are they going to still play this tape out and just keep throwing paint at the wall, and paint at the wall in this case be just different narrative, different charge narrative. What you think?

    Baynard Woods:

    I think they’re going to do the latter there. I mean, his lawyers are really fighting here in Maryland to have the case that they sued the government to bring him home not dropped, and to have sanctions brought against the government because of discovery violations, not giving them the information that they need to be able to work on their client’s behalf.

    And I suspect, as is so often the case in our criminal system, that there will continue to be discovery violations. But it’s ultimately to say when they’re charging him simply with transporting undocumented people, I think they’ll be able to prove that relatively easy, that he had a car that had people in it, including himself, that were undocumented.

    And so, they made it a charge that would be a really difficult charge for him to beat while then making all of these other unfounded insinuations. And so, I think what they’ll try to do is, especially with probably a white conservative jury in central Tennessee there, and then I think they will try to just deport him. And instead of deporting him to El Salvador, because there is that rule against deporting him there, I think they’ll try to deport him to-

    Mansa Musa:

    Somalia or something.

    Baynard Woods:

    Yeah, one of the other places that they’re looking to prisons that they’re setting up. And I think it’s a really good example of how the xenophobia of this administration is really mixed with some of the worst surveillance state techniques of the Bush administration with extraordinary renditions and sites that are off the country to use for all kinds of torture and stuff.

    And so, I know his family are still quite concerned about his safety.

    Mansa Musa:

    As they should be.

    Baynard Woods:

    And there was, in Tennessee, there was a riot in one of the private prisons there last week because people were being on lockdown for 21 hours a day because they’re not paying enough guards to be there, COs to deal with the prison conditions. The food is terrible. And so, there was a big protest last week. So, it’s another prison for profit system just like Bukele is doing in El Salvador with the Trump administration that’s happening to him in Tennessee.

    Mansa Musa:

    And even further, these private prisons, all of them have always been cited for being inhuman and dehumanized. And because the prison industry is heavily regulated in this country, they were taking shortcuts.

    But now because of this roundup call on behalf of the president saying that he want over 3,000 undocumented or illegal aliens or whatever he called them, locked up. He want ICE to lock up 3,000 of them a day. And he targeted New York, California and Chicago as blue states saying that that’s the area he going to go in.

    But even with Trump doing what he doing, Obama was considered, he was the forerunner for Trump because he was sending people out left and right. And it was like it’s a standard practice. I think with this administration recognized because it was done, I think this administration and Trump being a lightning rod, I think this administration’s position is not going to, it’s no pretense, “We are not pretending that we are doing anything other than what we’re doing. We’re arbitrarily rounding people up. We are sending them to where we want to send them at. We investing a lot of money in private prisons.”

    In theory it’s a private prison, but in fact it’s a place where they’re warehousing people, and because they don’t have no oversight, they’re able to get away with it. But talk about when they initially got, because I was reading an article about how when they got him at the Home Depot. Talk about who was in the car with him when they initially arrested him and how that played out so we can give our viewers a sense of how vicious this whole thing is. It’s not just no, somebody just put handcuffs on and round them up.

    Baynard Woods:

    Yeah. So, the initial case goes back to 2019, and he was going to the Home Depot to do day labor, wait out, and get picked up for a job. And so, he was standing with four other guys. And the same as they’re doing now, like you say, and it was in Trump’s first term, but they came through and just rounded these guys up and then brought them in and started questioning them.

    As so often happens, an unnamed confidential informant was the person who said, “Oh, he’s a high ranking member of a gang.” His hoodie and hat linked him, they said with a clique of MS-13 that operated in upstate New York, where he’d never been before. So, not a very good informant there.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right.

    Baynard Woods:

    But as so often happens, whatever you get someone to say, that’s all you need is to have someone say it. In this recent case, they say they have six co-conspirators that they have their word that I guess they’ve been talking to, but of course none of them are named.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right.

    Baynard Woods:

    So, in both cases there’s no ability to face your accuser. And that’s just a problem that is so, about law enforcement in general of course, is the reliance on confidential informants in which you can basically make up what they say.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right, right.

    Baynard Woods:

    If you’re the officer because there’s so little scrutiny if you just say they’re a reliable confidential informant. So, they held them for, he was held at that time for a number of weeks in prison waiting to finally get this trial. His son was born. He got married. His wife was pregnant. They got married in the Howard County Detention Center so that they would be married before the son was born.

    And so, he wasn’t able to see his son. His son has special needs and is nonverbal. And the most heartbreaking thing, in his wife’s court documents is that the son is not being verbal, hasn’t been able to express how much he misses Abrego. And so, he just holds his shirts up to his face to smell them and get the scent of them.

    And that’s his son who’s now not seen him since March the 15. So, it’s been three months now. And people who’ve never been taken away from their families and stuff might think, “Oh, only three months.” But that’s a tremendous amount of time.

    Mansa Musa:

    Nah, trauma.

    Baynard Woods:

    And tremendous number of things can happen within your life in that amount of time that you’re not there for, and you’re not able to help your family in any of the ways that you need to.

    And so, yeah, that one allegation by an officer that was only going to be an officer for three more days, acting as an officer, has trailed him now for six years and has led to all of this, which just gave them, and the gang databases, they do this in so many cities all the time. They’ll come through, take pictures of people. And then if you’re seen with another person that’s in those pictures, then you have gang affiliations.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right.

    Baynard Woods:

    Then if someone else is seen with you, then they have it, even if it’s never been proven that you were a member of a gang in any way. And so, we’re really using that as a way to just criminalize entire populations.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I was reading in the article when they arrested him for this or kidnapped him for this, he had his child with him in his car. And he told ICE, said, “Look, I’ve got my kid in the car with me. He’s special needs.”

    So, they called. They in turn called the wife and gave her a timetable, “You’ve got five minutes to come and get your kid or we going to send them to protective services.”

    This right here, okay, you are locking someone up for allegedly being in this country illegally. This is what you’re saying, that they’re in this country illegally or they’re affiliated with element that this country don’t recognize. You’re not saying nothing other than that. And so much so you’re saying that, “Because of this we’re going to send you up to another country.”

    But you’re not saying that this person represents that much danger, that you can’t allow for his wife to have ample enough time to come and get their child and find out what’s going on with him. You made it where as though, and this is the attitude that I think they’re creating in this whole system, is the fear mechanism, where, “I’m coming ti your neighborhood, I’m coming deep, I’m taking whoever I want to take. I’m going to the elementary school, I’m grabbing the elementary kid. I’m going to the church, I’m grabbing your grandparents, whoever I got to grab to put the fear of you all in to be more inclined to cooperate with us,” as opposed to giving me due process of law.

    But closing out, what do you want to tell our audience about this system? Because you done did, you dealt with the police, you’re real familiar with the lack of what they call law enforcement. But I’m calling it the lack of enforcement. And you deal real well with that. Talk about what you think about that.

    Baynard Woods:

    To me, this case hits at a lot of the problems with policing and authority and authoritarianism, which policing is a variety, in America because we’re so used to, we see it here in Baltimore all the time where the police say, “If I have to follow the Constitution, then everything’s just going to be crazy. Everyone will kill each other.”

    And they take their violation of the Constitution as a minor matter. They’re broken windows on everything else except the Constitution. And then you can violate it with impunity. And that’s what the Trump administration did here, violated the most foundational principles of this country of due process. And snatched people up without any due process, without even habeas corpus and send them away.

    And you act like the issue of coming here to save your own life is a worse crime than you kidnapping someone and sending them away to a concentration camp in a country where they’ve been prohibited by a judge to go, then defying a Maryland federal judge and then defying the US Supreme Court, while joking with the proud dictator of El Salvador, who called himself the world’s coolest dictator.

    While you all joke about how neither of you can bring him back, it’s a special atrocity. And what Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s family is going through is just unimaginable and irreducible, but it is also part of what we’re all facing here and what we’ve all allowed to happen over generations of letting the drug war and our deference to police departments erode the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which should protect us all from illegal search and seizure such as these seizures that ICE is committing all around the country right now.

    Mansa Musa:

    There you have it. Illegal search and seizures. We look at this case of Garcia, and we think that, oh, that’s just his situation. But the reality is that this president unleashed the ICE and weaponized the Justice Department to go out and round up anybody and everybody, regardless of what your situation is, and not allow you to have a right to a hearing before you’re being punished.

    Because this what’s happening now. You’re being punished, and then you had to fight your way back to get a hearing to undo what they did to you. We ask that you look at what’s going on, Garcia. Garcia is just, not the case in of itself. You’ve got Garcias throughout this country that they rounding up. You’ve got Garcias throughout this world that they rounding up. The xenophobia mentality of this country has become indefinite.

    We ask that you look at this and you evaluate. We thank Baynard for coming in to educate us on this issue. Get up, stand up. Don’t give up the fight. Get up, stand up, fight for your rights. That’s what we ask that you do today.

    And guess what? We ask that you continue to watch and listen to the Real News and Rattling the Bars because after all, we are the real news.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • After being abducted from his New York apartment building by plainclothes agents and locked away in an ICE jail in Louisiana for over 100 days, Mahmoud Khalil has been freed and reunited with his family. A federal judge ruled that Khalil’s detention was unconstitutional and that he was neither a flight risk nor a threat to the public, and the Syrian-born Palestinian activist, husband, father, and former Columbia University graduate student was finally released on June 20, 2025. But the fight for Khalil’s freedom is not over, and we have by no means seen the last of the Trump administration’s authoritarian attacks on immigrants, universities, and the movement to stop Israel’s US-backed genocide of Palestinians. In this exclusive interview, TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with Amy Greer, an associate attorney at Dratel & Lewis and a member of Mahmoud Khalil’s legal team, about the epic legal battle to free Khalil.

    Guest:

    • Amy Greer is an associate attorney at Dratel & Lewis, and a member of Mahmoud Khalil’s legal team. Greer is a lawyer and archivist by training, and an advocate and storyteller by nature. As an attorney at Dratel & Lewis, she works on a variety of cases, including international extradition, RICO, terrorism, and drug trafficking. She previously served as an assistant public defender on a remote island in Alaska, defending people charged with misdemeanors, and as a research and writing attorney on capital habeas cases with clients who have been sentenced to death.

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    • Studio Production / Post-Production: David Hebden
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    After being abducted from his New York apartment building by plain clothes agents and then locked away in an ice jail in Louisiana. For over a hundred days, Mahmud Khalil has been freed and reunited with his family. The Syrian born husband, father Palestinian activists and former Columbia University graduate student played a key role in the 2024 Columbia University Palestine solidarity protests mediating between student protestors and the university administration after a federal judge ruled that Khalil’s detention was unconstitutional and that he was neither a flight risk nor a threat to the public. Khalil was finally released on June 20th, but the fight for Khalil’s freedom is not over, and we have by no means seen the last of the Trump administration’s authoritarian attacks on immigrants universities and the movement to stop Israel’s US backed genocide of Palestinians. The country watched in horror as Khalil and other international students and scholars like Ru Meza Ozturk at Tufts and Bader Kuri at Georgetown were openly targeted, traumatized, and persecuted by the Trump administration for their political speech and beliefs. Here’s a clip from the Chilling video of Khalil’s abduction in March taken by Khalil’s wife, no Abdullah that we republished here at the Real News Network.

    Amy Greer:

    You guys really don’t need to be doing all of that. It’s fine. It’s fine. The opposite. Take Amy. Call Amy, she’ll be fine. Okay. Hi Amy. Yeah, they just handcuffed him and took him. I don’t know what to do.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Okay, I, what should I do? I don’t know. Now as Mahmud is being dragged away in handcuffs by those plain clothes agents, in that video, he turns to his wife noir and he says, call Amy. And you can actually hear in that video no’s terrified voice saying over the phone to Amy that she just doesn’t know what to do as her husband is being dragged away. Joining us on The Real News Network today is the Amy who was on the other end of that phone call on the fateful day when Mahmud Khalil was abducted from his apartment building on March 8th. Amy Greer is an associate attorney at DRA and Lewis and a member of Mahmud Khalil’s legal team. Amy is a lawyer and archivist by training and an advocate and storyteller by nature as an attorney at DRA and Lewis. She works on a variety of cases including international extradition, Rico, terrorism and drug trafficking. She previously served as an assistant public defender on a remote island in Alaska, defending people charged with misdemeanors and as a research and writing attorney on capital habeas cases with clients who have been sentenced to death. Amy, thank you so much for joining us on the Real News Network today. I really, really appreciate it. And I just wanted to kind of start by asking how is Mahmud Khalil doing? How is his family doing? How are you and the rest of the legal team doing after this long, terrifying saga?

    Amy Greer:

    Yeah. Well, I think for many of us, including Mahmud and Ur, the reunion and knowing that Mahmood is free was just a huge relief. Seeing him detained, watching that experience of that family being separated from each other was incredibly challenging to watch as attorneys, and I can only begin to imagine what that felt like for Mahmud and nor themselves. So having them be together is so critical, and you’ll see every time you see photos of them in public, they’re holding hands or Mahmud’s arm is around North. So just that physical proximity I think has just been really powerful and important for the two of them, the legal team. The fight continues, but I know for many of us, the relief that course through our own bodies, our own hearts as people who love and have loved ones bearing witness to their reunification was really special, really important. And now it’s galvanizing for the fight to continue.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and good news is in short supply these days, and I can genuinely only imagine what it is like for you and folks in the legal world to be navigating the reality of this new administration. I mean, because the law fair that is unfolding, the fights over the future of this country and the Trump agenda, so many of those fights are happening in the courts, and the law system itself is a key player in how the Trump administration is trying to execute its authoritarian excesses. So it is, I think, gratifying and energizing for so many people. And we’ve heard that from our own audience that amidst all this darkness and these onslaughts from the administration to have a victory, like seeing Mahmud, Khalil walk free from the ice detention facility in Louisiana reminds people that the fight is not over. And we are going to talk in a little bit about where things stand now with Mahmud’s legal standing in the case that he’s fighting for his freedom. But I wanted to ask if we could go back to that fateful day in March when you got that call from No Abdullah. Can you talk us through what it’s even like to get a call like that? Is this a call that you’re used to getting? And what was the process of responding to that call? What were you guys doing in the hours after Khalil was abducted?

    Amy Greer:

    Sure. So actually the first call I got was from Mahmood himself, and that wasn’t on video. Mahmud called me at around eight 30 ish on March 8th, and I was embarrassingly, I just poured a glass of wine and was sitting down to a Ted Lasso episode, which is what I watched. It’s like the equivalent of sucking my thumb. It’s like how I chill out sometimes. I have some episodes that I like to rewatch, and it was a Saturday night, and so I was relaxing and the phone rang and I saw that it was Mahmud, and it’s very unusual. Even though we’d been working together for a few months, it’s pretty unusual that he would call me outside of business hours. So I knew that something must be going on, and I picked up the phone and he told me he was surrounded by ice and that ice agents in plain clothes and that they told him that his student visa had been revoked.

    We knew that he was not on a student visa, he was a green card holder or lawful permanent resident. And so the agent asked to speak with me because Mahmud introduced me as his attorney. I had some words with the ice agent asking him if he had a warrant, what the basis for the arrest was, which again, they repeated that the Secretary of State had revoked Mahmud’s student visa. When I informed the agent that Mahmud was actually a lawful permanent resident, he said, well, they revoked that too, which is not a thing actually. There needs to be some due process that happens in order to revoke somebody’s lawful permanent residency. And when I demanded again to have the agent show Mahmood or to send me a warrant, the agent hung up on me. And that’s when Nora’s video picks up because no had gone upstairs to get the green card to show ice that Mahmood was a lawful permanent resident.

    And so when she came back down, that’s when the filming began that that has become so famous now. And so nor then called me back. However, I will say there was about a five minute or three to five minute gap between when Mahmood hung up or when the agent hung up on me and when Nora called. And that’s the thing, I am an attorney. I am cool head in a crisis, but even people like me have human feelings. And Mahmud is a student that I had been working with along with numerous other students for protecting their speech rights on campus protests regarding Palestine when it became clear what was happening, that he was being taken by ice. And it seemed to me that that was not going to be stopped. You know what I mean? That showing the green card wasn’t going to stop that process.

    I cried. I mean, when that phone hung up, I’ve never felt so helpless because, and we can get into this a little bit, but the reality is that law enforcement takes people, ice takes people, police take people, many in our communities, many that are connected to your network know this, and then lawyers have to undo it, right? We can’t prevent it from happening always. We have to undo it on the other side. And that revelation and that realization really struck me and I burst into tear as if I’m being totally honest. And then I called my colleague who was on the phone with me when no called back, and then we talked nor through, and you can hear no in that video, you can hear her asking, what’s your name? Where are you taking him? And you can hear her speaking to us as we’re asking her, telling her what to ask and how to gather that information.

    I mean, it’s one of those situations where you have to suppress all your natural human reactions, which is fear and anxiety, and where are they taking him and deep sadness and all of those things. And so between Lindsay, my colleague and myself, we tried to stay calm for no, who I had not met yet. So she’s also talking to a stranger as this horror is unfolding in front of her. And she was eight months pregnant at the time as well. So there was a lot happening there, both what you can see, which was you can hear the fear in her voice, although she is remarkable. And while you hear the fear, you can also hear her strength. She spoke with such clarity, her voice shook. But like Rashida Taleb said, I’m speaking even as my voice shakes and that has been nor through this entire ordeal is speaking even as her voice shakes. And so that’s what you hear in that video. And I’m sure my voice was shaking as well as I was listening to this beautiful woman trying to fight for her partner, her husband, who’s being taken away right in front of her. So it was a pretty intense experience, and it’s not one that I’ve typically experienced even as a criminal defense attorney. I’m more used to the call from the jail as opposed to the call happening during the taking itself. So that was a first for me.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Yeah, I mean, my God, I can really only imagine what it’s like, but sadly in this country I find myself imagining it a lot more frequently than I used to worrying about my own family being abducted by immigration, being racially profiled and disappeared from the streets, and then having to begin that process that you just described of figuring out where my loved ones are and how I get them back. Like you said, this is what law enforcement does in this country, and the taking of people from their homes, from their job sites, from their campuses did not begin with the second Donald Trump administration. But I wanted to ask, what about this case and this call and this fight is new. Can you impress upon folks watching why this is such a marked escalation of what law enforcement and immigration enforcement typically do in this country?

    Amy Greer:

    Sure. I mean, I think there’s a few layers on a very sort of visceral, tangible layer. These people are showing up masked, they’re not identifying themselves. And so in the case of Mahmood, and this is also true with Rusa Ozturk, both of them have spoken on the record in court or publicly about they thought they were being abducted and then taken somewhere to potentially be executed. I mean, I know that I am sure that that’s not original to many people in communities around this country, indigenous communities, communities of color. And also I do think that there is a little masked men in plain clothes arriving on college campuses or their surrounding housing may be new. I think it’s new, it’s my understanding that it’s new where, this sounds like a strange example, but a very amazing advocate around the heroin and oxycodone crisis that it was talked about as a crisis, a public health crisis a number of years ago spoke about how it’s been a crisis for many, many years, but when it started impacting middle class white folks, then it became a public health crisis, not a criminal issue that needed to be prosecuted through the courts, but something that needed to be mediated through mental health care, addiction services and other public health framing.

    I think what’s happening here is college students, graduate students, people who have no criminal records or no even association or affiliation with anything that we would necessarily conceptualize as criminalized. And again, I’m not saying that any of those labelings are okay, are being taken by masked people who refuse to identify themselves and basically disappeared for 24, 36, 48 hours where nobody knows where they are and even their families aren’t entirely sure who is taking them. And where Rua was on the phone with her mother in Turkey when she was taken and the phone was cut off, the phone call was cut off, and nobody heard from Rua again for quite some time. And similar in Mahmud’s case, we didn’t hear from him from Saturday night until Monday morning. And so these things I think are escalations because of who the people are that are being taken and the attention given to college and graduate students as unlikely people to be abducted in this way.

    Again, not agreeing with any of the framing of people having been taken previously, that they deserve any less of an innocent explanation of who they are and where they’re from and what they’re about. But that’s not the narrative that’s coming out. In this particular case, it’s students speaking against a genocide taken by masked men and then detained. I think that’s the other piece is immigration detention has been an issue for a very long time. There is no question particularly around the border, but I think internal, internal to the United States, the access to parole and having to do regular check-ins, but being able to live out in the community has been general practice for a long time according to many of my immigration lawyer colleagues. So this is also new, is the actual detention of people as opposed to processing them and then allowing them to be free in the community while their case is processed in the administrative immigration side.

    So that’s also a new aspect to all of this. The last thing I’ll point out is the statute that’s being used and weaponized against the students like Mahmud and Rusa and others, is an old statute where these students for speaking out against a genocide have been determined by the Secretary of State. Their presence in the United States is adverse to American foreign policy and American foreign interests. And I think that’s a statute from the 1950s that was actually weaponized against people who were accused of being associated with communism and in particular Jewish Americans who are accused of being associated with communism. And it’s being weaponized now again for people speaking against genocide. So these are some of the layers of things that are at play here that make it different, but I think what it is is it’s just they’re going for people in the United States that they assumed many people with power, with money, with privilege would not speak against, they would not speak against their taking. But what they’ve discovered is actually people have been really horrified by these abductions in a way that we should be for everybody else who’s abducted but haven’t been.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I think that’s beautifully and powerfully put. It’s not national news in years prior when immigrants from Latin America who raise issues on a farm that they’re working on about unsafe working conditions, and then they get abducted and disappeared by ice. No one bats an eye, but when graduate students are targeted, and then it gets a little more real for a lot more people. And of course, our aim and the necessity here for everyone watching is to care equally about both and to care about the rights of all humans. That’s why we call them human rights. And to tug on that thread a little more, talking about the sort of intricacies and the vagaries of immigration detention, can you tell us a little bit about what it was like trying to free Mahmud from this ice detention center in Louisiana for over a hundred days?

    Amy Greer:

    Right. Well, and I think this is where I get a little nerdy for people because I think it’s really critical, and this is where our lack of civics education in the United States is really coming back to bite us in so many ways. But I think what’s really critical to point out here is immigration court, as it’s called immigration judges, as they’re called, are actually administrative employees of the Attorney General of the United States. They are not. When you think of a judge, most people I would think of the people that they see in Maryland State Court or even the Supreme, the US Supreme Court, that people who have been vetted by the Senate or even voted into office in certain parts of the country by their constituents, they are typically lawyers. They are people who have some experience and then rise and get promoted into judicial roles.

    And most of them think the people we’re thinking of are Article three, meaning in the Constitution, article three judges that were conceptualized at the framing of the Constitution, but immigration court and immigration judges, that’s actually a misnomer. They’re administrative employees. And this is an administrative process. And what that means is, for example, the immigration judge in this case said this exactly on the record, the rules of evidence, the rules of civil procedure and certain other protections and due process protections that would exist in a constitutional Article III court do not exist in the immigration process. And so really, immigration court per se, and that process is an administrative process. So for example, people have watched the procedural shows where they talk about hearsay. And in a regular court, for example, if something can’t be substantiated or corroborated in some way, it’s considered hearsay and it may not be allowed into the court in immigration proceedings, it can.

    So in mahmud’s case, the government could use a New York Post article with anonymous sources as evidence against Mahmud, right? So we don’t know who the speakers were, we don’t know who the sources were. We have no way to verify that. But because the rules aren’t the same in immigration proceedings, things like that are allowed in. And so I think I say all of that just to say that people undergoing these immigration proceedings do not have, if you hear the term due process in regard to immigration, it doesn’t mean the same thing that it does in a criminal court, for example, where we already know that that’s a struggle. We already know that that’s a struggle over on that side. But believe it or not, the protections are significantly greater. So people like Mahmud and that the thousands of men that he was incarcerated with in Gina, Louisiana are going through these administrative processes.

    What happens a lot of the time, and this has been so important to Mahmud highlight whenever he speaks out, is also a lot of people don’t have access to attorneys through this process, don’t even know how to reach an attorney and don’t know what their rights are. They don’t know if they can speak or not speak what they’re allowed to say or not say. And so they’re flying blind through an administrative process with very few and rights. And that’s been the case with Mahmood as well. But the difference for him is that he had access to me initially to hunt down where he was, to figure out how to find him to call attorneys in the Department of Homeland Security in the Department of Justice to find him. But so many other people don’t have that. And so people are being disappeared. The inmate locator as it’s called, or the detention locator that ICE has isn’t being updated and people don’t know where their loved ones are.

    And then they also don’t have access to phone calls necessarily to be able to even find or locate an attorney. And they imper in front of these employees of the Attorney General who have clear directives from the Trump administration that people are not welcome here. This is a great sort of white supremacist project that’s being undertaken to make America white again, and therefore these processes are being truncated. Some people aren’t even seen by a judge at all or an immigration administrator at all. In Mahmood’s case, we have been able to litigate a case, but it’s been on an extremely expedited schedule. We had very little time to prepare. And so even though he’s had really good legal support, the case has been jammed through as fast as possible. And one thing that I think is really critical is the immigration administrator determined that she does not actually have the authority under the Constitution to question the Secretary of State.

    And his determination that Mahmud is his presence in the United States is adverse to American foreign policy. And as a result, his case could have fallen into no man’s land, so to speak, where nobody really had authority to question the Secretary of State. But that’s where the federal habeas case comes in, the Article III constitutional court, which we can get into if you want. So that immigration case is proceeding rapidly in an administrative process. It will eventually potentially rise to the Fifth Circuit, which is an Article three appellate court, but by then the record that that court will be reviewing will be complete, and what they’re allowed to review is actually quite limited. So the process is really very remarkable on many levels, and I think it’s important for Americans or people residing in the United States, however they choose to identify, are aware that this is truly an administrative process without bumper guards or some of those procedural rights that people associate with terms court and judge,

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And I really appreciate you breaking that down for us. Get nerdy sis, because we need your nerdiness to educate us. And I want to end on talking about where things stand now, but I guess by way of getting there, like you said, civics education in this country has failed us and to the point where so many of us don’t even fully know or appreciate what something like due process is. But I have this terrifying feeling that we’re going to know what due process is because we’re going to remember what it was. And I wanted to ask if just really quickly, you could talk to our audience about just clarify what is due process and why should you care about it.

    Amy Greer:

    Sure, yeah. And yeah, there’s a couple of layers to that, but I, I’ll keep it short. I mean, the idea of due processes is chronicled in the United States Constitution, and the idea is that you cannot have your rights infringed upon your property taken, et cetera, without being heard by a neutral arbiter and having some procedural opportunity to be heard, to present evidence in a criminal situation. If somebody’s testifying against you, you have the right to cross examine that person. These are the types of things that are due process and that are associated with that. The parameters of due process have largely been carved out by case law through the United States Supreme Court. And what’ll be interesting for your listeners, because I know that a lot of people, the genesis of the Real News Network and other things that you’re covering, labor, et cetera, is that there were all these push for rights in the early part of late part of the 19th century, early part of the 20th century that became codified into law and then also codified through the United States Supreme Court.

    And due process was part of that do process, procedural and substantive. These ideas of what kinds of processes have to happen for your rights to be taken away, your liberty to be taken away, and also what the standards are that the government has to meet in order to do those kinds of things. All of that has been litigated for many, many years. And what we’ve seen since the Earl Warren Court of the 1950s and sixties is an erosion of those things over time, to your point, which is what we’re seeing now are actually the fruits of that erosion that has already been taking place. And so what I want to make a plug for people is lawyers in law school, people in law school and citizens in general. I think laws are talked about as if there’s something that are static that come down from above are carved into stone, and that’s that.

    But what I want to really leave us with is laws are made by humans to protect wealth and power and as a reaction to fear and anger. And so we, as the people in this country, we can be part of crafting those laws or blocking laws that are very harmful to our communities and encouraging that our systems adhere to our values and not to values of protecting wealth and power and racial privilege as well. And so what we’re seeing here are the fruits of 50 plus years of erosion of rights, 50 plus years of white supremacist structures, really taking root in the law in new shape shifting ways because obviously it’s always been the law. That’s how the law was made in the United States, starting with the doctrine of discovery, et cetera. But we are moving into that space where we are really seeing the harms and the pervasive harms that these laws have in that now everybody’s vulnerable.

    It doesn’t matter who you are now, you’re vulnerable unless you’re like Elon Musk or somebody like that. And so this erosion, because many of us have remained silent as these erosions have taken place because it’s not been us who’ve been directly impacted many people who look like me. This is the case now. We’re seeing that people like us can actually be impacted as naturalized citizenship is being challenged. I wouldn’t be surprised if even native born citizenship gets challenged in some ways depending on what your speech is. And so we’re really learning that these erosions will come for all of us eventually, and so we should speak up sooner. But what we’re seeing now, unfortunately, I think is the fruits of many years of the hard right labor to erode due process, to erode free speech rights, to erode citizenship rights, to erode the amendments that were passed after during reconstruction after the Civil War, to the extent that we’re moving into and are experiencing authoritarianism.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and I guess on that heavy, but I important note, I wanted to remind people, like I said in the intro, this fight is not over for Mahmud Khalil and for all of us and our rights as such. And I wanted to ask if in the final minutes that I’ve got you, if you could just let us know where things stand right now with Mahmud Khalil’s case. I know there are multiple cases, some that you can talk about and others you can’t. But I guess for folks watching just where do things stand now and what can they do to be part of that change that you talked about, to ensure that the law is not weaponized against us, but in fact is serving us and our needs, the people’s

    Amy Greer:

    Needs? Sure. Yeah. So for Mahmud’s case, what’s happening now is in the federal District court of New Jersey, we have a habeas petition, habeas just means of the body. So we’re basically challenging his detention and deportation as a retaliatory move by the administration for Mahmud’s speech against genocide, and that they’re trying to remove him from this country as a retaliation that that’s the retaliation. And so the fight continues there where we will continue to litigate that habeas claim and to try to, the judge has so far found that Marco Rubio’s determination that it is likely unconstitutional the use of this statute as applied to Mahmud, and that it is likely retaliatory or likely it’s vague that people can’t really know what standard is being applied here and therefore it’s chilling speech because nobody really knows what the standard is. So that fight continues and will continue litigating for the first Amendment rights and against the retaliatory actions of the administration there.

    And the immigration proceedings, the court on April 11th did find that Mahmud was removable from the United States, and an order of removal has been issued. However, because people panic at that, the federal district court has said that he cannot be removed from this country unless, and until that judge says that it’s okay. And so there is a court order in place to the extent that the administration adheres to that is a whole other thing, but there is a court order in place. So basically these two lanes are being litigated now, and we are trying to basically say that this government, this administration, should not be able to detain or remove Mahmud from this country for his protected speech rights. And that’s the fight that continues. What people can do is, it’s challenging because I think the public support for Mahmood and saying that we as a nation are not afraid of him, that no matter how they frame him or try narrate him as somebody to be feared, I think we can choose to not fear each other.

    We can choose not to fear Mahmud, and we can choose to speak as one voice that the weapon, the murdering of women and children and men and women, Palestinian people in Gaza is not something that we support, that that is a mainstream position, not a dissident one. And while it may be adverse to this administration’s foreign policy, it is adverse to our moral compass as a nation and making that very clear that we do not stand for genocide as a nation. And even if we are on the border about whether Israel has the right to defend itself or not, or wherever people stand there, I think it’s important for them to also say that we refuse to see our immigration laws weaponized to shut down an important debate of great public concern, that we refuse to do that. So people, wherever they are on their spectrum, I think all of us should be against what’s happening here.

    And the last plug that I’ll just make is on a local level, I think that a lot of us pay attention to the federal structures, and that’s certainly important, but where we can really start to make a difference is in our city halls and in our city councils and in our state legislatures, because over the last 15 to 20 years, we have seen really damaging laws against boycott, divestment, and sanction, adopting very restrictive definitions of antisemitism that encompass any criticism of Israel at all, or any engagement in questioning us, involvement in providing financial and financial support and weapons to Israel. And these are being weaponized now in these other, in immigration, et cetera. And so from a local perspective, we can say no to laws like that. We can ask our cities to be sanctuary cities. We can ask our cities to not allow, there are police forces to be used to aid and abbet ICE and NDHS abductions.

    I mean, there’s a lot of ways, and Baltimore, of course, is being really proactive on that front. So I know this work is already happening in Baltimore and in Maryland and have had the honor and privilege of working with and talking with a lot of people doing that work. So keep doing that. I mean, I think that really matters. I do think that these kinds of policy shifts trickle up and then our national delegation, here’s what’s happening on the local level and brings that up to the national level. So I think we just have to stay engaged even when it’s overwhelming and we have to step away for a few minutes to do something that’s beautiful, that’s joyful, that laughter refilling our tanks is necessary, but we cannot afford to turn away right now. And people like Mahmud, people from our own communities who are being disappeared, they need us to show up now and in these varying ways. And I think we are, and we need to continue to do that.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • The Louisiana State Penitentiary (commonly known as Angola), which sits on the site of a former slave plantation, has long forced incarcerated people, primarily Black men, to work on its prison farm under “inhumane” and dangerous conditions, including extreme heat. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa speaks with Samantha Pourciau, senior staff attorney at The Promise of Justice Initiative, about the slave-like conditions of prison agricultural labor and a groundbreaking lawsuit that could bring an end to Angola’s notorious “Farm Line.”
    Guest:

    • Samantha Pourciau is a senior staff attorney at The Promise of Justice Initiative, which serves incarcerated individuals and families in Louisiana and represents more than 7,000 clients in 57 of Louisiana’s 64 parishes.

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    • Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars, I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Last year incarcerated farm line workers at Louisiana State Penitentiary filed a lawsuit for better working condition. Louisiana State Penitentiary is commonly called Angola. In the suit. The prisoners was alleging that the conditions they’re now working under are so inhumane that between the heat and the inadequate prevention for the heat caused them to have suffered massive heat strokes or just can’t continue to work. If they don’t work though, however, under these conditions, then they’re threatened with either going being put in solitary confinement if they don’t meet the quota that they’re given, they’re threatened with solitary confinement. If they quit, they’re threatened with solitary confinement leading up to the high heat conditions of the summer. Their attorney filed a mercy appeal in hopes of seeing some of the reforms out of the litigation. Here with us today is one of the plaintiff’s attorney Samantha Pourciau, who is a senior staff attorney with the Promise of Justice Initiative in New Orleans. Thank you for joining me today, Samantha.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Thank you for having me.

    Mansa Musa:

    So as you see, I unpacked some of the things that’s going on so we know that one, the conditions in Angola Prison, Louisiana State Penitentiary, we know that the work conditions as it relate to the farm line is inhumane and causes massive health problems for the workers. We know that from looking at the litigation in and of itself that the threat of not working is real and if you going to work or you going to solitary confinement, but more importantly, introduce yourself to our audience and then give us some insight to what’s going on with the lawsuit

    Samantha Pourciau:

    My name is Samantha Pourciau. I’m a senior staff attorney at the Promise of Justice Initiative where we represent VOTE, which stands for Voice of the Experienced as an associational plaintiff in this lawsuit. In addition to seven individual incarcerated men at Angola who are seeking to represent a class of all individuals incarcerated at Angola, who currently are or may in the future be assigned to the farm line. And so the crux of a lawsuit is to get the inhumanity of what’s known as the farm line, which is the forced labor in the fields of Angola, which are known as the vegetable picking lines, where mostly black men are forced to use their hands to pick, to weed, to water vegetables, to harvest vegetables. And it’s called a work assignment. But at the heart of the lawsuit is the fact that it isn’t really a job. It’s distinct from other work and other job assignments at the prison.

    It is used basically as a tool of social and punitive control, punitive control. It’s the first job assignment most people are given and it is our understanding that it is the first job assignment to essentially break people and train them into realizing that they no longer have autonomy over their physical body because if they stop to break when they no longer can physically labor, they are, as you mentioned, liable to be written up and sent to solitary confinement. So it’s used at the entrance of one’s time at Angola to train into how one needs to behave in order to make their way in the prison system. And then over time people often get off the farm line and get other job assignments that are safer, that are compensated more, that are perhaps more meaningful and an ability to learn a trade and learn a skill that could be used if someone were released in the free world and then at the end of the day they could be sent back to the farm line if they get a disciplinary writeup. And so there’s the threat always of the farm line being sent back to the farm line as a tool that is kept used to keep people in line in how the prison wants them to behave.

    Mansa Musa:

    And so even by your own acknowledgement that, so the institution is using, basically using the farm line as a form of control for the prison population in terms of when you come in, you going to find yourself on the farm line, if you meet the security criteria or whatever the case may be, or you meet the need of labor, you are going to find yourself on farm. But answer this question. Okay, so I ain’t going to been in existence forever. This practice of the farm line has always been in existence. You go back and look at some footage from the thirties, you go back and look at some footage from the forties, any period, you can always find that the agro aspect of Angola has always existed. So why now do they bring this litigation? When this practice been going on forever, what made the prisoners come to this point where they feel like it’s now that they have to do this or to your knowledge had they filed previous litigation, they just wasn’t successful And this is a continuum of their advocacy.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    I think people have always fought against the farm line in the ways that they’ve had the ability to, by choosing to not work, even knowing that it was going to put them in solitary confinement. Decades ago there was a protest where people cut their achilles tendon and protest of being forced to work in the field. We aren’t aware of any litigation on this issue prior to the instant lawsuit, but I think that over the past decade or two, criminal justice reform has become more widespread. People, the public understands that not everything that happens in our prison system is okay. And there is I think more openness to examining that. And there is also more openness into learning and tying the direct through line between us chattel slavery and our current system of mass incarceration. We saw the new Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander really was the first big text that came out that educated the public about that connection and how our current system of mass incarceration is the new Jim Crow.

    And so I think that now is the time for the courts to hear this argument, to understand that the farm line is operating on top of a former plantation. Louisiana state Penitentiary was a plantation, it’s known as Angola because the plantation owner thought that the best slaves came from that country in Africa. And so this litigation really seeks to connect the dots and talk about how part of the psychological harm and the dignitary harm of the farm line is that it is purposefully simulating chattel slavery. And I think the public and the courts are ready to hear about that. I don’t know, I don’t think the case law has been established on that point, but this is a landmark case seeking to make that argument and show that it is cruel and unusual punishment to force people to basically replicate chattel slavery on the grounds of a former plantation.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. Okay. Let’s unpack some of the things that goes on on the farm. One, how much money are they being given? What’s the rate? And two, do they get days off? What’s the hours that they work? And more importantly, do they have the right if they are sick, do they take that in arbitrary, say they’re trying to get off the farm line and put ’em in solitary confine. In your investigation, have you noticed the abuses to the extent where you don’t have a right to nothing other than come out, go to work and go back into your cell?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So on the issue of pay, when someone first enters the prison system, they aren’t paid anything at all. And because the farm line is the first work assignment for the majority of people, that means for the most part, when people start working on the farm line, they receive no pay at all. Eventually they can start earning between two and 4 cents per hour. It tops at 4 cents an hour. So no one on the farm line will be making more than that. And in terms of the hours that people are forced to labor, they usually call work call at around 7:00 AM and bring men, line them up out the gate to bring them to the field starting around seven 30 or 8:00 AM in the morning. In the past there were two shifts in the morning and in the afternoon since we started this litigation, they’ve not been bringing out the afternoon shift in the summer and recognition that it is dangerously high heap during that time that isn’t technically in their policy that they don’t need to do that. And so that is part of what an argument we make in the litigation that all of the changes that they have been making in response to this litigation need to be documented in their policy so that they don’t just change ’em back at the lawsuit is over, but they work a full day during the non-summer. Then during the summer months it’s usually half of a shift. In terms of the, I think you were asking about medical care,

    Mansa Musa:

    Right? And what type of, because we already, it’s evident that they want to make sure that the men are always working and the threat of not working is solitary confinement. But I want to know in your investigation, have you seen where people have actually had medical problems but they still was forced to go out there and work? Or do they all lot for a person to say, I got a medical condition, I can’t work this day, or I’m unable to work at all even though I might have been working like a month.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So the men are able to make what’s called a self-declared emergency in the field. If they are saying they can’t work because they’re having some medical issue and a medical provider will come out to assess them, what we’ve seen is that the majority of people who make those sick calls one are charged for them. It’s not free, it’s supposed to be free under their policy if it’s an illness related to your work assignment. But

    We haven’t been able to get any evidence to show that they’re actually categorizing these kinds of sick calls as related to work assignment. And so people think that know that when they call for that medical call, they are liable to get charged for it. And so even if they end up not charging them at the end of the day, that is a barrier to calling for sick call when you make 4 cents an hour at most. And the sick call costs $2 and so they can make a sick call and if the provider comes out and believes them then they don’t have to continue working. But in the majority of cases we’ve seen the notes reflect that the person was assessed and the provider said they were fine and they could just take a quick break and then go back to work. And it does seem like the mentality of the providers is to get people back to work and not to issue what’s known as a duty status that it can accommodate some issue that they’re having so they aren’t forced to go out and work.

    Mansa Musa:

    Alright. Talk about the products. Where do the produce go that they manufacture? Do they go to feed the prisoners? Do they go to feed the guards or are they being sold in society or is it a combination of all three?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So the farm line, that’s the subject of the litigation. The prison’s stance is that it only goes to feed the people in prison. It’s not sold on the open market. There are other agricultural operations at Angola that are run by the Department of Corrections for Profit branch known as prison enterprises. And those are more commonly sold crops in the open market that usually are used for animal feed. And so that’s the market that they’re looking into. For the farm line, it’s all vegetables that are harvested that are used in the kitchens at the prison. There’s a processing facility that it’s sent to onsite that other incarcerated people work to freeze some of that to build up the storage for over the winter months. But we’ve also heard reports of some of the produce going to the guards. There’s an area at Angola known as the Beeline, which is also very reminiscent of its plantation history. It’s a section of the prison where people who work there can live and they have homes, parks, recreation centers. I think at one point they had a school, I don’t think it’s operating currently. And there are reports that the Bline folks can access the food that is harvested on the farm line. Though we haven’t discovered that in this litigation

    Mansa Musa:

    Yet. First of all, did they get class, did they certified as a class action or is it still the seven plaintiffs and whoever else was in there? And second, what are they asking for if you can list some of their demands or the cause of actions?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Sure. So the case has not yet been certified as a class action. We just had last month from April 22nd to 24th, a three day evidentiary hearing for the court to hear evidence about why we believe it should be a class action. And the court has asked for us to summarize and put in writing post that hearing why it should be certified, which will be due on June 2nd, 2025. So we hope and anticipate that the court will make a ruling on that during the summer of 2025 and the ability to make it a class action obviously as a huge change of the relief we can seek in that case. Although we do have an associational plaintiff vote, which stands for Voice of the Experience, they’re a local nonprofit at the organization in Louisiana founded by formerly incarcerated people from Angola. And so even if for some reason the class isn’t certified, they still represent their members who are currently incarcerated at Angola. So we still can seek relief on behalf of a group of people, but we hope that the court will certify the class this summer. In terms of the relief that we are seeking, the case is broken down into two primary claims. We have an eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim and within that we have theories of harm related to the heat. And then we have theories of harm related to the psychological harm and dignitary harm that is happening on the farm line all of the time, not just in the summer.

    And then the second claim we have in the case is that the operation of the farm line violates the Americans with Disabilities Act or the A DA and that is on behalf of a subclass and a number, not all seven of the named plaintiffs fit into that category, but some of them do. And that is for folks who have medical conditions or prescribed medications that make them even more susceptible to heat illness. And so we are asking the prison to provide further accommodations for them to be brought in once the heat index reaches 88 degrees and to be given what the prison calls a heat precaution duty status. So those are some of the specific reliefs we’re requesting.

    Mansa Musa:

    And you know what, I’m listening to what you’re saying and I recall I did 48 years in prison prior to getting out, but in the summertime and in the wintertime they had the heat index. They wouldn’t let us go outside if it was a certain degree, it was automatic, y’all was suspended because of the heat. And then in the wintertime, same thing. If the temperature dropped below a certain degree, we couldn’t go out and this was something that was state regulated. But they don’t according do they have that same mechanism? Do they have a heat indicator that say that under these conditions can’t nobody go out in the yard or work or they do the exclusion or exception when it comes to the farm line?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So before we filed the lawsuit, there was no upper limit when they would not make people go out to work in the high heat because of the litigation. The prison has updated what they call the heat pathology policy

    And they have created that upper limit of 113 degree heat index. We think that’s far too high. And so we are seeking for that number to be brought down to 103 degrees, which is still very high. But within the scientific literature is a more reasonable number that we think would provide safety and take down the risk of harm that people would have being forced to go out at that high heat. In terms of a lower limit, the prison has said that they don’t send folks out if it’s below freezing, but that isn’t written anywhere in policy. So that is also something we would want them to put in policy to put in writing.

    Mansa Musa:

    To your knowledge, is this something that y’all would want to include? Did they be given minimum wage for the work that they do on the farm line? This is the reality of prison. Prison’s going to work, prisons want to work, they give in prison, they give different incentives to work. Unlike Louisiana, like in Maryland, they give you incentives and you working just as inhumane conditions as anybody else, but they give you the incentive is that you get an extra five days off your sentence a month. I can break that down to less than four and a half years or four years or three and a half years. And I’m saying all that to say if the litigation is survived and y’all get the belief that y’all want, will it eliminate the farm line or will it make the farm line more, give it more regulatory, which would be still up to them to enforce the regulation. Talk about that.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Yeah. We are seeking an end to the farm line because of the non heat related claims, the claims around the psychological harm and the dignitary harm, we think there really isn’t a way to reform the farm line. It is a message of US child slavery that just needs to end. And so that’s the relief we are seeking. I can speak to the Louisiana incentive pay system if you want to hear about that, but we aren’t seeking a change in the incentive pay

    On the farm line and part of that is based in the claims that we are bringing. And then also part of that is in the ability to succeed on those types of claims because the reality is the 13th amendment exception clause makes it so that you don’t have to pay anything to incarcerated workers. And so the incentive pay system that exists in Louisiana today is designated by statute and it would be legally very hard to be found unconstitutional because it is above nothing. And for that reason, we aren’t attacking the incentive pay system directly. We are attacking the overall farm line and how it operates within the system. And the lack of compensation beyond pennies is a part of how it works as a whole. But we aren’t attacking exact that specific provision within the lawsuit it

    Mansa Musa:

    And that rightly so. Right, because slavery by any other name is slavery and they use the 13th Amendment to rationalize and justify getting slave labor out us without giving us dignity and wage. But talk about the stats of the case now, did y’all file a TIO temporary restraining order? What’s the status of the temporary restraining order?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Yeah, so we filed a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction last summer in advance of the high heat season and we were able to get it granted in part we had asked for the court to just bring in order the prison to bring in the farm line anytime the heat reached or exceeded 88 degrees. And the court did not go that far. But he ordered the prison to put up shade structures, make sure that there were more frequent and longer breaks, make sure that they had access to water at all times, things like that that we don’t think go far enough, but we’re something more than what they were currently getting. And so then in advance of this next heat season, summer 2025, we filed a second preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order asking for some of those same things but also different things because in the intervening time the prison has changed their heat pathology policy in some ways for the better.

    They’ve expanded the list of medications and medical conditions that would give someone a heat precaution duty status, which would allow them to be brought in once the heat gets too high. But unfortunately, the prison has also increased the heat index threshold that allows for folks to come inside and allows for all of those protections to kick in. So it used to be 88 degrees, now it’s 91. And so we are seeking for this current summer for that number to go back down and for some other relief that can make it better for this coming summer before we’re able to get to trial and get a final judgment on the merits in this case.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I think for the benefit of our audience, we’re saying 91 degrees… The reality is that the person’s not out there one day, the person’s out there every day when the sun come up, they’re out there every day under these audience and inhumane conditions. So it’s not a matter of like, oh, well there’s not even one degrees out here today. Don’t let ’em work. They’re working all the time in these inhumane and he related conditions. But talk about this if you can, the plaintiffs and the expert compared the farm line to shadow slavery and Nazi concentration camp. So they basically saying that the same way the Nazis inflicted slavery on Jews, same way people in this country inflicted slavery on black people, that it’s a comparison to that and Nazi Germany, to your knowledge, can you expand on that or do you see any semblance to that or is that just beating the drum real loud to try to get attention to the issue for lack of a better word?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So Dr. Hammonds is one of our expert witnesses in the case and she is a professor at Harvard who studies African-American history, American history, the history of science and the history of medicine epidemiology. And she was the one who testified at our class certification hearing about the comparison between the farm line and US shadow slavery and the farm line and Nazi Germany and the parallel she was drawing specifically, I think US shadow slavery is very easy for everyone to understand and see it is the modern day version of slavery. What is happening on the farm line? I think the Nazi Germany comparison requires some more explanation and so I’m happy to provide that. But she was opining about was the way the medical care operated within the concentration camps and how there were medical providers. But all of the medical treatment was really focused on getting people back to work.

    And she was talking about in the labor camps how the medical providers were not assessing a person to really get at the illness or what medical ailment they were having but was trying to get them back to labor. And so she had reviewed deposition transcripts from the case where we deposed some of the medical providers at Angola and she saw similar characteristics of the medical providers opining that most of the incarcerated people lie about their sickness and they’re really just trying to get out of work and they’re not truthfully coming to them with the medical issue. And so she was drawing that comparison of the tendency to not believe people and to just focus on wanting to get them back to work and thinking that they were only complaining to get out of work was the comparison she was drawing that she saw in her review of the evidence in this case.

    Mansa Musa:

    And that right there in and of itself is a powerful testament to the severity of the farm line because we know from our history in Nazi Germany, everybody was complicit with the regime. It wasn’t a matter of like I’m in this space and I got an opinion on how these people should be treated. I’m complicit. I’m in compliance with everything that we’re doing here. The attitude and when you first said it, I reflect on most of ’em are private contracts. They became privatized. So most of them are contracts and in order to maintain their contracts, they have to provide a certain amount of services, but when they bid, they underbid to get the lowest possible service to us. And so when this entity come into play, very rarely do you find the medical going to go against the prison administration or the department of credit because they get their monies from them.

    It’s not a part of the state. When you was a part of the state then it was a different thing because now you had a different standard that you could track and say, well this is and all this is the farm line, the medical, the ward and everybody associated with it. Here you have a private medical institution got going from prison to prison to prison throughout the United States. And as they got sued and they left, they got kicked out, they just went to another and they swapped out like that. So it’d be interesting to see who is responsible for this, but talk about the status of the case and I get off my so box, talk about the status of the case right now, Samantha.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    So right now we are awaiting a ruling on that second preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order for the summer of 2025 and we just submitted our post argument briefing on Friday, May 16th. And so now the court has all of the briefing that is requested and hopefully should be making a ruling any day, hopefully today so we can get some relief because we are in the height of the heat season. The temperature this past weekend in Louisiana exceeded a hundred degrees on the real feel heat index and we’re really getting to the point where it’s getting dangerous for folks to be out there. So we’re hoping the court rules imminently and grants us some temporary relief while we are continuing to work on a final judgment in this case related to ending the farm line generally because of its psychological and dignitary harm for those who are forced to labor on it at all times, at all seasons. And so we’re awaiting that ruling. And then as I mentioned, we are still awaiting a ruling on whether the class action can proceed as a class action not just on behalf of individuals and the associational plaintiff vote. And so we expect that ruling to come through at the end of this summer and then once that ruling comes through, the court will implement a new scheduling order and hopefully set a trial date for probably 2026. But we’re awaiting when that will happen.

    Mansa Musa:

    Is there anything else that we did not cover that you would like our viewers to know?

    Samantha Pourciau:

    I think I just feel like I always want to lift up our who we represent. I get to be here and talk about the case because I am an attorney and I’m not incarcerated, but I wish it could be them that we’re talking about the case and

    Mr. De Jackson and one of the named plaintiffs was able to come for the three, the class certification hearing for the three days we were in court and sit at council table and participate and testify. And it was the first time the court was able to hear directly from an incarcerated person forced to labor on the farm line. And that changes how one thinks about this when you can hear about it directly from the person experiencing it. So even creating that opportunity to allow incarcerated folks to come out to the public, to the courtroom, to a public space and tell everyone what is happening in these places where we try to disappear people. Angola is two and a half hours away from New Orleans. It’s in a remote location that is hard to access. It’s at the end of a very long railroad that you have no cell phone reception when you’re going up there. And so I think getting folks outside of that and into the public to talk about the truth of what we’re doing, this modern day slavery is essential

    Mansa Musa:

    And how do our audience stay in touch or get more information or be able to track this if they want to stay on top of it and insert themselves in whatever advocacy y’all are soliciting from people.

    Samantha Pourciau:

    Yeah, I would recommend that folks sign up for the Promise of Justice Initiatives newsletter. If you go to promise of justice.org on our website, you can sign up there and then follow us on social media to get updates as they’re coming out. Justice Promise is our tag on Instagram and you can find us on Facebook and Blue Sky and x and that’s where we’ll post live updates as they’re happening.

    Mansa Musa:

    Thank you Samantha. Samantha, you rattled the bars today. We can hear the bars coming loose and the voices of those that are incarcerated or in prison or in chattel slavery, we can hear their voices being echoed through you. So we take heart at that and we recognize what you’re saying, that it would be more appealing to have the people that’s suffering this to be present. But at the same token, if we don’t have people like yourself, we ain’t have William Kler, we ain’t have Charles Gerry, we ain’t have Thurgood Marshall, and we didn’t have people like yourselves in this space willing to go. I ain’t go willing to ensure that the information is being gathered and presented to the court willing to pursue justice at all court if we didn’t have this and we would be, this is what we would have. We used to have a farm line, a graveyard and Lords coming out to ensure that you have endless slave labor.

    So we thank you for that. We ask our audience to continue to support and rally in the bars in the Real News. We ask that you support us by giving your feedback on these type of podcasts or these type of interviews that we are conducting. If you have an opinion about chattel slavery, if you have opinion about slavery, if you have opinion about concentration camps being ran in the United States under our species of being a prison, and if you have an opinion about genocide, if you have an opinion about anything relative to social conditions and injustice, then we ask that you give us your views and give us your feedback. It’s important for us to hear these things because your views are what help us shape the direction we are going in in terms of educating and exposing information. We don’t give you a voice, we just turn up the volume on your voice.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • The year is 1968. Summertime. Washington, DC. And covering the National Mall are endless rows of shacks built by hundreds of poor families from across the United States. It’s called Resurrection City, and they have come to Washington to demand an end to poverty and a new economic bill of rights… for the poor. 

    This was Martin Luther King Jr’s dream. The Poor People’s Campaign is what he’d been working for in the months before he was killed in April 1968.

    The city would last for six weeks. It would inspire thousands. Its legacy would last for decades.

    This is episode 51 of Stories of Resistance—a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.

    If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. 

    And please consider signing up for the Stories of Resistance podcast feed, either in Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Spreaker, or wherever you listen.

    You can listen to Michael Fox’s full interview with Marc Steiner on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures of many of his stories, follow his reporting and support his work and this podcast.

    Written and produced by Michael Fox.

    RESOURCES

    Poor Peoples Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival: https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/

    Camp life in Resurrection City 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjsQ7IWszRE

    Senate listens to people of Resurrection City 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4hrSkTnXes

    Resurrection City closed down, Abernathy jailed 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQpBlIKJDyA

    #MLK on the Poor People’s Campaign, Nonviolence and Social Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWcD4xt7Mnk

    Poor Peoples Campaign June 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcKpVFz32c

    Transcript

    The year is 1968. 

    Summertime. 

    Washington DC.

    And covering the National Mall are endless rows of shacks built by hundreds of poor families from across the United States. It’s called Resurrection City. And they have come to Washington to demand an end to poverty and a new economic bill of rights.

    This was Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. The Poor People’s Campaign is what he’d been working for in the months before he was killed in April 1968. 

    “The emergency we now face is economic. And it is a desperate and worsening situation for the 35 million poor people in America. Not even to mention just yet the poor in the other nations, there is a kind of strangulation in the air.”

    For King, poverty was a great evil. Something to be overcome. And which could be tackled by uniting across communities. Uniting across color lines. Despite his death, people carried on. They would organize in poor communities across the US. 

    Longtime radio host Marc Steiner was deeply involved. 

    “And when the Poor People’s Campaign started, we knew we had to build a coalition to join Resurrection City and started in Chicago… we traveled around the industrial north and down through Appalachia to organize communities to come to Resurrection City.”

    And come they did. Thousands of people came from across the country in mid-May. 

    “I mean, there were thousands of people there… And people moved in, well, first of all, they came into DC from all over the country. And there were people from reservations in New York in North and South Dakota and Southwest United States all coming in, you know, to, to there. There were Mexicans coming from all across Southwestern United States and California. That and the Puerto Ricans coming in from Chicago and New York and in the Appalachian group. It was, it was really unbelievable. I mean, it was hard to fathom the power and beauty of this multiracial poor people’s coalition that actually came and they built these shacks, you know, and communal eating centers for cooking tents. And the mud, because it rained and rained and rained. And people stayed. It was, it was horrendous, but powerful.”

    At its height, roughly 3,000 people lived in the makeshift wooden shacks of Resurrection City, right in the middle of the National Mall, in Washington, DC. It was a full-blown town. There was a day care center. A city hall. A barber shop. It had its own ZIP code. The goal was to pressure lawmakers to pass legislation to tackle the inequality in the country.

    “I got nine children going to school now. And I had been to the welfare agency to see if I can get help and they wouldn’t help. And I really need help.”

    This is from old footage and interviews from Resurrection City.

    “A lot of people knew the condition of some of these places and when they see and know the condition will be interested enough to try to make things better.”

    They demanded that the country spend $35 billion a year to end poverty in the United States. They called for half a million homes to be built per year until every poor neighborhood was transformed. They demanded full employment in the country, with a living wage for everyone.

    “What we’re saying is that our economic order is evil… It’s been our experience that Congress and this nation doesn’t really move until their own self-interest is threatened. And until they, in fact, they begin to share some of the problems of the poor. Or some of the effects of poverty.”

    They held marches and rallies, the biggest on Juneteenth, with 100,000 people in the streets. 

    Martin Luther King Jr.’s widow, Coretta Scott King, spoke to the crowd.

    “We are here because we feel a frightful sense of urgency to rectify the long standing evils and injustices in our society, racism, poverty and war. The Poor People’s Campaign was conceived by my late husband, Doctor Martin Luther King Junior, as America’s last chance to solve these problems nonviolently. The sickness of racism. The despair of poverty and the hopelessness of war have served to deepen the hatred, heightened the bitterness, increase the frustration, and further alienate the poor in our society.”

    Residents of Resurrection City spoke to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

    “We’re building our old house over there and I’m gonna tell you something. It’s better than anything that we have in Brownsville. We got our house better than anything in Flatbush, which is middle class. 

    “It is working down in Resurrection City. And please listen to that. That beautiful thing down there is just the top of a movement that stretches from coast to coast. 

    “This is the last chance I think for this country to sort of respond to the quiet and peaceful petitions of people who are asking for very very just solutions to very very real problems.”

    Resurrection City lasted for more than 40 days. 

    “Yeah, it was a, it was an amazing experience. America could use that again now.”

    It was inspiring. It was powerful. Maybe too powerful. 

    After six weeks, on June 24, a thousand police officers rolled in to crush Resurrection City. 

    “It was like chaos. I mean, they came in just destroying places where people lived, throwing people out. Some people got arrested and, you know, it was a, it was a really miserable, anticlimactic end to a very powerful movement.”

    But its legacy would last until today. Marc Steiner…

    “It was critical. I mean, it was a game changer in many ways for a number of levels. It radicalized people inside of poor communities that were involved in the Poor People’s Campaign to help them build movements locally. One of the hidden gems of the Poor People’s Campaign for me is that what happened after it was destroyed and people went back to their communities and continued to build and organize because of that experience. And that’s that story that’s really hidden and not talked about very much.

    “All over the country that happened, and some of us stayed in touch. Like when I went back to Baltimore in 1970, Baltimore had a series of collectives in working-class communities. Organizing. And so we did a lot of great work in those first few years of the 1970s, and that was born out of that.

    “And it happened all over the country like that. I mean, we started a People’s Free garage, we started a People’s Free grocery store, we started at People’s Free Medical Clinic. We organized, we started a Tenants Union group that fought against slumlords and brought Black and white communities together to fight, you know, these slumlords. And so, I mean, out of Resurrection City, a movement was created.”

    And it didn’t stop there. On the 50th anniversary, a new Poor People’s Campaign was organized in communities across the US to once again pick up Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. Led by Rev. William Barber and Rev. Liz Theoharis, they, too, marched on Washington. 

    Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream continues to inspire.


    This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Michael Fox.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • In Los Angeles, CA, armed, masked agents of the state are snatching and disappearing immigrants off the street, peaceful protestors and journalists are being attacked with tear gas and rubber bullets, National Guard troops and active-duty Marines have been deployed to police and intimidate American citizens. Fear and uncertainty have gripped America’s second largest city as a barrage of misinformation obscures the reality on the ground; nevertheless, Angelinos continue to defy the Trump administration’s attacks on immigrant communities and authoritarian crackdown on civil rights. In this episode of Working People, we take you to the streets of LA and speak with multiple on-the-ground eyewitnesses to the events of the past two weeks to help you better understand what’s actually happening and where this is all heading.

    Guests:

    Additional links/info:

    Featured Music:

    • Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song

    Credits:

    • Audio Post-Production: Jules Taylor
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Alright, welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network and is brought to you in partnership within these Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like you. My name is Maximilian Alvarez and today we are taking you to the streets of Los Angeles where federal agents, including many in face masks and unmarked cars, have been snatching and disappearing people off the streets, taking them from Home Depot, parking lots and farm fields. Outside immigration courts abducting them from their homes, leaving lives and families shattered with all the inhumane violence and brutal glee of fascist brown shirts. Unless you have been living under a rock and actively refusing to acknowledge the reality of what’s happening in our country, you have no doubt seen videos of these immigration raids on social media and on the news you saw federal agents tackle and arrest union leader David Huerta, president of Service employees International Union, unite Service Workers West, while he and others were exercising their first amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity at a workplace raid on Friday, June 6th, you’ve heard the reports of President Donald Trump sending National Guard troops in active duty Marines into LA against the explicit wishes of California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom.

    And Trump is now openly demanding that ICE and other armed agents of the state specifically target and invade other major sanctuary cities with elected democratic leaders to carry out his mass deportation campaign. And you have hopefully also seen and heard the voices of resistance rising from the streets, even with a curfew in place in downtown LA over multiple days, even in the face of militarized police openly violating their first amendment rights and brutalizing protestors, journalists and legal observers alike residents across America’s second largest city, and I’m talking union members, students, grandparents, and retirees, faith leaders and concerned citizens from all walks of life have continued voicing their descent online and in the streets, protesting the Trump administration’s authoritarian attacks, rallying support and protection for immigrant communities, filming ice and police abuses and demanding accountability. What is happening in Los Angeles is already setting the stage for what’s to come around the country.

    We know what the Trump administration wants to do to immigrants, to protestors, to our civil rights, and to the very concept of state sovereignty. I mean, we are literally seeing it play out in real time. What we don’t know is how much Trump’s plans will be frustrated, thwarted, and even reversed by the resistance that he faces. What happens next depends on what people of conscience people like you do. Now in this two parts series of the podcast, we’re going to do our best to give you a panoramic view of the Battle of Los Angeles, bringing you multiple on the ground perspectives to help you cut through the noise and all the misinformation and to better understand what’s actually happening, where this is all heading, and what you and others can do to stand up for your rights and stand up for yourself, your family, your neighbors, your coworkers, and your community members.

    For part one of this series, I spoke with three different journalists who have been doing distinct and equally essential coverage of the raids, the protests, police abuses, and community mobilization efforts happening in la. First I speak with Sonali Kolhatkar, an award-winning journalist, broadcaster, writer, author, and the host of Rising Up with Sonali. Then I speak with Javier Cabral, editor in chief of the award-winning independent outlet, LA Taco, which has been doing vital real-time video reporting on social media throughout the raids and the protests. And lastly, I speak with Michael Nigro, an award-winning filmmaker and multimedia journalist who is among the numerous journalist colleagues who have been assaulted by police while doing his job reporting from the front lines in Los Angeles.

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    Hi, I’m Sonali Kolhatkar. I am the host, founder and executive producer of Rising Up with Sonali, an independent nationally syndicated television and radio program that’s broadcast on free speech TV and Pacifica radio stations. I’m also an essayist op-ed writer, reporter, and a published book author, and I’m really excited to be here.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, Sonali, thank you so much for joining us on the show today. I’m a huge fan and appreciator of your work and everyone listening, if you’re not already, you should absolutely be listening to supporting and sharing Rising up with Sonali. It’s really, really essential work and we will link to that in the show notes. And you guys probably, if for any reason you aren’t already following son’s work, you’re definitely familiar with her and her critical voice. It was just a few months ago that Sonali was giving really important updates on news shows around the country, about the fires going on back home in Southern California. And here we are just what, four months later and now we’ve got the National Guard back in my home of LA and the protests that we are covering here on this episode. It’s been a lot and it’s kind of surreal to even be having this conversation, especially as a southern California boy now in Baltimore asking if you can kind of tell me what the hell is happening in my home.

    But I really value the perspective that you’ve been bringing, and I know that right now there’s just so much crap and misinformation and bad information floating around online. And it really struck me in the first few days of the LA protests and the police backlash that it was hard to find good information about what was actually happening. And that was a very surreal experience for me to not fully know what was going on back home and to not know exactly where to look. So thankfully, I had folks like Sonali, I went to accounts that I trusted and I knew were doing good work and Sonali is very much one of those. And so I wanted to give you guys access to Sonali and her great work and perspective here. So with all that upfront Sonali, I kind of wanted to just turn it over to you and ask if you could give us a bit of a play by play of the past week down there. What has it actually been like and how has the reality on the ground differed from maybe the unreality that we’ve been hearing from the White House on down?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    Yeah, I mean it’s been really interesting. It’s been, as you said, it should be contextualized with the Eaton fires that took place five months ago. And I think LA and Angelinos are kind of a breaking point. And so we, you’re seeing that attitude on the streets in la. It really actually started in San Diego the week in early June when a restaurant was struck by an ice raid and the people who were working in the restaurant were rounded up. The people who were eating at the restaurant were outraged. And then it moved into Los Angeles a week later when on June 6th, ice went into a Home Depot parking lot in Paramount in LA County and also in the Garin District. They went to an outlet that they knew they could find people who were working these jobs. They rounded them up and that started getting people angry and people were mobilizing.

    But really what was the turning point was that same day on Friday, June 6th, David Huerta, the president of S-E-I-U-U-S-W, was in a confrontation, verbal confrontation with an ice agent rounding up around a raid and was sort of coming to the defense of one of the immigrants that they were trying to take away. He was very roughly shoved to the ground. His head was smashed against the sidewalk. He was arrested and well, first he was hospitalized and then arrested. And these are ice agents that are not supposed to have any jurisdiction over US citizens, let alone labor leaders. And so David Huerta, he’s a beloved labor leader, his arrest sparked this huge rage and anger in Los Angeles. It’s a strong union town and we are known for, this is the site of numerous UTLA teacher strikes and longshore workers striking and fight for 15 fast food workers.

    Striking nurses have done strikes here. We’ve had in recent years, a SAG after strike writers and filmmakers striking. So this is strong labor center, and when they arrested David Huta, all bets were off. It mobilized the crowds of labor rank and file labor. And there was a huge, huge, huge rally on Monday, June 9th, the day that David Huta was arraigned, I went there. In fact, there was something on the order of 10 to 15,000 people gathered in Grand Park in downtown Los Angeles. I walked through that rally people out in a festive atmosphere, but they were angry. They were wearing their union shirts. There was a lot of clergy there as well, who do a lot of solidarity work with labor. There was a massive rally, lot of spoke from the rally. Many, many folks spoke on the stage and people were angry. And then up the street from that, there were a conference, there was the downtown federal building, which is 300 North Los Angeles.

    What’s really interesting, max, I’ve been to that building as an immigrant probably two decades ago when I was a green card holder trying to adjust my status and get a work permit. I remember standing in a long line of people to get in and into my appointment. That building now covered with graffiti, California national Guardsmen, blanking it, standing there with their shields and there were angry, raucous protests, people yelling and screaming at them with loud speakers. There was a seven or 8-year-old child. I remember I took a photo of him. I didn’t want to publish it because he’s a minor, but I want to describe it to you. Seven or 8-year-old child standing in front of the national Guardsman, his back to them wearing nothing but a pair of pants and on his chest, Sharpie F ice like diff. I saw 12-year-old kid with a bandana and a face mask on the walls and on the sidewalk.

    People were angry, wrapping themselves in Mexican flags. And for anybody who knows la, the Mexican flag is a symbol of protest, is a really common site. I know it’s completely being misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Trump administration. They’re using it as a way to say, look, we’re having a foreign invasion, but every time we’ve had immigration marches in LA, people pull out their Mexican flags as a way to assert their, not just dual citizenship in the symbolic sense or dual allegiance, but their immigrant identity. And it’s a way to say, this used to be Mexican land. It’s a way to say, we are not going to assimilate and bow down to white supremacy. We’re going to be our glorious, colorful, radical, powerful selves that you can’t put in a box because we’re multiple identities. We’re intersecting identities. That’s what that flag represents. And it’s very commonly seen at LA protests that have anything to do with immigration.

    So that was happening. And then in front of the detention center where that was being held, people had gathered and there were are cops standing there looking, mean there was no big confrontation because all the confrontations are happening in the evening. They did ara him, they released him. And then of course what’s been happening is there was a curfew put on a one square mile, one square mile area in downtown LA after 8:00 PM but they’re tricking protesters. I have not been there past curfew, but from the reports that I’m reading of people whose work I trust and people are emailing me about their experiences, the cops, the train stops running at seven, which it shouldn’t. The curfew starts at eight, train stops running at seven. The cops around people who are protesting kettle them, which is a term that means that they prevent them from leaving, trapping them, and then have free reign to arrest them after the curfew starts at 8:00 PM saying you are violating curfew.

    Now, by the way, this is all in the control of the city, which is supposed to be separate from federal ice agents. And to me, what this movement has really clarified is that there’s no difference between police and ice. Some people would like to think there is a difference. Mayor Karen Bass in LA was trying to suggest that LAPD would not be cooperating with ICE and they’re going to protect people and ice agents are coming into our town. No, the LAPD are part of the spectrum of armed state power. That ice is also part of a spectrum of, they work in tandem and they’ve been showing that they don’t need to have a curfew, they don’t need to be out there riling people up, making it easy for ice to do its job. And frankly, the protesters don’t see a distinction between them. When you’re out protesting the streets, people are saying, the Marines disappeared.

    My friend, there was a woman who had been trying to get attention on social media about her friend and others are saying, well, those aren’t Marines, they’re California guardsmen. And she’s saying, I frankly dunno who they are. There are uniformed armed men, mostly men in various different forms of uniform. Some of them, some of them not. Some of them wearing fatigue, some of them wearing black who are just arresting people. And you can’t just arrest people unless you have cause and if you’re arresting them, if they’re undocumented, you need a signed warrant from a judge. But they don’t have the signed warrants. And so it’s literally, this is the definition of fascism. They are going in rounding people up without pretext. And another thing that people aren’t paying attention to is that Trump and Christine Nome have basically explicitly said that they’re sending an ice raid into blue cities, into cities run by democratic mayors.

    They’re doing this as a political action. Like, wow, think about that. Right? They’re sending in armed federal agents funded by tax dollars to undermine the leadership of their political opposition, not to suggest that Democrats are doing anything. And then on Saturday we had that, there was the no Kings rally that attracted about 30,000 people. That was the official count. I think it was bigger. I was there and I really couldn’t see the beginning or the end of the march. And that was part of the 2200 plus actions happening around the country that were organized and set up before the ice raids to coincide with Trump’s military parade. But they were just a very nice, convenient outlet for people who were upset about ICE raids. And in LA you saw people wearing kafis to show their support for Palestinian rights while holding up a sign saying F Ice.

    And many other very colorful language, lots of Los Angeles centric language involving, I don’t like Isen Ice only belongs in my orta. And very just very unique to LA signage, very glorious, raucous, friendly, angry, big crowds of people who were outraged, angry, tired. And what I’m noticing is different is that no one is, very few people are suggesting that the Democrats are the answer, which I think they’ve realized what a disaster the Biden presidency was, and now there’s such a hunger for something different. So it’s a really important moment for organizing, which I don’t know if we’ll get to that, but just want to put that out there because it’s a ripe moment.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Let’s definitely make sure that we end on that point, what you’re hearing from folks about where that energy is going and where it’s decidedly not going. And I want to by way of getting there, just like while we have you just maybe take a couple minutes to ask some follow up questions to get some clarity for folks outside of LA who again, are maybe just hearing the latest on the news or maybe they’re hearing Trump posting his insanity on truth social. So I want to just ask them some basic questions here. One is, in your sense have was the National Guard and the Marines sent in because things were so unruly on the ground? Or did those additional troops instigate the upsurge in clashes with police, with violence? I mean, that’s obviously been one question over the week. Is Trump responding to a crisis that needs to be quelled or tamped down or whatever language they’re using? Or is he inflaming it by sending in the goddamn National Guard and the Marines to squash civilian protests?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    Yeah, it’s very much a manufactured crisis. It started with the ice raids. And the ice raids were initially, depending upon the time of day, Trump spoke predicated on the fact that immigrants are supposedly destroying our cities and causing violence and mayhem and invading, et cetera, et cetera. When of course in Los Angeles, our communities are so deeply intertwined. Frankly, most of us don’t know or care who among us is undocumented or not. Many live in mixed status. Families live quite happily together with one another. The one common struggle we have is violence of poverty, of inequality. And so immigrants are after the eaten fires. Almost every single person that I encountered to help me fix up my home due to wind damage was an immigrant of some sort, not originally from the us. I was making note of that in my head, like how immigrant LA is.

    And so we have not had any, the problem was created by Trump. The problem of immigrant violence in cities is as real as rampant voter fraud in elections fermented by immigrants. So he started the problem, and then when people fought back, when people refused to take it lying down and protested, that was the opening he was waiting for to get the National Guard involved and to claim to send Marines in. And yeah, a couple of cars were set on fire. There’s a ton of graffiti downtown la, almost all of it as far as I could see on federal buildings. And that’s rage, right? It’s a property destruction. It’s not hurting individuals. The cars that were burned down were way more cars. They were AI powered cars. And it should be noted that these are cars that are basically gathering surveillance and sharing it with police.

    They’re known to be sharing surveillance with police because they’re outfitted with dozens of cameras. So those were burned, which I think was a very symbolic protest. And so yes, this is a complete and utter fabrication that LA is so out of control and burning that they need to send in outside help. Absolutely. It’s not, I’ve been on the streets of la. I did not for a second feel threatened by anyone other than armed cops. The only threat I felt was from the armed agents of power. And they are going after journalists, by the way. So I was a little scared, not from a single protestor. And that really needs to be clarified. So this is just a manufactured crisis. It’s a way for Trump to lash out, to distract from the fact that his presidency has been an utter failure. His economic turnaround has been an utter failure, and it’s an opening for fascism. He’s trying to see how far he can push. LA is a test case. The last administration, four years ago, Portland was a test case, if you remember where they were sending in the National Guard troops into Portland. In this scenario, LA is the test case much bigger, much, much bigger city. And he doesn’t know what the can of worms that he has opened in LA because people aren’t backing down. He is going to lose in la.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And another follow up question on that front, I think I’ve learned over the past year that in fact, a lot of people don’t know much about la, right? I mean, I was getting into some very heated arguments with people, people on the left during the fires who were sort of celebrating them as if these were all just mansions of the rich in Malibu. And I had to explain to them, I was like, look, bro, I mean, there are houses in Compton for millions of dollars. That doesn’t mean the people there are millionaires. That’s just very, the property values have gone up. Just think a little more about the people you’re talking about. And right now, people are not doing that. And I think they’re not even wrapping their heads around the fact that LA is a massive city. We’re talking nearly 500 square miles in the city proper. We’re talking nearly 4 million people in the city proper to say nothing of the greater LA area. So we’re talking about a big chunk of city here. And right now, again, people outside of California are being told and even regurgitating the notion that LA is a war zone, that it’s just bedlam over there. So I wanted to give you a chance to respond to that. What does LA look like right now to you?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    It’s mostly business as usual, except in some parts of downtown la, right? I live about 25 minutes from downtown LA in Pasadena. We’re seeing regular protests in front of City Hall. They’re all extremely orderly, almost to a fault, but they’re there, which is kind of nice. We’re not seeing, we don’t normally see regular protests in Pasadena where I live, but the people are showing up in front of City Hall. They’re showing up in front of hotels where they think ice agents are staying. But in downtown LA, there is an area right around the city hall area, bridging square, and in between where all the federal buildings are located, where the detention center is. And that is an area that has been kind of closed off. Freeway exists have been shut down. So it’s harder to make it in there, and people are still making it in there.

    There are some people who are showing up deliberately showing up in the evenings because they really see this as them holding the line. They’re showing up, they’re protesting. They’re protesting because there’s a curfew and their right to be angry. Why is there a curfew in our city who decided there should be a curfew in our city? Why? Because you want the right and the freedom to just openly tear apart our communities, and you want us to just take it and lay down. So yeah, people are showing up. There are clashes with cops. Nobody is being violent. The cops are not being hurt. And frankly, if the cops are being hurt, they could just leave and then they wouldn’t be hurt. So yeah, it’s not like the whole city is burning at all. The violence of poverty impacts our city much more than anything that Trump can imagine.

    We’ve had the violence of climate change from the Eaton fires. We are seeing the violence of policing and of immigration enforcement. Those are the sources of violence. And we should be very, very, very clear on that. And LA may be, LA is a city of contradictions. Even I don’t fully know la, I only know the pieces that I traverse regularly. It’s a city of contradictions. It’s a city of millionaires and immigrants. It’s a city of white liberal Hollywood and radical Antifa union folks and artists and theater people. I mean, it’s everything. It’s such a slice of humanity. And also, we have some of the largest immigrant groups that are living outside native country in, I think most cities in the United States, for example, the biggest Armenian population outside Armenia lives in la, huge populations of Vietnamese, Koreans, massive Korean population, Indians and Pakistanis. It’s so a huge Arab population.

    Persians, it is such an incredible sort of multi-layered city that I don’t know, it’s hard to, if you’ve never been to LA, for those people who’ve never been to LA, just come and get a sense of the beauty here. It’s a beautiful city. It’s gritty and it’s also beautiful. It’s slick and it’s gritty at the same time. I can’t describe it. You’ll never know LA unless you’ve spent a lifetime exploring every corner of it, as you said, it’s just huge. It’s massive. And everyone can unite on the one thing they all hate about la, and that is traffic, because we’re so spread out and we have to drive so much, and there’s just too much traffic. So

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    There you go. Well, I didn’t want to interrupt because you were making a serious point, but when you said that the thing that binds Angelinos is like class struggle, and I was like, and hatred of traffic. Those are the two things. Yeah, that’s what the banners of the proletariat in la. And I can’t keep you for too much longer. And I know you’ve been busting your butt doing interviews all day. So I promise I just got a couple more questions for you. But on that last note though, I wanted to ask the no kings protests, like you mentioned happened on Saturday. And I was here covering the protests in Baltimore. Thousands of folks showed out admittedly as a more white crowd that I think you saw a lot of folks from Baltimore County coming in. But there’s still thousands of folks that I talked to, veterans, young folks, old folks, people like you were saying, kind of a chorus of righteous grievances that were emerging from this crowd, from standing up against the attacks on immigrants to the attacks on democracy and the rule of law to the billionaire takeover of everything, but very much kind of all singing together in this chorus of righteous rage.

    And it was a very peaceful endeavor. Some would criticize, it was almost too peaceful, right? There were food trucks there. And it’s just like, I think what people are seeing in LA has gotten everyone maybe a little on Tenter hooks, because it either becomes a litmus test of like, if we’re not as radical as LA, then we’re not doing anything worthwhile. But I caution people out there to just put judgment to the side at this moment in history as we descend into fascism, and just look at the people who are showing up and encourage action where you can and don’t judge people who are taking that first step to speak out. There’s a lot going on right now, and people are meeting this moment coming from a lot of different paths. Right?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    Agreed.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and on that note, I wanted to just ask, like you mentioned the no Kings protests. I know that there were some violent tactics used by police to try to disperse some crowds. I think there were maybe about 35 arrests as I read. So I wanted to ask, is the police presence, is the curfew, is it slowing down the protest momentum in LA that you’re seeing? And are the attacks on journalists that you mentioned, is that slowing down or making you and your colleagues think twice about going out there and covering?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    I do wonder if the turnout in LA would’ve been bigger had there not been all of this warning ahead of time that the Marines are going to be sent to LA for the No Kings protest. I had a friend who was visiting from out of town, and I said to her, listen, I’m a journalist. I’m afraid you’re visiting, but come with me to the protest. We’ll do a few interviews and go get lunch afterwards. And she was like, oh. But I read and I said, oh, look, this is la. Trust me, it’s going to be fine. And we’ll know as soon as we get on the train. If there’s crowds of people on the train to go into downtown la, it’s all going to be good. If there’s not that many people, then it’s going to be a little bit iffy. And there were a few people.

    And then as we sat on the train, more and more came in. And when we got out of the train, there was a sea of people. But I’ve been to a bigger protest in la, huge protest, the first women’s march in 2017, and then 2006, because I’ve been doing this a long time, the massive 2006 immigration rallies when a million people showed up on the streets of LA wearing white and waving US flags and Mexican flags, the subway trains were so, the metro trains were so, so crowded. And the more crowded it is, the more big and glorious it is, and the less fear there is about police violence. And so I would say that there was a little fear of police violence. It was huge in la, but it could have been huger. And I suspect that if people had, I suspect people also remember there were LA is so spread out.

    Pasadena had its own protests. Sierra Madre had its own protests. South Pasadena had its own protests. So a lot of smaller rallies were happening in cities in LA County that people were like, well, instead of going to the one big one in la, we’ll go to the one here that’s smaller that we know there aren’t going to be cops freaking us out. So that might’ve been another thing that happened. And I think it’s really, and when it comes to the journalists, I don’t know. I mean, yes, I’ve stayed away from covering the evening protests in part because of practicality, because I’ve kids and I take care of my parents, but also in part because, yeah, I have no wish to be having a flashback grenade hurdle at my head, which is a sorry thing to say. It indicates the sorry state of our democracy when a journalist are slightly afraid to go out and cover these huge protests. So yeah, I think that that’s definitely an important thing to consider.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Yeah, it’s pretty damn wild when you can see on camera the police targeting journalists, even foreign journalists and just shooting them with rubber bullets, shooting our colleagues in the head with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters. And I don’t want to do the thing where it’s like fellow journalists get, we clutch our pearls and we get really upset when other journalists are hurt, but we don’t speak out when citizens are being brutalized. No, we’re pissed off at all of it. And all of it is an atrocity and an attack on democracy as such, and on the people as such. See, it’s not that hard to walk and chew gum at the same time. But these are very dangerous times that we are living in. And I kind of wanted, as we round this final corner here, again, I just wanted to thank you and everyone who is going out there and continuing to do the important work of reporting so that folks like the listeners of this show can actually know what the hell is going on and not be led astray, not be led to support this authoritarian repression because they are being fed misinformation about what’s actually happening on the ground.

    And in that vein, in the final turn, I wanted to circle back to the point that you raised in the beginning. I wanted to ask if we could maybe just survey a bit, the folks that you’ve been talking to, the attitudes that you’ve been picking up on, the things that people have been telling you, like I guess, where are folks right now? Where do you see this going? And where is this grassroots energy headed right now?

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    So some of the people that I’ve been talking to are a lot of young folks, people who are showing up in their graduation sashes who are from mixed status families. I talked to high school kids whose families are impacted. And one kid said, I’m here because my grandfather can’t be here because he’s too scared, because he is undocumented, but I’m a citizen, so I’m here on his behalf. I’ve talked to a lot of what’s really interesting, a lot of black folks coming out in support of their immigrant neighbors. So I spoke with Jasmine Abula Richards, who is the leader of the Black Lives Matter Pasadena chapter, who said Babies are being ripped out of the arms of their families. I don’t care what race they are. I’m standing here in solidarity with them, and she is calling on her community to show up for immigrant rights, which I just love.

    That’s a lot of lots. So LA’s No Kings Rally, hugely multiracial and diverse, in contrast to the women’s March that took place this year as opposed to the one that took place in 2017. So I went to the Women’s March this year, largely white, although it was still multiracial just because it’s la. But on Saturday, incredibly multiracial. I’ve also interviewed Pasadena City Councilman Rick Cole, whose daughters were arrested in downtown LA protesting the National Day labor organizing networks, Pablo Alvarado, who has been on the front lines of all of defending dayers at Home Depot. Yeah, it’s been, people are really ready to take this on. They are basically drawing the line in the sand saying, no, you cannot do this to la. We’re not going to let you, it’s just not happening because we’re immigrants are too integrated into our society. They aren’t just a part of our community.

    They are our community. So I’ve talked to pastors and clergy who are doing solidarity work, union leaders. Oh my gosh, I can’t keep track of the interviews. There’ve been so many interviews, but it’s a great cross section. People who’ve been active for many, many years and who’ve come out for many protests and people just become activated. And yeah, I think I’m hoping that the people who are rising up are also seeing, because what happened the last time people rose up against Trump was it was this feeder into if only we could elect more Democrats than we could get rid of Trump. Well, that was tried and failed. And now what? And I think I am seeing from, at least in la, a sense that we need to expand beyond the two party system. We need more radical leadership in government, and if we want to change the dynamics of power, we need to elect people regardless of which party, and ideally, not really establishment Democrats, independence or whatever democratic socialists who are going to do our bidding as opposed to Wall Streets and the brown shirts. So Yeah’s been incredible. It’s a great time to be a journalist in spite of the dangers. It’s a great time to be a journalist in America. It’s also the worst time to be a journalist because nobody’s newsrooms are being decimated, and our jobs are being outsourced to ai, and we’re trying to survive on Patreon and Substack subscriptions. So yeah, contradictions, and you well know what that means.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and that’s as good of a occasion as any to remind y’all before we let her go to please follow Sonali and support her show, check out her work. It’s invaluable in these times. So Sonali, thank you so much for joining us, and thank you for all the work you’re doing. Si, I really appreciate it.

    Sonali Kolhatkar:

    I appreciate your work as well. Thank you so much, max, for having me on.

    Javier Cabral:

    What’s up, man? My name’s Javier Cabral. I’m the editor in chief for LA Taco.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, Javier, thank you so much for joining us today, man. I know you’ve been running your ass off, you and your colleagues over there at La Taco covering the mayhem, the protests, the lifting up, the voices on the front lines of struggle back home. And I just wanted to say up top that the work y’all have been doing has been incredible, vital, and just so, so necessary in this moment when there’s so much bad information, misinformation floating around. I really can’t emphasize enough for folks listening that if you haven’t already, you need to follow La Taco, follow their Instagram, follow their accounts where they’re really posting real time updates on what’s happening back in la. And we’re going to link to those accounts in the show notes for this episode. And Javier, I wanted to toss it to you there before we really dig into what the past week has looked like through your eyes and the eyes of your colleagues and the coverage that you’re doing. I wanted to ask you if you could just tell our listeners a bit more about La Taco, what it is, and the kind of coverage that you guys have been doing, and then I guess tie that into the past week. When did this all really start kicking up for you, and how did y’all respond to the protests to the National Guard to Ice raids? How did you guys respond to that with the coverage that you’re doing?

    Javier Cabral:

    Sure, man. So LA Tacos started in 2005 as a blog that celebrated tacos, cannabis and graffiti. We thought ourselves as a baby vice, I would say we were, were alternative. This is a time when tacos were illegal in la. There was a big movement called ADA because taco trucks were illegal to park all over the city and pretty much what street vendors are dealing with right now and their battle for legalization and for permits. And in 2017, Dan Danez took over. He was a former vice reporter badass who was in the chapels tunnels and worked for Vice Mexico. He spearheaded our news first approach to fill the void that after LA Weekly got slashed, they fired everyone. And then LA was left without an alternative style publication for a county of 10 million people, which it was crazy. So LA Taco decided to just put our resources and hope for the best. Daniel was the editor for two years before he moved on to LA Times Food, where he is at now. I took over right before the pandemic in 2019, and no one was reading. There was the pivot.

    The pivot to that Creator Media was starting to happen and vlogging with a V. And my contract was like, if you can get our traffic up in six months, you can keep the job as long as you have. And it’s been almost six years now. So we’ve really risen to meet whatever crisis or whatever big news story is happening out there because of alternative style approach. And when I say alternative, it just means that we’re, we’re not the opposite of corporate media. We’re not a nonprofit. We don’t have any nonprofit safety net. We are 100% independent. A lot of brands don’t want to work with us because we publish whatever the hell we want to publish. And some of these stuff that we do is pretty damning to corporations or to the police or to any person in power are investigative investigative journalist, Alexis Oli Ray.

    He is our ace. He’s always out there keeping police accountable, has been involved of several lawsuits, and we back him up, we back everything because I famously said one time I interviewed by LA Times a little profile on me, and I’m from the hood, right? So literally I said, we have to be prepared to defend whatever we publish in a dark alley if need be. So that philosophy, it’s on my heart and in everything I publish, I’m like, I can, we can’t be ashamed kiss as we can’t be fluffy. I see these people that we’re writing about when I go to backyard punk shows, when I go eat tacos and I speak to ’em in Spanish, whatever I publish, it has to be truthful and it has to just be just 100% something that I can stand behind. So that’s been our approach and this kind of fearless approach to a term, I call this street level journalism.

    And that’s been our formula in 2021, we won a James Beard Award for our unique approach to food based, to food based stories. We do more food culture, more food intersections, gentrification, all the stuff that other publications are too scared to publish or too scared to touch because they don’t want a sacrifice their whatever ad sponsor or whatever. But we don’t care. Our tagline, literally for the longest time was we had bumper stickers that it was like, we don’t give a fuck. So with that same kind of punk rock ethos, we’re in 2025 now in this recent ice raids and massive civil unrest because of the fascist regime, because of Trump, because of him terrorizing our communities through these federal forces. So we’ve been covering it all, been covering it, and we’ve been documenting our little team of six reporters has really hit the streets and just trying to do our best to just show exactly what is happening out there and provide context as best as we can. It’s nothing crazy, but in this age of people talking to their phone and not asking any hard questions, I guess that’s crazy.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Again, I’m seeing this in real time. I mean, you’ve been posting videos from the ground in demonstrations showing when just rows and rows of police cars are descending on peaceful protesters and launching tear gas into the center of the crowds you guys have gotten police brutalizing, senior citizens. You’ve gotten those senior citizens on camera talking about it. You’ve done videos on social media reporting on ice raids, on Eros and other street vendors. So I want to kind of talk a bit about that, the kinds of stories that you’ve been reporting on, especially over the past week, right? All the focus has obviously been on the protests themselves, the National Guard, the Marines, this big debate over who’s causing the violence, who’s responding to the violence, yada, yada, yada. And I do want to make time to talk about that, but I wanted to ask what the past week has looked like for you and your colleagues reporting on the stories that you’ve been reporting on. What do you want folks out there, especially outside of LA, to know about what you’ve been seeing happen in your home over the past seven days?

    Javier Cabral:

    Well, these are the darkest days that I’ve lived in la. I’m 36 years old, so I don’t remember much about the LA riots in early nineties, but as far as I’m concerned, as long as I’ve been doing this, if you’re someone who’s looking from afar into what’s happening, it’s bad. It’s enough to just make everything like your life stop. It’s really hard to not fall in a downward spiral of depression, anxiety, paranoia. If you know anyone who is an immigrant and lives in la, especially if you’re a Latino, brown skinned person, definitely check in on them. Or don’t try to pretend like life is going on as normal because it’s not. It’s what we’re seeing is unprecedented and how LA Taco has been responding is also unprecedented as a leader, as the editor in chief, it’s been crazy. I’ve been very overwhelmed sometimes. I’m not going to lie.

    I don’t know. I’m really grateful for my team that trust me. But there came a point where we were getting dozens of tips in our emails and our dms about all these ice raids happening around us just a few miles away. And what people, everyone was just scared. And then there were some stories that we were getting to before our competition, I guess other broadcasts or print publications, because we’re a lot more nimble. But even then, we couldn’t get to it fast enough. So as editor in chief, as a diehard writer, I was like, man, I think we need to get out of ourselves and get out of our business model even. Because as you know, the way that journalism and websites work is we get paid by either impression, but that’s dried up this Google AdSense. It’s not much money or if it’s syndicated on any of these apps, but that’s also a lot of it is very, Penn is on a dollar.

    So what we’ve been doing is having a membership approach. People you join our members, and before all these protests, we were at 3,500, no, we were maybe like 3,300 members, and now we just checked it in and we’re over 4,000. So that, for me, it was very risky. So I decided that we needed to go on a social media first approach and employ these tactics that these creators or influencers are doing, but just apply a layer of integrity and ethics to everything and be able to verify everything. So we’ve been doing that, and it was a very risky approach. And my team luckily trusted me, and people have been, they’ve been heating our call, they’ve been responding to us. I frankly just from the bottom of my heart, just a little video, and I was like, look at everyone. Shit’s crazy right now. We can’t keep up with tips.

    We’re only a team of six, so we’re going to start doing more videos and we hope that you back us up. We hope that you just don’t enjoy our content for free and you throw us a bone, whatever you can, anything helps. So we’ve actually raised more than $25,000 from just donations too in the last seven days. And it’s, how have we been covering this? It’s all hands on deck people. Sometimes my team doesn’t even ask me. They just go and cover it because that’s how newsworthy everything is right now. It’s just, it’s crazy times. And we’ll think about it after, just go first document and then we’ll think about, we’ll unpack it later. That’s how insane LA is right now with what’s happening with these ice raids and all these protests. I think I went, there was a straight protest for nine days. Nine days of hundreds of people protesting, and then obviously the police escalation that we have all been just seeing on our phones and on tv.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And can you say more about the raids themselves, just for folks listening? I mean, where are the raids happening? Who’s getting taken the manner in which people are being hunted down and detained again? I want to bring people down to that street level where you guys are, just to give them a sense of the terror that’s being waged against our community right now and what that looks like in the tips you’re getting, the stories that you’re reporting, the people you’re talking to. I want people listening to hear that and know that.

    Javier Cabral:

    Yeah, so undocumented street vendors, undocumented workers of any kind, even if you’ve been working here for 30 years and you have a home, you own a home, even if you are a functioning member of American society who pays your taxes, who has a complete family, who has made is probably more American than Mexican at this point. And what I mean by that is has adopted more American values. They’re good consumers. They watch a lot of American football. There are people like you and I, and they just haven’t had their legal processing. As some of us know, it takes a long time.

    It depends on whatever kind of visa you want to apply for, but it’s very unrealistic for a lot of working people. And the way that these federal agencies are abducting people is very violent, very traumatic. When I say violent, traumatic, there was a video that we shared yesterday where we got some more details on about, it was in the Walmart parking lot in Pico Rivera here in la, which is Pico Rivera is a small suburban Latino community, maybe about 25 minutes from downtown. I call it east of East la. It’s even more east of East la. And it was in the Walmart parking lot. And this I got to interview the daughter of a tortilla delivery driver who worked for Mission Foods. And if you work those jobs, that’s a lot of of seniority to have your route and do it. And he was delivering his tortillas in a stack of ’em in a dolly.

    And straight up, I abducted them, left the dolly, his daughter informed me that it was very peaceful, but they left the dolly filled tortillas on the sun. His car there opened with the doors open, completely no description. You know what I tell people, if anyone here has ever seen that satire movie called A Day Without a Mexican, when all of a sudden you just wake up and there’s the street vendor, shoes are just there, but not the human. It is like imagine if people are getting vaporized by the federal government. That’s what it feels like right now, and it’s very violent. That video actually really messed me up. Actually, that video actually was that tipping point for me. And finally getting therapy, because I just felt so many things. It was like a 20-year-old kid who he had stood, he was documenting, and there’s two different sides of this, but I just found out that he’s getting federal charges for obstruction of justice and for assaulting a federal officer was just announced a couple of minutes ago, and this is a 20-year-old kid who was out picking up carts at Walmart and was documenting, and I think probably got in the face of a federal agent.

    And they didn’t like that they got him. They violently took him down, put his face to the floor, took away his phone, they took him, no one knew where he was at. And then another federal agent came cocked his gun really loud. I mean, I’m not a gun person, so I don’t know if that’s the right word, cock, but he kind of almost like if you’re playing a video game or something. And I just seeing that on all these unarmed civilians who were just concerned and crying, and then seeing this young 20-year-old kid who looked a lot like me when I was younger, I’m like, damn, that just hit home to me. I was, oh man. So it’s that kind of deep where it’s starting to affect journalists too. I’m trying to look for therapy myself too, because it’s just constant barrage of violence, guns, physical violence in real life at these protests by police, and also that we’re being bombarded with on TV and our phones every day.

    And it’s hard to look away because there’s also a sense of fear too, because what if it happens to me tomorrow? I’m going to go on a ride along with a community agency who has formed community. They formed a community coalition that look out for each other whenever there’s ice protests. And this guy just got subpoenaed, I can tell you right now, lemme look it up. He got subpoenaed by the federal courts to hand over his, to hand over his everything, his information, his campaigns, his phone. Otherwise it’s going to be a full, I dunno, I’m sorry. Otherwise it’ll be a federal criminal investigation. And it was like the counter-terrorism unit because they’re trying to say that he’s fueling these protests and that he’s feeling all this, all this, no, but no one’s feeling anything. It’s everyone’s feeling ourselves because everyone is just so just upset at a very deep level because they’re coming here and they’re destroying families and destroying lives, and we’re all just seeing it. So yeah, that’s what I’ll say. And if you’re watching from afar, definitely support independent media support La Taco LA Public Press. They’ve been also been stepping it up, Kalo News, CALO News. They’ve been stepping it up. So there are independent sources that, I mean, they’re also nonprofits, but it’s still good. It’s all for the same goal. But definitely if you know anyone in LA who is from Guatemala, Mexico or El Salvador, definitely reach out to them and see how they’re doing, because I guarantee you that they’re not. Okay.

    Michael Nigro:

    Hey, I’m Michael Nigro I’m a Brooklyn, New York based photojournalist. I’ve been covering stories in the United States and around the world for roughly 15 years, mainly independent, but I will go and pitch stories of conflict politics and protests.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, Michael, it is such an honor to have you on the show, man. I really appreciate you in all the work that you do. And to everyone listening, you no doubt know Mike’s work, even if you don’t know his name yet. But you should. And for those who listened to this show, you have very likely heard Michael’s name because of the reporting he was doing at the protests in LA and what happened to him while he was doing his job and doing his job to inform us the people about what was happening on the ground. And we’re going to get to that in a second. But just to give you guys some context, I actually want to read from a piece from NPR that was published earlier this week by David Folkenflick. And David writes in this piece on Monday, the Los Angeles Press Club and the investigative reporting site status coup filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles and the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department in federal court alleging that officers at the demonstrations were routinely violating journalists’ rights.

    Being a journalist in Los Angeles is now a dangerous profession states. The complaint filed in the Western division of the Central District of California, LAPD, unlawfully used force and the threat of force against plaintiffs, their members and other journalists to intimidate them and interfere with their constitutional right to document public events. As the press consider a selection of the episodes that the press Club has compiled, including some that were captured live in the moment by the journalists themselves, an Australian television correspondent was shot by a law enforcement officer with a rubber bullet during a live shot. As she stood to the side of protests in downtown Los Angeles, the officer taking aim could be seen in the background as it happened. Another instance, a photographer for the New York Post was struck in the forehead by another rubber bullet, his stunning image capturing its path immediately before impact.

    A veteran Los Angeles Times reporter by his account says he was shoved by a Los Angeles Police Department officer after reminding him that journalists were exempt under state law from the city’s recently imposed curfew. Several of his colleagues reported being struck by police projectiles. A student journalist says, LAPD officers shot him twice with rubber bullets. One nearly severed the tip of his pinky, which required surgical reattachment. A freelance journalist says he believes he was shot by a deputy from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. A CT scan showed what appears to be a 40 millimeter less lethal munition embedded in a two inch hole in the reporter’s leg. Now, those are just some of the stories that have been coming out of la, and the one that this article in NPR starts with is what happened to Michael. And so Michael, I want to turn it over to you, man, and ask if you could just walk us through your reporting in LA and walk us through what happened when the police made you a target.

    Michael Nigro:

    So as a photojournalist, you are there to document what is happening, what is occurring. Often, historical moments, not often do I ever want to be part of the story or become the story. However, doing some of the work that I do, sometimes it becomes that. And in the case of First Amendment and police trying to quash or censor what we are doing, then I think it’s really important to step up. So when David Folkenflik called me, I first wondered how he got my number, but what it turned out is that the Los Angeles Press Club is compiling a list of all the journalists who were either shot at or injured or targeted by the police. And the list is long. So that he contacted me out of all those people, I felt that it was a duty for me to actually kind of say, this is what I saw is what I experienced.

    Now I am based in New York and I’ve been covering the ice raids inside courtrooms in downtown Manhattan. And there are very few people out in the street, very few inside the hallways trying to stop these kidnappings from happening kidnappings in quotes, but I don’t know what else to call them. They’re disappearing people. And one day at lunch, I walked outside and this French journalist approached me and said, where is everybody? Why aren’t people in the street? And I thought the same thing. I don’t know. Well, as it turned out, it was in la. And so when they called up the military and the National Guard and the win against Gavin Newsom wins against the mayor, win against everybody in Los Angeles, and they sent them there, I’m like, this is where I need to go.

    I arrived on Monday the ninth, so I missed the first day. But when I arrived, I had already talked to a number of colleagues of mine, many of whom already been shot with rubber bullets or 40 millimeter sponge grenades or pepper balls, and just said, they’re, look out, they’re targeting us. And if not targeting us, it’s indiscriminate. So I have covered these things for years, protests from in Paris, France, and Hong Kong in the United States. Black Lives Matter, and I was geared up and it’s best thing I could have done is to have a very good helmet, a gas mask with protective eyewear and a flack jacket, all with press, front and back, side and side on my helmets, and that did not deter them from targeting the press. Early on in the evening on Monday, I was over on this bridge right across from the detention center all by myself, trying to get a wide shot.

    Flashbacks had already been going off and some pepper, some rubber bullets, and I’m just sitting there with my long lens and all of a sudden I just heard this bing, bing, bing. And they shot right at my head, didn’t hit me, but that was definitely sending a message. I had no idea where it came from, but it was close. So I moved away and the day kind of played on some arrests and I need to be very clear here. What I witnessed is primarily a peaceful protest, primarily a peaceful protest. It never got violent until the police in riot gear and batons and started firing munitions at protestors. At this moment, there was no curfew that called, so they were just exercising their first amendment rights. They were protesting. This is American protest. It was not an insurrection. I covered January 6th, I know exactly what that looks like.

    They were not storming buildings, they were not smearing feces on the wall. They were not hitting police with hockey clubs and crutches. This was a standard protest, a real display of anger galvanizing communities. So we were walking through Koreatown at one point and there was a standoff, this kind of cat and mouse standoff, and they decided to target one protestor and shot him with a bunch of pepper balls. I went over to try to grab the angle and document that, and all of a sudden there was a ding that just kind of took me in the side of the helmet. And what has come to light since then is that a lot of these police have red, not infrared, they’re called red dot sensors so they know exactly what they’re pointing. These officers, every officer with a less lethal munition, a weapon is supposed to be trained not to aim for the head, not to aim for the neck, some to aim at the ground and have a ricochet.

    These are called less lethal, but they’re not non-lethal. People have been killed by these people have lost eyesights and even one photojournalist in Minnesota ended up losing her eye and then eventually lost her life a few years later from those very injuries. So it was very, very dangerous to be shot with these things, especially a close range. And that’s essentially what happened, which was I feel they’re trying to have a chilling effect on the press and the press that I know that’s out there. They’re tenacious. They were hit once, twice, three times. Not going to stop. This is wrong. We need to be able to document the public has a right to know what is happening.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    You mentioned that you’ve been doing this for years, you’ve been covering protests all over the world, and I wonder how you would compare this to what you’ve seen elsewhere Taking our audience into account. Right, because admit, as a American kid who grew up not knowing shit about the world, like most American kids, it was embarrassingly late in my life when I learned that like other countries didn’t shoot tear gas at their own citizens the way that we do. In fact, tear gas is a weapon of war, that there’s a reason that it’s not shot at civilians the way that we do here in America. But I had no idea at that time in my twenties that this was just something we had been conditioned to accept even though it was so manifestly unacceptable. So I wonder, just in that vein, if you could, using your experience, help put this in context for our audience. We’ve been trained to see this as normal. Is this normal?

    Michael Nigro:

    Is this normal? I don’t think weapons of war used against American citizens exercising their first amendment. It is anyway normal. However, we’ve militarized the police to such a degree that there are Humvees in the street, there are militarized vehicles in the street. They are practicing and trained in this kind of quashing of protests. New York City has something called the SRG, the Strategic Response Group. They’re supposed to be a crowd control group, but what they’ve mainly become is a protest control group, and they are violent. When you see them come in with the riot gear, you know that violence is about to happen and I’ve covered protests long enough to recognize when I’m up against the front line, what police officers have that kind of look in their eye and that their training or lack of training, they are out to make a point. And that is, I am not in the mind of a police officer, but I certainly see the behavior which is far different from perhaps that officer who maybe is better trained or just doesn’t have that blood lust within them.

    But there were a number of officers in my videos that I’ve just squared up with and you could just see it. They’re ready to kick some ass. And it’s troubling to see, especially when you have the majority of the people majority. This was a peaceful march. They are able to do this. I will say that when I think it was Wednesday night when they went back out, there was a contingent of clergy that came probably five or 600 that had a vigil. Then they marched to the detention center where the National Guard was stationed and they prayed. They prayed, they laid flowers, they told the soldiers there that they were praying for them and their safety and the curfew was coming up at eight o’clock. Most of the clergy dispersed, but there were other people there that did not want to disperse. And then even before the curfew happened, they started firing on the crowd, which I don’t know how you piece that together.

    And not only on the crowd, but also at the press, which I know this is kind of what we’re talking about, that the targeting of the press seems to be happening more and more in New York. We had to fight tooth and nail to get inside these courtrooms. And what I mean by that is there was a contingent of us that said, we need to go see what’s happening inside these public spaces. Security said no. We said for some amendment violation, they said, we’ll talk to my boss. Boss came down, then another boss came down, another boss came. Finally, I called my lawyer and my lawyer, oddly enough, I called him. I said, look, I’m having this problem in this public space. He goes, I’m oddly right around the corner.

    He comes around probably one minute later. I’m like, what are you doing here? He is like, we’re going to get you in. He got us in. From then on, we were able to document all the snatching grabs and deportations or disappearing of these mainly young black men, but also women, some kids that are no one under 18 I saw. But they’re disappearing. These people, some of these people, they’re just, they’re doing what they were told to do, which was come to your mandatory court meeting because your next step is we’re going to get you citizenship. We’re going to get you the green card with you doing law doesn’t matter anymore. And when the law doesn’t matter anymore, it is up to the press to say public, this is what’s happening. And that’s what I think happened in la. The groundswell there became such that people came out and said, we need to protect our community. These are barbers. These are people working at a carwash. These are people who’ve been here for 10, 20, 30, 40 years and that they’ve been paying their taxes, they’ve been paying into social security, which they will never draw from, and they’re part of these communities. And the response to that was so disproportional, but also part and parcel to what the Trump administration wants to inflict across the country. So if you’re in a big city and there’s immigrants, I mean I would fully expect it to be coming to a city near you.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I mean, I think powerfully and chillingly put, and I am going to toss a broad question at you, but please just take it in whatever direction you feel comfortable. But as journalists at this moment in the year of our Lord 2025, we’re not just documenting the political mayhem that’s happening outside of our windows, but we’re whether we knowingly enlisted or not, we are all in effect kind of soldiers in this battle, this war over reality as such. And so much of what the Trump administration is doing depends on blasting a warped version of reality. Like LA is chaos, LA is bedlam. We got to send in the National Guard and the Marines when folks on the ground are like, it’s not bedlam. It’s a massive city and we’re exercising our first amendment rights. But once that sort of unreality gets a critical mass of people believing in it, it justifies the worst excesses of these authoritarian policies.

    And it brings out the worst in people who say, well, yeah, I’m all for sending the Marines in to LA because I’m being told that it’s the protesters who are rioting and yada, yada, yada. So that all is to say that what we do and what you are doing every day is so goddamn important. Your lens is showing people what is actually happening in this country right now to our people. I wanted to kind of end on that broad note and ask if you could communicate to folks out there who are maybe only checking their social media feeds, maybe they haven’t been following your work, maybe they’ve just been hearing this stuff secondhand. What do you most want people to know about what you are seeing and documenting happening in this country right now? From LA to the courtrooms in New York?

    Michael Nigro:

    It’s those two different narratives that you have coming from a propaganda based White House that is taken essentially what happened on January 6th and lifted it up and plopped it right into LA into a very tiny footprint of Los Angeles. Wasn’t all of Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a sprawling, sprawling place. This is downtown la relegated to very few blocks, but Trump basically said what happened on January 6th and he just transplanted into Los Angeles. Why I do what I do is because I hear all the time, well, this is what I’ve heard. This is what I read. A lot of that is just theoretical. I go out and take photos and videos and create multimedia pieces so it’s not theoretical. So you can see what is happening on the ground with the people actually doing, whether they’re protesting or doing hard work of trying to keep immigrants safe.

    And that’s very particular to this, but that’s why I do what I do. So it’s an airtight documentation of reality and without it, I feel far too often people are just not realizing that that immigrant that I just shot as being taken away from his loved ones to a very dangerous country, could be their brother, their friend, their coworker, their sister, their brother. That makes it less theoretical to people and I hope that it sits with them. Now of course, I’ll get FLA online and social media with all these kind of talking points of like, this is what I voted for and there’s nothing I can really do to refute that, but except go out and do it again and shoot it and continue to document as a lot of my colleagues are going to continue to do, no matter how much they’re going to try to suppress us.

    I think there’s more of us out there trying to show what’s really, really happening and that the city wasn’t burning down. Look, a few Waymo cars, if that’s what they’re called, we burned and no one was hurt. Yeah, it’s illegal, but these are very small instances. May be part of the protest. Perhaps not. I wasn’t there to view it, but what I witnessed there was communities coming together and what happens so very rarely with journalists nowadays is that I had people thanking me, people thanking me, saying, thank you for doing this work. Thank you for coming out here and showing that we’re fighting for our communities, we’re fighting for our brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and daughters and sons.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    All right, gang. That’s going to wrap things up for us this week. Once again, I want to thank our guests, Sonali Kolhatkar, Javier Cabal and Michael Nigro for their vital work and for taking the time to speak with us for this episode. And I want to thank you all for listening and want to thank you for caring. We’ll see you all back here next week for another episode of Working People. And if you can’t wait that long, then go explore all the great work that we’re doing at The Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism that lifts up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. Sign up for the Real News newsletter so you never miss a story and help us do more work like this by going to the real news.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. I promise you it really makes a difference. I’m Maximilian Alvarez. Take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Solidarity forever.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Jacobin logo

    This story originally appeared in Jacobin on June 09, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

    You don’t think it’s gonna happen to you, quite frankly, until it does,” said Luisa, whose father was detained in a raid at the Ambiance Apparel factory in Los Angeles’s garment district. Immigration officers had arrived in force on Friday morning and invaded the warehouse, initiating what Luisa called “a manhunt for each and every one of the workers” on their list.

    Luisa, twenty-four, has been unable to talk to her father, fifty-one, since he was taken from the factory floor.

    A crowd immediately gathered outside Ambiance, drawn by the swarm of armored vehicles. Some protesters blocked vans in an attempt to physically prevent them from leaving the scene with detainees. Observing the action was David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union–United Service Workers West (SEIU-USSW), who was tackled to the ground, injuring his head. Huerta was treated at a hospital, but remained in federal custody throughout the weekend. He was released early Monday afternoon on bond, but now faces federal felony charges.

    Luisa’s family has been increasingly worried about separation since Donald Trump’s election last November. “My father made it a big deal to ensure us that if it did happen — he always said, ‘If it does happen, but it won’t’ — we’re gonna be fine,” Luisa told Jacobin. She has been given a pseudonym to protect her anonymity.

    Now that the moment has arrived, the family’s optimism has given way to quiet dread. “We don’t know how to address it with each other even,” she said. “We want to remain strong for him, and for ourselves, so that we can find ways to help him.” She described the family’s interactions with officials so far as “suspicious and difficult to navigate.”

    On Saturday morning, Luisa caught a glimpse of her father outside the federal building in Downtown Los Angeles. He was being loaded into a van for transport to a separate facility. Officials had promised her visitation but canceled at the last minute, citing the protests roiling outside.

    By Friday night, the federal building had already become a focal point of protests against the raids. Police had fired rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, and tear gas at protesters and journalists surrounding the building. The melee on federal property empowered Trump to intervene directly, and on Saturday, he called in the National Guard to protect the building.

    California legislators had not asked for the federal government’s assistance. Instead, evidently eager to create a national spectacle, Trump went over their heads, putting the protests in the national spotlight. His border czar, Tom Homan, threatened to arrest the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, and the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, if they resisted Trump’s federal troop takeover.

    Capitalizing on the media attention, Trump issued several sensationalist statements, promising that “the Illegals will be expelled” and Los Angeles would be “set free.” “A once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals,” the president wrote. He called the protests “violent, insurrectionist mobs.” He pledged to “liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion, and put an end to these Migrant riots.”

    Luisa expressed concern about how swiftly Trump shifted the narrative from the detentions to the police clashes and his demonization of protesters. “The reason why we do these protests is beyond just wanting to make noise and cause chaos,” said Luisa. “It’s meaningful, and it has purpose. They want to steer away from that. They want to change that story and say that it’s because we’re violent.”

    Trump’s Needless Provocations

    Los Angeles City Council member Hugo Soto-Martinez rejected Trump’s claim to be acting on behalf of Angelenos who are being held captive by migrants to the detriment of their city. “That is not the way the people of Los Angeles view immigrants,” Soto-Martinez told Jacobin. “People in Los Angeles understand that immigrants are part of the very fabric of the city. So for Trump to say that is completely deranged.”

    Soto-Martinez, a former union organizer and the son of undocumented immigrants himself, views the Trump administration’s provocations as opportunistic and cynical. “In the last few days, we have seen an escalation of aggressive tactics by the president, provoking these conflicts and trying to intimidate people,” he said. “The public is responding to what they’re doing, not the other way around.”

    Protests in Los Angeles grew in response to Trump’s announcement that he was deploying the National Guard. On Sunday, crowds were estimated in the thousands, with demonstrators representing labor unions, immigrant rights groups, students, and many unaffiliated local residents. They held signs, waved flags, chanted through bullhorns, and blocked intersections. As National Guardsmen arrived in Los Angeles, hundreds of protesters blocked a freeway, bringing traffic to a halt. They clashed with police in multiple locations.

    The Trump administration provided running color commentary, dramatizing the crisis of its own making. “Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers,” wrote Vice President J. D. Vance on social media. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller characterized events in Los Angeles as “a fight to save civilization.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened to send in the Marines to quell “violent mobs.” The administration placed a man who had thrown rocks at immigration vehicles on the FBI’s Most Wanted list alongside violent murderers and large-scale international drug traffickers.

    On Sunday evening, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to call protesters “thugs” and demand the arrest of any protester wearing a face mask. He also called to deploy more federal forces, though it was unclear if he meant the National Guard or another body. “Looking really bad in L.A.,” he wrote. “BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!”

    Gloria Gallardo, a Los Angeles public-school teacher who taught the son of a detainee, accused the Trump administration of “inciting people to build a narrative that the people here deserve to be deported.” By using inflammatory rhetoric and taking increasingly provocative action, like rolling tanks through the city streets, Gallardo said the administration is deliberately attempting to create scenarios that will go viral on social media. “They’re doing it on purpose because they want this to be circulating around the world,” she said.

    Gallardo speculated that a small minority of protesters may be intent on giving Trump what he wants, whether undercover agitators or just frustrated individuals. “With any mass mobilization like this, there are people who are trying to make it more violent, and it’s not the seasoned organizers in our city,” Gallardo said. Many community activists, she said, were “at home like me trying to organize responses for our schools, or on the streets trying to be peaceful and not put people in danger.”

    Luisa, the detainee’s daughter, told Jacobin that the Trump administration is “definitely enticing people to react in certain ways,” noting that “protests come with powerful emotions” and accusing the administration of “poking the bear.” She cautioned protesters not to play into their hands. “It’s important to have protests, but we need to do so in a way that does not prove the current administration right.”

    Pointing Fingers as the Rich Get Richer

    The Trump administration purports to be responding to out-of-control events in Los Angeles. Many commentators challenge this order of events, arguing instead that he targeted the city and intentionally turned it into a political spectacle. He could have known, they argue, that high-profile, military-style workplace raids in a majority-Latino and largely immigrant city would be met with protests, that deploying two thousand National Guardsmen to quell those protests would draw even more ire, and that large unplanned protests frequently involve clashes that make for sensational media fodder, no matter how peaceful the vast majority of participants are.

    Gloria Gallardo believes that the Trump administration chose this showdown to divert attention from his administration’s failure so far to relieve Americans’ economic distress. “He wants to distract from all the other problems that are happening — with the tariffs, with the high cost of living. People who rely on Medicaid and food stamps are finding that things are getting even more difficult. It’s so expensive when I go to the grocery store. I can’t move for economic reasons. Things are really rough,” Gallardo said.

    Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill has come under fire for drastic cuts to Medicaid coupled with a massive tax break for the richest Americans. “The budget is set to increase the wealth of the top 10 percent of Americans by 2 percent,” wrote Liza Featherstone in this magazine. Meanwhile, “the resources of the bottom 10 percent are expected to shrink by 4 percent, because of the cuts to health care and food assistance.”

    Councilmember Soto-Martinez accused Trump of trying to blame Americans’ economic difficulties on immigrants to deflect from his own failed leadership. “The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, and rents are only rising. People feel that frustration. To say that somehow immigrants are responsible for this is an absolute distraction,” Soto-Martinez said. “Meanwhile, the billionaire class continues to become richer. It’s the billionaire class that’s robbing us blind, and they’re not even doing anything illegal.”

    Marissa Nuncio is the executive director of the Garment Worker Center, an organizing space for Los Angeles garment workers whose membership consists primarily of immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Nuncio said that this kind of scapegoating of immigrant workers is a tactic commonly used to distract from economic inequality. Accusing immigrants of driving down wages for native-born Americans obscures the real problem, Nuncio told Jacobin: a broader climate of exploitation.

    “It is exploitative industries, exploitative bosses, and draconian immigration policies that place immigrants in vulnerable positions that create these ripple effects in these economies,” she said.

    Nuncio described garment workers in Los Angeles as “skilled craftspeople creating garments from whole cloth. It’s amazing to see their work.” Undocumented immigrants are paid poorly not because what they do is easy, but because they are uniquely vulnerable to workplace abuses. Nuncio said that Trump hopes his raids will have a chilling effect on immigration, but instead they will have a chilling effect on workplace organizing, depressing wages further.

    “Over twenty years of organizing workers,” she said, “we know that what we will see in the workplace is exploitative bosses saying, ‘Hey, if you complain about those wages, I know where you live, and I’ll call immigration.’”

    While Trump’s xenophobia is particularly brazen, Gallardo sees a problem much bigger than Trump at play. “Republicans — or, really, the ruling class, the elites — don’t want Trump’s base to understand the material reasons for the way things are,” she said. “They want to stop their base from actually coordinating as a working class with these other groups of people.”

    Undocumented immigrants and their families are bearing the immediate brunt, she said. But the division ultimately hurts the entire working class, including many people who are at home rooting for Trump to crush the violent mobs of illegal immigrants and crazy leftists.

    The events in Los Angeles have played out in a familiar sequence: manufacture a crisis, amplify the conflict, then use the ensuing chaos to justify increasingly authoritarian measures while diverting attention from policies that hurt ordinary Americans. As Luisa waits for word about her father, detainees’ families raise funds for basic necessities, and protestors face off with National Guardsmen and potentially Marines, the Trump administration is hoping that questions about who benefits from this cruelty and repression go unasked.


    This post has been updated with new information about David Huerta’s arrest and release shortly after publication.

  • President Trump’s Executive Order calling for incarcerated transgender women to be housed in men’s prisons and halting gender-affirming medical care for prisoners has put one of the most vulnerable segments of the prison population in even greater danger. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa investigates the violent realities trans inmates face in the US prison system, and the impact that Trump’s attacks on LGBTQ+ rights is having inside prisons.

    Guest(s):

    • Dee Deidre Farmer, Executive Director of Fight4Justice. In 1994, Farmer’s landmark Supreme Court case, the unanimous Farmer v. Brennan decision, established that prisoners have a right to be protected from harm and that prisons are responsible for their safety.
    • Ronnie L. Taylor, Advocacy, Policy, & Partnerships Director of FreeState Justice in Maryland.

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    According to The Guardian, transgender women are being sent back to male prisons under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. A recent report from Democracy Now, stated that 17 transgender women have coverage under a lawsuit they filed, but the remaining transgender population have been sent back. They are suffering horrible abuses in the form of rape by the male population and from the prison guards.

    The impact of this decision can be seen in the segment of this transgender population that don’t have coverage. More importantly, we can see the impact that this decision is having on the prison population in general. What do you think? Should an executive order supersede a court order where multiple court decisions said transgender women should remain in the population where they’re at? Or should an executive order supersede that, regardless of the court?

    To learn more about trans women and the LBGT community’s resistance, I spoke with Deidre Farmer, who in the mid ’90s, filed a historical lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons because of their complicity in allowing rape to exist in all prisons they govern. Out of this lawsuit came PREA: Prison Rape Elimination Act. It became policy and it became law, throughout the prisons and throughout America.

    Deidre Farmer:

    I’m Deidre Farmer, I’m the executive director of Fight for Justice. I was incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons for a total of about 25-30 years. I brought the first transgender case accepted and decided by the US Supreme Court; In that case, Farmer V. Brennan, the US Supreme Court said that prison officials can be held liable for the sexual assault of other inmates when they knowingly place inmates at risk of danger. I am currently working with several organizations on cases that challenge the executive orders bought by Donald Trump regarding transgender people in prison as well as in the military.

    Mansa Musa:

    Talk about how this suit came into existence and more importantly, why?

    Deidre Farmer:

    I entered the Bureau of Prisons as a teenager and when I was 19-20 years old I was transferred to the Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute. I had never been in a penitentiary environment before and did not know what to expect. I was in the prison system at Terre Haute for about a week when an inmate came into my cell with a knife and demanded that I have sex with him, and when I refused, he beat me up and raped me. Then a number of his homeboys or guys that he associated with, held me hostage in the cell for a day or two.

    I ended up in protective custody and I had already started studying law and spending time in the library. When you’re in the segregation unit, you find other people who have had the same experience– They weren’t necessarily transgender people, some of them may have been LGBTQ or young guys that were vulnerable or other people viewed them as weak. When I was transferred from Terre Haute, this is something that continued to play on my mind because I knew people, like me, went into protective custody and therefore the prison officials knew what was happening in the population, but weren’t doing anything about it.

    So I brought a suit claiming that when prison officials know that you are at risk of danger, assault, or rape, they can be sued for it. The district court and the Court of Appeals did not agree with me, but the US Supreme Court accepted the case. I wrote the petition on my own and filed it on my own and they accepted it. Then a friend of mine, who was an attorney at the ACLU National Prison Project, represented me in the Supreme Court. Of course, the court held if you can prove they knew — Because of the environment or previous incidents — Then you can sue them.

    Mansa Musa:

    Out of this litigation came what is now commonly known as PREA: Prison Rape Elimination Act. Based on this advocacy in the prison system right now, it’s policy that they had autonomous system set up where prisoners can complain about being sexually mistreated. We know this is a fact that PREA exists throughout the system– Federal Bureau, federal, state, and county jail, city jail, it exists.

    The president issued this order and according to it, all transgender people are to be sent back to the institutions that they’ve been identified by their original sexual origin; If it’s a male that’s transgender and he’s in a female prison, according to Donald Trump, he going to be sent back to a male prison and vice versa. Talk about the impact that’s going to have on the transgender population in general and with the prison population overall.

    Deidre Farmer:

    What you’re doing is sanctioning the death of transgender people, whether they are transgendered or otherwise, they are still human beings and we should not be subjecting them to death because they do not conform to what our ideology of human beings should be. In my case, the Supreme Court recognized that people with certain vulnerabilities — Including gender dysphoria or transgender — Are vulnerable in certain populations.

    After my case, there were many studies done. Consequently the US Congress took the issue up and enacted the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which is supposed to have zero tolerance for rape in prisons. As the Supreme Court said, rape is not part of the sentence. Congress, because they recognized from many, many hearings and testimonies from women, young people, disabled people, mentally challenged people, gender-conflicted people who were sexually assaulted in prison or in jail, and consequently implemented PREA, which is nationwide standards. It does not create legal rights, but if you violate it, you can lose federal funding.

    The executive orders that Trump has issued totally ignores what the Supreme Court has said, totally ignores what the US Congress has said, and what Trump is saying, despite the vulnerabilities that you have, you’re going back into that environment. Despite the knowledge that you will be raped, despite the knowledge that the person who raped you might kill you so that you cannot tell. This is not an ideology, this is not a presumption; This is something that happens and has happened.

    Now for transgender people who remain in facilities consistent with their biological gender, it is happening. To say that you will take an incarcerated transgender woman who has had vaginoplasty and has a vagina and place her into a male institution, it’s the same as placing a woman in there and to place a person at that risk, it’s inhumane.

    Mansa Musa:

    In Baltimore, I spoke to Ronnie Taylor, a policy advocate with Free State Justice about the adversities facing the LGBTQ community in its current political climate. Also, we talked about the historical activism of the LGBTQ community.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Thank you for having me. Ronnie Taylor, as you said. Pronouns are she/her. I serve as the advocacy policy and partnerships director here at Free State. We are the oldest LGBT organization providing legal services, resources, advocacy, and education in the state of Maryland. And we’re the only– We call ourselves Maryland’s LGBTQ+ advocates.

    Mansa Musa:

    I was looking at some of y’alls accomplishments. Y’all have been given numerous awards, but more importantly, y’all had a bill passed to deal with marriage. Talk about that.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Absolutely. We were birthed out of the merger of Equality Maryland, for those that are familiar with that. We became Free State Legal Project and then Free State Maryland. Equality Maryland passed the Same-Sex Marriage Act numerous years ago, and it was such an accomplishment for Maryland so we wanted to figure out how we can continue to position ourselves as advocates.

    Unfortunately, when the doors closed at Equality Maryland, Free State Legal Project continued to work when it comes to our advocacy portions and we’ve been continuing to do that. We have some amazing legislative wins such as the Trans Health Equity Act. This recent year we passed the Carlton R. Smith Jr. HIV Modernization Act. The awards are great and it’s great to be recognized, but we’re going to continue to do the work for Marylanders.

    Mansa Musa:

    In the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris was being denigrated for providing or signing off on the legislation to allow transgender people to have a sex change according to what their orientation was. The President of the US and the Republican Party had a campaign ad; In the campaign ad they were promoting this as something that was inhuman and immoral with the way they was representing the person that was getting their sex changed, they had them looking almost monstrous. Talk about the impact that is having on the transgender community right now.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Those acts that have come into place and how it is crucial to our current standing Marylanders, I pride myself in saying that on a local level, we have a great partner in our Governor Wes Moore. However, federally we are under attack, and that attack has looked a variance of ways. Military personnel folks and particularly trans folks who have been serving in the military for numerous of years.

    Mansa Musa:

    And honorably mention.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    And honorably mention. To have their careers taken away for an oath that they took to protect this country is inhumane in regards to our prison systems. The Prison Rape Elimination Act is a thing, and to say we’re going to put folks in cells and disregarding medical procedures and stating that you are trans, it’s simply an attack. Furthermore, there’s been numerous things this party has done; There’s been over 886 pieces of legislation introduced by the Federal Administration for the attack of transgender individuals.

    Mansa Musa:

    This is outstanding because you put all that time and energy into trying to have a moral agenda over people’s lives, but at the same token you are a convicted felon, you paid off Stormy Daniels for lewd lascivious behavior towards her, but you turned around and now you want to become the moral cop of people’s lives. Talk about the impact this is having on the transgender community and y’alls ability to raise funds.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    It’s hard. Funding is at a ultimate halt right now for a lot of organizations, including mine. If you put terms in such as “DEI” or “community” which our federal government are trying to eliminate, it puts us in a tricky situation. Thankfully we’ve been able to diversify our funding tools, as I’m in charge of that portfolio, and be able to still do the work. But it’s challenging because we don’t want to get rid of our moral compass and we refuse to.

    We’re going to continue to do the work, but we find ourselves in a position in which the federal administration has proven they do not want to be a partner in this work. Thankfully, we have a great federal delegation in Maryland that’s going to continue to do the work and put forth legislation to combat that hate and that anti stuff, but it’s still there and it’s impacting everyday lives. It’s affecting people’s housing, their mental health, their ability to work, and so forth and so on.

    Mansa Musa:

    And we interviewed a transgender female that was responsible for PREA, Prison Rape and Enforcement Act, and she was saying that right now it look like it’s all out assault on transgender men or women in prison based on the fact that the president has put an executive order out saying that you going to be transferred to the prison of your assigned gender as opposed to your current gender. Talk about that if you can.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    I couldn’t agree with her more. It’s definitely an overall attack. It’s an agenda, it’s an attack. And one of the things that I often remind people in my advocacy work here is our current president, and I use that term loosely, these are just executive orders. This person has done nothing but signed executive orders throughout his time throughout this term. There has not been any laws. The reality is there’s still a chance to work and get things done on a local level. Now is the time more than ever. Primary general elections are coming up. We need folks to get in the race for the 2026, there are local elections, and do the work because it can be done.

    And overall you need to hold your elected officials to the responsibility. When they took that oath to serve in Annapolis or serve in whatever state house you elected them to be in to do the work of all Marylanders. It’s inhumane. Trans people are a part of the political, social economic living sphere that we all consist and exist in. And so this attack on said sub community, it’s horrendous and there absolutely needs to be something done about it.

    Mansa Musa:

    This government is taking a conservative act. Like I said, we went back through the military, don’t ask, don’t tell, but now they just did an executive order around that. Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum about that, their prison, and they taking federal funds from anyone under [inaudible 00:17:48] species of DEI. But they primarily saying that if you’re transgender then you don’t have an arm and leg to stand on. Why do you think they’re having such a conservative act towards this particular community, sub-community?

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Great question, is we have to highlight folks from both sides of the aisle are trans.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah, yeah.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    President Musk’s daughter is a woman of trans experience, but she’s not often talked about. She’s been pushed underneath of a carpet and it’s again, rooted in ignorance.

    Mansa Musa:

    As we go forward, what do you want our viewers to know about the transgender community? And more importantly, speak to them about what transgender means to you and what it should mean to society, because we live in a society supposed to be equal. We say we hold these truths to be self-evident that all people are treated equal and have [inaudible 00:18:42] rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If your life is at jeopardy, your liberty is at jeopardy, and then therefore you ain’t going to have no pursuit of happiness. Talk about why we should be looking at this issue and be real critical about this administration as it relates to their attitude towards people.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    Yeah. One of the things I often say is trans people since the beginning of time have done an amazing body of work, and our portfolio show that. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera stood on the front lines of the Stonewall movement and they threw the first brick.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    That’s not often something that we talk about. Trans people are elected officials. We have precious Brandi Davis down in the south, we have Andrea Jenkins in the Midwest, we have Sarah McBride, our first congresswoman.

    Mansa Musa:

    Come on, come on.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    And so folks are capable and willing to do the work, but we refuse to be ostracized. And so what it means to me, and thank you for asking me that question, I have prided myself and it’s often a label that I wear with pride and I introduce myself and my pronouns and say, “I’m a woman of trans experience,” because I refuse to dim that light in the work that I’m doing.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    And so we’re in advocacy spaces, we’re in policy spaces. We are in all of the spaces. And so it’s ultimately the education that gets into it. And so the willingness to learn, there are some of us that are willing to do our trans one-on-one conversations with you, but you have to come to the table with a willingness to learn.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Ronnie Taylor:

    And so, oftentimes our political landscape has shown that it’s okay to be disrespectful and neglectful of said communities, but there is some work to be done.

    Mansa Musa:

    There you have it. The real news, Rallying the Boss. Transgender community is here, it’s here to stay. We not trying to make no excuse for it, but they’re human beings like us. The only problem that we have with this whole entire issue is that someone thinks that they have the moral compass to determine who should have a quality life versus whose life should be treated differently. This country is prided on equality and we are saying that equality is paramount when it comes to recognizing the transgender community and all their accomplishments they have made.

    These stories about the LBGT community and transgender and their rights to be treated as human beings is something that Rallying the Boss believe should be brought front and center as it relates to humanity. This is about humanity. This is not about a person’s preference, sexual orientation. This is about people being treated as human. And we at Rallying the Boss believe that these stories, when you look at them and evaluate them, will give you a sense of understanding about humanity. We ask that you continue to look at Rallying the Boss and we ask that you give your views. Tell us what you think about these stories because it’s your views that give us content and context to our next story.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on June 8, 2025. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    U.S. President Donald Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard members in response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in Los Angeles over the weekend, as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened to call in the marines.

    The protests kicked off on Friday in opposition to ICE raids of retail establishments around Los Angeles. During Friday’s protests David Huerta, president of SEIU California and SEIU-United Service Workers West, was injured and then arrested while observing a raid. His arrest sparked further protests, which carried over into Saturday in response to apparent ICE activity in the nearby city of Paramount.

    “The Trump administration’s baseless deployment of the National Guard is plainly retaliation against California, a stronghold for immigrant communities, and is akin to a declaration of war on all Californians,” Victor Leung, chief legal and advocacy officer at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Southern California, said in a statement.

    “They yell ‘invasion’ at the border—but this is the real one: Trump is seizing control of California’s National Guard and forcing 2,000 troops into our streets.”

    Saturday’s most dramatic protest occurred outside a Home Depot in Paramount following rumors of an ICE raid there. However, Paramount Mayor Peggy Lemons told the Los Angeles Times that the ICE agents may instead have been staging at a nearby Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office. There were also rumors of an ICE raid on a meatpacking plant that never occurred.

    “We don’t know what was happening, or what their target was. To think that there would be no heightening of fear and no consequences from the community doesn’t sound like good preparation to me,” Lemons said. “Above all, there is no communication and things are done on a whim. And that creates chaos and fear.”

    According to the LA Times, the Home Depot protests began peacefully until officers lobbed flash-bang grenades and pepper balls at the crowd, after which some individuals responded by throwing rocks and other objects at the ICE cars, and one person drove their vehicle toward the ICE agents.

    “Many of the protesters did not appear to engage in these tactics,” the LA Times reported.

    In another incident, Lindsay Toczylowski, the chief executive of Immigrant Defenders Law Center, wrote on social media that ICE agents threw a tear-gas canister at two of the center’s female attorneys after they asked the agents if they could see a warrant and observe their activities.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California said that over a dozen people were arrested on Saturday for interfering with the work of immigration agents.

    The first member of the Trump administration to mention sending in the National Guard was White House border czar Tom Homan, who told Fox News, “We’re gonna bring National Guard in tonight and we’re gonna continue doing our job. This is about enforcing the law.”

    Trump then signed a memo Saturday night calling members of the California National Guard into federal service to protect ICE and other government officials.

    “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” the memo reads in part.

    “The only threat to safety today is the masked goon squads that the administration has deployed to terrorize the communities of Los Angeles County.”

    Instead of using the Insurrection Act, as some had speculated he might, Trump federalized the guard members under the president’s Title 10 authority, which allows the president to place the National Guard under federal control given certain conditions, but does not allow those troops to carry out domestic law enforcement activities, which invoking the Insurrection Act would enable.

    “On its face, then, the memorandum federalizes 2,000 California National Guard troops for the sole purpose of protecting the relevant DHS personnel against attacks,” Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck explained in a blog post Saturday. “That’s a significant (and, in my view, unnecessary) escalation of events in a context in which no local or state authorities have requested such federal assistance. But by itself, this is not the mass deployment of troops into U.S. cities that had been rumored for some time.”

    Indeed, several state leaders spoke out against the deployment.

    “The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on social media Saturday. “That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions. LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need.”

    “The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery,” he continued, referring to the devastating wildfires that swept the city early this year. “This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”

    Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) posted on social media that he “couldn’t agree more.”

    “Using the National Guard this way is a completely inappropriate and misguided mission,” Padilla said. “The Trump administration is just sowing more chaos and division in our communities.”

    Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) added, “They yell ‘invasion’ at the border—but this is the real one: Trump is seizing control of California’s National Guard and forcing 2,000 troops into our streets.”

    While the National Guard’s mission is currently limited, Vladeck argued that there were three reasons to be “deeply concerned” about the development. First, troops could still respond to real or perceived threats with violence, escalating the situation; second, escalation may be the desired outcome from the Trump administration, and used as a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act after all; and third, this could depress the morale of both National Guard members and the civilians they engage with while degrading the relationships between federal, local, and state authorities.

    “There is something deeply pernicious about invoking any of these authorities except in circumstances in which their necessity is a matter of consensus beyond the president’s political supporters,” Vladeck wrote. “The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night. But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.”

    Leung of the ACLU criticized both the ICE raids and the decision to deploy the Guard.

    “Workers in our garment districts or day laborers seeking work outside of Home Depot do not undermine public safety,” Leung said. “They are our fathers and mothers and neighbors going about their day and making ends meet. Rather, the only threat to safety today is the masked goon squads that the administration has deployed to terrorize the communities of Los Angeles County.”

    He continued: “There is no rational reason to deploy the National Guard on Angelenos, who are rightfully outraged by the federal government’s attack on our communities and justly exercising their First Amendment right to protest the violent separation of our families. We intend to file suit and hold this administration accountable and to protect our communities from further attacks.”

    National political leaders also spoke out Sunday morning.

    Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that it was “important to remember that Trump isn’t trying to heal or keep the peace. He is looking to inflame and divide. His movement doesn’t believe in democracy or protest—and if they get a chance to end the rule of law they will take it. None of this is on the level.”

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) posted that the entire incident was “Trump’s authoritarianism in real time.”

    Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threatened further escalation Saturday night when he tweeted that “if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized—they are on high alert.”

    Newsom responded: “The Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens. This is deranged behavior.”

    “This is an abuse of power and what dictators do. It’s unnecessary and not needed.”

    Hegseth then doubled down on the threat Sunday morning, replying on social media that it was “deranged” to allow “your city to burn and law enforcement to be attacked.”

    “The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,” he posted.

    Journalist Ryan Grim noted that it was an “ominous development” for the secretary of defense to be commenting on immigration policy or local law enforcement at all.

    Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) said of Trump and Hegseth’s escalations: “This is an abuse of power and what dictators do. It’s unnecessary and not needed.”

    Writing on his Truth Social platform early Sunday, Trump praised the National Guard for their work in Los Angeles. Yet local and state leaders pointed out that the Guard had not yet arrived in the city by the time the post was made.

    As of Sunday morning, the National Guard had arrived in downtown Los Angeles and Paramount, ABC 7 reported.

    In the midst of the uproar over Trump’s actions, labor groups continued to decry the ICE raids and call for the release of Huerta.

    National Nurses United wrote on Friday: “With these raids, the government is sowing intense fear for personal safety among our immigrant and migrant community. Nurses and other union workers oppose this, and are standing up in solidarity with fellow immigrant workers. We refuse to be silent, and people like David Huerta are bravely putting their own bodies on the line to bear witness to what ICE is doing. It’s appalling that ICE injured and detained him while he was exercising his First Amendment rights. We demand his immediate release.”

    AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler and AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Fred Redmond said in a statement Saturday:

    The nearly 15 million working people of the AFL-CIO and our affiliated unions demand the immediate release of California Federation of Labor Unions Vice President and SEIU California and SEIU-USWW President David Huerta. As the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda has unnecessarily targeted our hard-working immigrant brothers and sisters, David was exercising his constitutional rights and conducting legal observation of ICE activity in his community. He was doing what he has always done, and what we do in unions: putting solidarity into practice and defending our fellow workers. In response, ICE agents violently arrested him, physically injuring David in the process, and are continuing to detain him—a violation of David’s civil liberties and the freedoms this country holds dear. The labor movement stands with David, and we will continue to demand justice for our union brother until he is released.

    The unrest in Los Angeles may continue as Barragán told CNN on Sunday she had been informed that ICE would be present in LA for a month. She argued that the National Guard deployment would only inflame the conflict.

    “We haven’t asked for the help. We don’t need the help. This is [President Trump] escalating it, causing tensions to rise. It’s only going to make things worse in a situation where people are already angry over immigration enforcement.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Utah real estate photographer Jahshua Grover was simply doing his job, taking photos of his client’s house, when he was accosted by Morgan County sheriffs. Despite the owner of the home arriving on the scene and explaining to the cops that Jahshua was hired to do a job, he was cuffed, injured, arrested, and charged. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report investigate this violation of First Amendment rights and uncover long-term credibility issues with the sheriff who led the investigation, and reveal a troubling pattern of harassment.

    Pre-Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis
    Post-Production: David Hebden, Adam Coley


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Taya Graham:

    Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today, to achieve that goal, we’ll break down this video of a photographer who literally could not do his job due to police overreach, a man who was trying to take pictures from a public sidewalk, a task that apparently police determined was illegal, but it’s the consequences resulting from police pushback that we’ll also be unpacking for you today. Oh, in the body camera video I’m about to show you has some pretty revealing moments that show how police feel about us when they don’t think we’re watching or listening, I think you’re going to want to hear what they have to say about citizens who dare to invoke their rights.

    But first, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or you can reach out to me directly on Facebook or Twitter at TEUs baltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, I read your comments and appreciate them. You see, I give out those little hearts down there and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what incredible community we have. And we have a Patreon called accountability report. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

    Alright, we’ve gotten all that out of the way. Now, as we have reported on repeatedly on this show, bad policing does not just result in useless arrests or unlawful detainment. No. The misuse of police power can often lead to disastrous economic consequences for the person on the receiving end. And no case we have covered fits that description more than the video I’m showing you right now. It depicts an encounter between Jahshua Grover and two Morgan County Utah Sheriffs that ended with handcuffs, false charges, and even more disturbing interference with his economic livelihood, namely the apparently dangerous occupation of taking photos. The story starts in the small town of Morgan, Utah. There Jahshua was doing what every American has a right to do, earn a living now for him that entailed taking pictures of properties that were listed for sale. It’s a process that thousands of people do every day to help others sell their homes, but apparently in this community that act was potentially criminal. Take a look.

    Speaker 2:

    Hey, do you want it’s 97, correct that you work for 97, so I think it’s 97. The end unit down there. We can be detained. Will you go get the real estate agents information real fast?

    Taya Graham:

    So as you can see, police confronted Jahshua as he was filming. The couple in the background had called the police officers were detaining him to verify his employment because he was again taking pictures. Now I want you to watch this closely as the officers checked out his story.

    Speaker 3:

    Hey, how you doing? Good, how are you? Good. Sorry to bug you. We’re investigating this minor incident down the street here. There’s somebody out taking photos. Yeah, I

    Speaker 2:

    Talked to the other officer.

    Speaker 3:

    Oh, did you talk

    Speaker 2:

    To you? Yeah,

    Speaker 3:

    He

    Speaker 2:

    Has my ID right now, so I was coming out.

    Speaker 3:

    Oh, perfect. Are you working through a realtor right now?

    Speaker 2:

    Yeah. You want the number?

    Speaker 3:

    Yeah, if you have a name and number that would be great. We just want to make sure he’s legitimate.

    Speaker 4:

    Yes.

    Taya Graham:

    So we can’t hear every word exchanged between the homeowner and the officer, but it seems pretty clear that Jahshua’s assertion that he was just doing his job is in fact true. Nevertheless, when Jahshua directly asked the officer if he wants to review his work, the officer declines just watch.

    Speaker 3:

    I don’t know, I’m just jumping in the middle of this so I don’t know what all’s going on. If there was a crime here to investigate, I would accept an investigative detention. But there is nothing to investigate. It’s pretty plain and clear. It’s photos and Well, I’m going to go touch base with him and then we’ll go from there. Okay? Do

    Speaker 5:

    It quickly because I’m wanting this detention

    Taya Graham:

    To be over. Now at this point with confirmation that a realtor had been engaged and even the tacit admission that the same realtor was employing a photographer, you would think the police would just walk away, but that is not what they did. Not hardly. Instead they continue and I’m quoting this investigation, just watch, I mean you guys swore to

    Speaker 3:

    Defend rights. Alright? I don’t need you to educate me, I’m here to help out. Okay? I’m just asking who’s okay, just let us do our job. The one here that’s going to illegally take, let us do our job and we’ll get you on your way. Just relax. Don’t escalate this. Keep it simple.

    Taya Graham:

    Don’t escalate this. Now, really, who is escalating here? Maybe he should have said instead, don’t assert your rights, which I think has been the real issue throughout this encounter. Jahshua knows his rights and he has again asserted them. And again, as we have witnessed before, time and time again, police, when you assert your rights, have a tendency to retaliate, detained. Stand up here

    Speaker 3:

    Until I can figure out who you’re, I’m not going to id. Okay, stand up here. You’re required to follow our instructions. I’m not. Why am I being detained? Don’t just stand up here. It’s for our safety and for your safety. I’ll stand over here. Okay? Bring your hands behind your back for me. What did I do? Bring your hands behind your back. What did I do? Get out here. What did I you, you’re not following our orders. Why do I have to follow your orders? Let me put the camera up here so it doesn’t get wrong. Hey, can somebody film this?

    Speaker 2:

    Hey, I’m not going to

    Speaker 4:

    Resist nothing. Resist, but why do I

    Speaker 5:

    Have a lesson learned or something?

    Speaker 2:

    There are no lessons to learn at already. Sir, you gave you law order and you’re refusing to comply. I told you I didn’t want you sitting on my car right on there. When I’m sitting there trying to do a few things to figure out who you are, what

    Speaker 4:

    Have I done? What law have broken, it’s possibly voyeurism. That’s what we’re trying to figure

    Speaker 2:

    Out.

    Taya Graham:

    Possibly voyeurism. Are you sure? I mean those are some serious detectives. I mean honestly, just forgive my sarcasm here. I mean how exactly did they deduce that crime given the information that they had already gleaned? What made them think that Jahshua was a peeping tom? But it gets worse. So much worse. Just look

    Speaker 5:

    Real estate photography is what I’m doing. Well we got to figure that all out. That’s what I’ve done for like 12 years.

    Speaker 3:

    Guess what? We get called to something. It’s our job to investigate. That’s it. What crime? Your right should not be contained.

    Speaker 5:

    Your camera, body, camera.

    Speaker 3:

    What am I, my sergeant going to say?

    Speaker 5:

    What? Crime warrior. Voyeurism? Yes.

    Speaker 3:

    I think you heard it the first time

    Speaker 5:

    And what did about voer. Somebody’s who? This is something that’s done all the time. You shoot the outside of the unit to what about sale or somebody calls us and says you’ve had it explained by the only that they’re doing it for real estate. Huh? The owner that I’m doing for that explained to you it’s for real estate. Well, the owner never invited you here. Yeah, they did 97. What I’m shooting for. Why are they saying that? Because somebody else is confused about why I’m taking photos. It’s just a confusion on their end. It shouldn’t be a reason why I’m in cuffs

    Taya Graham:

    Now I think at this point the officer on the right looks a little, let’s say embarrassed. Maybe. He’s starting to realize that putting someone in cuffs for taking photos and doing their job is a little bit much. I mean notice that not far from this excellent arrest they just made. There’s a sidewalk That’s right. A small swath of land otherwise known as public property. It’s the one place where anyone can take a picture, protest or hold a sign or otherwise exercise their first amendment rights. But of now apparently in Utah, this small but significant piece of constitutional oasis has become a path to criminalization. What an accomplishment. But that officer actually doubles down. Look,

    Speaker 3:

    The reason you’re in cuffs is not for following our orders for safety purposes. You made that choice. I was. That’s why you’re in cuffs right now. We told you to stand in front of this car where we could see you, period. Why do I have, why don’t be a dumb ass to follow the police fucking orders. It’s simple follow orders. This is to Germany. I don’t have to follow orders. My God, you have no idea what you’re talking about. If I haven’t broken the law investigating it’s simple. I haven’t broken the law. You have a job to do, haven’t broken the law. Just shut your mouth and I’ll explain to you, but there’s no reason to detain me if I haven’t broken the law. We get dispatched to something. You have no reasonable or articulable suspicion. There’s no getting through to you to put me in cuffs. Just keep it. I’m going to make this into a lawsuit, okay? I absolutely have to. I haven’t done anything. That’s your right. Do it. Do it. Enjoy the lawsuit. That’ll go nowhere.

    Taya Graham:

    Don’t be a dumb ass. I don’t even know where to start with that one, but let me try first. Knowing and invoking your constitutional rights is about as American as it gets, which hardly means dumb. And Jahshua might be wrong or he might be right, but asserting your right to peaceably assemble or petition the government is not stupid. It is in fact the opposite of dumb. It is what we aspire to in a democracy, a fully informed citizenry pushing back against power using the constitution to preserve freedom. That is precisely what the writers of our body of laws intended. So perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, respect the man for invoking his rights instead of insulting his intelligence. But of course this all escalates when Jahshua asks the officers to identify themselves.

    Speaker 5:

    So your name and badge number, Mr. Crane. Yep. What’s your badge number? Is it part of the policy to get the public?

    Speaker 3:

    Why are we not

    Speaker 5:

    Going?

    Speaker 3:

    Do yourself a favor.

    Speaker 4:

    Lemme explain something to you. Okay? You’re in a tiny ass area. We don’t have badge.

    Speaker 5:

    I’m just, I have a call sign, an employee ID number, anything. Okay, well my number is 62, my employee ID number. We don’t have, I would like to know what law is broken. That’s what we’re investigating. Public photography is protected under the first amendment

    Speaker 4:

    Even and that’s great. If everything checks out, then you’ll be on your way. I don’t know what happened to one. Why am I being detained? What you did to get stuff. He said, Stan,

    Speaker 3:

    Are you with a photography company or what? And I’m not. I haven’t broken the law. Do you work for a company, yes or no?

    Speaker 5:

    I’m answering questions. I’m in cuffs.

    Speaker 3:

    I’m trying to help you out here so we can get you on your way.

    Speaker 5:

    It’s gets me out of cuff.

    Speaker 3:

    Okay. This is

    Taya Graham:

    Ridiculous. To quote them, we’re a small ass town and we don’t have badge numbers. Well, Steven actually asked the police department about this and he will have answers for us shortly, but again, it seems like the officers are simply making stuff up out of whole cloth. How on earth can a law enforcement officer not have an ID number? I mean, if you are detaining someone because he won’t give you an id, then how on earth can you possibly deny him the right to see your id? I mean I’m just not sure how the officers don’t see their own hypocrisy here, but the absurdity of this arrest only accelerates over time. Just watch. When somebody

    Speaker 3:

    Calls us and tells us camera pointing through somebody’s window, that’s a whole different thing. That’s very likely. Lawyer see pictures.

    Speaker 5:

    You want to

    Speaker 3:

    See the pictures. I’ll let our investigating deputy look at the pictures. If that’s what he wants to do. I’m just here to assist him.

    Speaker 5:

    Then the investigation’s over, isn’t it because you’re not bowering into somebody’s window.

    Speaker 3:

    Yep. Don’t one quit, do you?

    Speaker 5:

    I’m going to stand up for my rights. I’m in cuffs for no reason.

    Speaker 3:

    You’re in cuffs for not following orders.

    Taya Graham:

    I don’t have to follow orders. You did that to yourself. Now, just to be clear, voyeurism in Utah is defined as taking a picture of someone’s naked body when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, namely in a private residence or in their own room. And if indeed that’s what Jahshua did, it should be easy to discern. All the officers have to do is either ask to see his pictures or if Jahshua declines, get a warrant based upon probable cause to search his camera. And yes, that’s a lot of work, but the officers are the ones who started this. So perhaps they could finish it by adhering to the law, but that’s not what happens. Just watch us trying to figure out who gentle

    Speaker 2:

    Back people calling us and he wants to play the roadside warrior with us until we figure

    Speaker 5:

    It out. Now you want to steer me down, try to intimidate.

    Speaker 3:

    You’re siring me down. You’re the one that’s sitting here. I’m not trying to you making eye contact with me all creepily.

    Speaker 5:

    What are you talking about? All creepily? Like can you describe it better?

    Speaker 3:

    Well, you’re staring me down.

    Speaker 5:

    I’m not staring you down. You’re staring me down. I looked over and you were just mad dogging me because you have a point proof. Just like you tried to hurt my arm when you put these cuffs on me, you did it on purpose. There was no reason for it, dude. You were using more force than necessary.

    Speaker 3:

    Stop pretending to be a victim here.

    Speaker 5:

    I’m not. I’m just stating the facts. You don’t like the facts. I understand

    Speaker 3:

    Your facts are bullshit. They’re not facts.

    Speaker 5:

    No, they are facts. You were trying to be a little more aggressive than you needed to be for no reason. No, there was no resistance, no nothing.

    Speaker 3:

    There was no reason for you to not follow our orders. Was there other than being an asshole

    Speaker 5:

    Other than did a good job of that, that I don’t have to listen to what another man tells me to do unless I’ve broken the law.

    Speaker 3:

    You clearly dunno what you’re talking about. I clearly do. No, I absolutely know for a fact I do. It’s cute. Keep it up.

    Taya Graham:

    I honestly have to wonder if this officer is trying to show us, show in under 20 minutes why people don’t trust law enforcement. It’s like a crash course in all the overkill and sense of entitlement that police deny when they’re confronted about it. But this officer seems dead set on proving is actually true. Do you understand, officer? You have a man in handcuffs. Do you realize you detained him without probable cause? Do you even comprehend how unconstitutional your actions are? Unfortunately, I don’t think so because this apparent arrest from hell continues.

    Speaker 2:

    It is not common practice for him to sit there and take pictures inside people’s houses and stuff. That’s the people that hired him and she goes, no. Every once in a while he’ll take a picture of the whole road to show what it’s attached to and it’s not okay for him to be taking pictures of people’s properties and their personal stuff. She goes, I don’t hire him for that.

    Speaker 3:

    Oh, so had she hired him at all?

    Speaker 2:

    Yeah, she hired him to take pictures of this house and this house.

    Speaker 3:

    Oh,

    Speaker 2:

    So he was taking pictures of everybody else. He was standing in the very back, in the back of their place. She’s sitting in her house, her blinds are open and he’s standing there with the tripod taking pictures inside her house. Oh no shit. She opened up the door saying, can I help you? Why are you taking pictures of me? She says, I’m doing my job. Takes a few more pictures. She says, well your job is what? Taking pictures of me. He is like, am I trespassing? Am I breaking just like he’s doing with us? Am I breaking the law? Am I doing this?

    Speaker 3:

    Wow. He did say, for what it’s worth, he goes, he offered to show me the photos that he took. So I don’t know if you want to

    Speaker 2:

    He or not. He’s been wandering around. Who knows what he deleted. I don’t even give a shit.

    Speaker 3:

    For sure. Yeah, for sure.

    Speaker 2:

    So did he give you his date of birth or anything?

    Speaker 3:

    No. No. I wast give a shit.

    Taya Graham:

    I can’t believe this, but I think I have nothing left to say only that I would recommend First Amendment training to these officers if he was standing on a public sidewalk and taking pictures of houses. That is not a crime. But since these law enforcement officers seem unaware of the law, I’m just going to let this arrest play out for all of us to see.

    Speaker 3:

    You’re legally required to identify yourself by the way.

    Speaker 5:

    So I’m going to be arrested if I don’t

    Speaker 3:

    Talk to the deputy.

    Speaker 2:

    What is your date of birth? I’m trying to make this

    Speaker 5:

    Easy. I’ll give it to you. If you tell me I’m going to be arrested. If I don’t give it to you, I’ll give it to you.

    Speaker 2:

    You want me to tell you you’re being arrested.

    Speaker 5:

    If you’re going to threaten me with arrest,

    Speaker 2:

    I’m not threatening you with anything right now. I’m trying to figure out the situation because your employer is saying at not any given time has she ever hired you to take direct pictures inside people’s or their personal property? I’ve never taken a picture inside. That’s not what these people are saying when her blinds are open. That’s why I’m trying to figure this out. So we can either get you out of here or you and I can sit down and have a more civil conversation about this. So you want to force my information out of me? No, I want to talk to you. There’s no forcing.

    Speaker 5:

    So my birthday lets you know whether or not I was looking through windows.

    Speaker 2:

    I’m telling you what they’re telling us. I’m trying to figure this out. Sir, I’m trying to be decent with you. You are the reason you are in handcuffs. I’ll

    Speaker 5:

    Help you out. That’s a 14 millimeter lens, which is a very wide angle, which is very far, far, far, far, far away. So that corner, you can’t even see into a window.

    Speaker 2:

    Okay, what is your date of birth so I can make sure that we have everything correct so that we can try to get you out of here.

    Speaker 5:

    What crime am I being detained for? Just, and then I’ll give you my birthday.

    Speaker 2:

    Are you shitting me? You want to go down this road? I just want to know. I’m going to go get statements from them about,

    Speaker 5:

    Okay, I just want know what crime I’m being detained

    Taya Graham:

    For. You know what? Let’s just keep going. I’m actually at a loss for words at the moment. Just keep rolling the video.

    Speaker 3:

    So taking photos in public is illegal. No. Okay. But if you were take your photos inside somebody’s home as they’re alleging that is highly illegal. I wasn’t taking photos inside, but that’s what we’re investigating. That’s why we don’t know. Hang on. I have a false, that’s why we don’t know if there’s a crime yet against that’s it’s our job to investigate. We can’t just take your word for it. We don’t owe you. You don’t know me. That’s our job. We’re cops. We investigate shit. Sometimes people allege a crime that didn’t occur. Sometimes people allege a crime that did occur. It’s our job to find out if it occurred or not. We’re

    Speaker 4:

    Mutual fact finders. That is all we

    Speaker 3:

    Do. And while we’re doing that, you are required to identify yourself if it’s a criminal violation not to. So if that’s something you want to get stuck with, then that’s on you. We’ll find out who you are one way or another. Be arrested.

    Taya Graham:

    Let’s try to picture for a moment, no pun intended, the set of facts that would need to be true for the alleged crime of voyeurism to have occurred. And bear in mind, I’m doing this out of respect for the fact that we, journalists are supposed to report both sides of the story. So let’s do so. Fact one, a man drives into your average neighborhood cul-de-sac parks, his fairly noticeable sports car with the attention of taking pictures of a naked woman inside her home, apparently unconcerned that his nefarious plot would be revealed. He does this as conspicuously as possible. First he parked and got out of his car in broad daylight for all to see. Then this cunning paper takes out a tripod out of his trunk of his car and places it on the sidewalk in front of the house where apparently he was surreptitiously seeking to snap nude photos in plain sight for everyone just hoping beyond hope that his timing would be perfect and a naked woman would just then be standing in front of an open window.

    And then when police come to investigate this culdesac ur, they learn he’s working for a real estate company. So now the plot thickens, the alleged nudity. Hunter actually took a job with a real estate company, actually several years worth of jobs to take pictures of the exteriors of homes with the hope. Well, maybe really the gamble that one of these exteriors would actually have nestled inside of it. An unsuspecting naked person. It’s amazing scheme. Really what a nefarious and dedicated plan as improbable as it seems, these are the facts that would have to be true for the officer’s suspicions to be confirmed. His entire career as a real estate photographer was all for this one special moment. So with respect for Sherlock Holmes and Watson here, I will play this video to its bitter end.

    Speaker 5:

    Okay? What’s your name? As long as you guys are saying that by law, I have to, you do enlist multiple times to you and if I don’t do it, I’ll go to jail. Right? There’s a very

    Speaker 3:

    High likelihood of that. Yes, I

    Speaker 5:

    Need yes or no.

    Speaker 3:

    We’re just going by the book, dude. We’re not going. I’ll identify myself. Okay, perfect. Then who are you? Am I going to go to jail if I don’t identify yourself?

    Speaker 4:

    Yeah.

    Speaker 3:

    Yes. Okay. Whatever false narratives you want to create in your goofy head, feel for it. Go ahead and try to belittle me. You’re belittling yourself just fine trying to belittle me. I’ve got dispatch on you. You should know how to make your life difficult, don’t you?

    Speaker 5:

    What? By speaking freely. You got a problem with that by

    Speaker 3:

    Speaking freely, but you got a problem with it not having any idea what you’re talking about.

    Speaker 5:

    No. You’re over here trying to belittle me again. You just tried to say I didn’t know what I’m talking about

    Speaker 3:

    Because you keep trying to put words in our mouth and make drastic assumptions that are completely false guys, you guys make false assumptions about voyeurism and other stuff for a reason to be here. Okay? You guys must be vo again, believe these false narratives you’ve created. That’s

    Speaker 5:

    Fine. You treat false narratives. You’re just like a Russian. I listen to those Russians lie all the time. Why? They’re doing exactly the same thing. They’re accusing. Yeah, doing okay.

    Taya Graham:

    Of course, with no evidence that Josh was a voyeur. The investigation took another twist this time to focus on his car. Take a look.

    Speaker 5:

    Big time investigation. It’s taken quite some time.

    Speaker 3:

    Which car is yours?

    Speaker 5:

    It’s taken quite a while to investigate this.

    Speaker 3:

    This is your car up here.

    Speaker 5:

    Do I have to answer that question?

    Speaker 3:

    It’s a simple question. How

    Speaker 5:

    Is this investigating? Does that help you with the voyeurism claim that you’re making up? It could. I’m about to end this detention. It’s

    Speaker 3:

    Illegal. You mean the voyeurism claim? That seems very legitimate up to this point.

    Speaker 5:

    Very legitimate.

    Speaker 3:

    Yeah. Not even close so far.

    Speaker 5:

    Not even close.

    Speaker 3:

    That’s what all criminals say.

    Speaker 5:

    Oh, now I’m a criminal. Yeah,

    Speaker 3:

    We’re working on it. We’re trying to find out. You’re trying to find out to a criminal. Yeah, you’re doing that to yourself. No, I’m not. I haven’t done anything wrong. I don’t know why you’re so confrontational. If you’re just cool with us, then we could wrap this up quickly and potentially get you on your way.

    Taya Graham:

    That’s what all criminals say. I think that’s a telling admission of how police construct narratives. First a criminal than a liar. But really a more accurate description would be a person who actually pushes back. That’s Jahshua’s real crime. A fact that becomes apparent as they continue to search for justification of their actions and along the way, take Jahshua on a perp walk. Just look.

    Speaker 3:

    I’ve been pushing in the back of my car here for now. My camera home up here. Yeah, I’ll grab it.

    Speaker 5:

    So I’m going into the back of a cop car now. Still haven’t broken the law. I still haven’t broken the law.

    Speaker 3:

    I can handle them anymore. I can handle them anymore.

    Taya Graham:

    And finally, after turning off their body cameras during which they discussed this investigation, police, perhaps the profoundly flawed suspicions are not in fact true.

    Speaker 2:

    After all this stuff. You got to go today.

    Speaker 5:

    So I’m being trespassed from public property.

    Speaker 2:

    No, I’m being told. I’m telling you, you’re not going back and causing any more issues. So you can either get in your car and leave or I’ll take the ticket and we’ll go to jail. I’m trying to make this easy for you. You just don’t get it. You bought this yourself.

    Taya Graham:

    Appreciate the brake been given and move on. So after all the insinuations accusations, handcuffs, calling him a voyeur and refusing to answer any of his questions, Jahshua is charged with interfering with a police officer. Now forget the fact that generally speaking, this is a secondary crime. It’s pretty clear that along with turning off their body cameras when discussing the charges, no one was taking pictures that was somehow criminal or otherwise unlawful. But this is just the very beginning of the ordeal for Jahshua who will tell us later how this type of police harassment is not just routine but has happened many times before. And he will explain why this keeps happening and how it has affected him when we talk to him in just a moment. But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Steven Janice, who’s been investigating the case, contacting police and researching the law. Steven, thank you so much for joining me

    Speaker 6:

    Te. Thanks for me. I appreciate it.

    Taya Graham:

    So first you contacted the police department. What did they say? Did they answer any of the questions you had about not having an ID number?

    Speaker 6:

    We’ll tell you? Yes. I was sent them a very detailed list of questions, including about the officer not IDing themselves or not having a badge number. And then I also asked ’em about what their probable cause was to detain Jahshua in the first place, given that the real estate people had said, yeah, we hired a photographer. So it’s kind of absurd. I have not heard back yet, but we’re going to keep pushing on them also. I tried Facebook, but their comments are muted and you can’t send ’em a direct message. So they’ve really walled themselves off from the community, but we will keep trying.

    Taya Graham:

    Steven, what aspects of the law do you think inform this case? I mean, for example, how does the First Amendment apply here?

    Speaker 6:

    Well, the First Amendment is very important because he was on a public sidewalk and that is literally one of the few places where the First Amendment is sacrosanct in terms of the voyeurism charge. It’s very clear that you have to film someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy. So unless they had evidence that Jahshua had taken video of someone who was naked, they had no right to detain him. Now he had offered to let them look at his camera. So it seems like they didn’t have any way or any reasonable means to detain him or even start an investigation. It was pretty absurd and I think the law is pretty clear on that.

    Taya Graham:

    Also, something happened with the primary officer in the case. Can you tell me a little bit more about Officer Green and what happened?

    Speaker 6:

    Well tell you, 10 years ago the Utah Department of Public Safety called into question officers green credibility because of some questionable DUI arrest and of course the evidence and some of the circumstances were reviewed and the cases were dropped. So I think it creates some, not just a cloud of uncertainty, but some doubts about the investigation itself. So it’s something we’re going to keep looking into and we’ll report back, but serious questions have been asked and they have to be answered.

    Taya Graham:

    And now to understand how this encounter has affected him, why police keep targeting him and how he’s fighting back. I’m joined by Jahshua. Jahshua, thank you so much for being here. So what were you doing that evening before the sheriff’s approached you and that woman approached you?

    Speaker 5:

    I was shooting the interior of the homeowner’s home. I turned on all the lights. I had the blinds open, typical for a twilight shoot or any shoot, and I finished that. I went out to shoot the common space. They had specifically requested photos of the common space, which is usual. And yeah, I stepped out. I wasn’t outside for maybe five minutes. I had taken maybe two photos. I was at the far end of the grass field and I saw a woman step out on her back patio. I really quickly, as soon as I saw her, I said, Hey, do you mind if I take a photo real fast before you get over here? And she completely ignored me. She got a dirty look on her face and started marching towards me and she screamed at me halfway across the grass field and she says, what are you taking photos for?

    I replied back, I said, I’m taking photos for my job. It’s for real estate. She continues walking towards me. She gets to where I’m standing and she’s in my face. I kind of try to ignore her. I take the picture and she goes, well, who are you taking the photos for? And I pointed over and I said, it’s for those owners. The house had the lights on the blinds open to me. It seemed clearly obvious. I took my picture, I walked away and she followed me. We got right to the corner of the homeowner that I was shooting for his unit and she goes, well, what’s their names? Then I was frustrated at that point because it’s none of her business. That’s the plain and simple part about it, and she wants to speak to treating me as if I was lying to her. I told her, ma’am, I’m a business and I don’t give away my client’s personal information.

    She says, well, I’m going to call them. And we were talking about the homeowners. At some point, her story changed. I said, that’s fine. And I walked away. I went over to go shoot the pickleball court. Her husband approached me. He is got his fist bald and he’s got an angry look on his face. I’m taking pictures of the pickleball court and he’s saying, F this, F that. Getting really angry with me. I chose not to say anything. I knew if I said anything, it was going to escalate it and I didn’t have anything nice to say. And my mother taught me well, yeah, I just ignored him. He got frustrated with me not saying anything, and then he lunged at me like he was going to hit me. I didn’t move. I was carrying my tripod. That’s a formidable weapon. I wasn’t concerned and he turns and walks back to his house.

    I went and shot the playground and I was walking back to shoot the front of the house. I hadn’t shot the front of the units yet. The homeowner came home. He pulled up in his truck with his wife and his kids in the car they had left, so they weren’t in the way to take photos. As soon as they pulled up, I let ’em know that their neighbor was having an issue and that they might want to talk to them. We were standing there and that’s when Deputy Boots pulled up. He pulls up, he gets out, he sees me and the homeowner. The homeowner had his baby in the car seat and let him know right away, we’re taking real estate photos, we’re putting our house up for sale. I let him know I’m doing real estate photos. I walked away to take photos of the front of the unit and he started yelling at me asking me what I was taking photos of other people’s property for and telling me that I didn’t have a right to take these photos. And I asked him, have you ever seen real estate photos before? And so at that point he told me that I was being detained for disorderly conduct, for taking photos from the public street of the front of the unit.

    Taya Graham:

    It sounds to me like you were very professional. You had professional photography equipment with you, including an expensive camera and a tripod. You had the permission of the neighbor, the homeowner who requested the photos, but the police were still called and investigated even though this was explained. What did they initially ask you for and what did you provide them as proof?

    Speaker 5:

    He immediately wanted to run my id. I let him know that it’s late. I’ve got an hour drive to get back home and I still have business operational things to do, and I need to get these communications out to my client early in the morning. I don’t have time. I’m not going to let you run my id. There’s no reason. I’ve had interactions with police officers before. Most times they don’t even come and talk to me. They just go and let the complainant know they’re doing real estate photos or he is taking photos. It’s not a big deal. Did he come on your property? Ask those types of questions. So I was in the expectation having the expectation of them just saying, Hey, not a big deal. Have a good night. When he wanted to detain me and the things he wanted to detain me before were completely inaccurate. I’m not unfamiliar to misconduct from police officers. I recognized right away what and why they were doing what they were doing, and I’m against that completely. I remained defiant and I wasn’t going to provide them with anything from there.

    Taya Graham:

    So you provided information that proved you were working as a real estate photographer and you explained to the officer that you shouldn’t be detained if no crime was committed, but you were detained and asked for id. Now understandably, you didn’t think you were obligated to provide it, but the sheriff started escalating the situation by threatening you with arrest. So you gave your personal information what happened next?

    Speaker 5:

    I provided that information, but that was later on in the interaction after he got to the point where he was going to take me to jail. If I didn’t from the very beginning, the information I wanted was to find what reasonable suspicion he had to detain me. So it was probably 30 minutes into the interaction before I provided my id, but it was only done so under the threat arrest.

    Taya Graham:

    Now you were hesitant to provide ID and there are people out there who would ask, why were you hesitant? How would you answer?

    Speaker 5:

    I’ve experienced police abuse in the past, the things that they can do with your name and your identification. I don’t find these as trustworthy people. Not only that, I love my country, I love the constitution. Not all countries have these freedoms or these rights and they should be allowed without question.

    Taya Graham:

    Now, something I thought was interesting is that the sheriff mentioned cop watchers or auditors. What did he say?

    Speaker 5:

    He wasn’t really accusing me of being an auditor, but he did recognize some of the language I was using as what his training was. So I think he put the pieces together with the First Amendment protective activities to his recent training about the First Amendment, and I don’t know why he decided to call that all bs, but I’m assuming the training wasn’t sufficient.

    Taya Graham:

    I noticed that the officer started to use a lot of profanity when speaking with you, when you were asking simple questions like why am I being detained and what crime have I committed? In what other ways was the officer aggressive with you?

    Speaker 5:

    At the point they decided to put cuffs on me. I don’t know if you noticed in the video, but they had a little code that they used in order to affirm that both of them were on the same page about putting me in handcuffs in that just my simple questions, it didn’t matter what I asked, I just asked very basic reasonable questions. Like when he had his hands on me and had me up against the car, why do I have to follow your orders? It was at that point he cranked this hand. He pushed it all the way up to the top of my shoulder and in doing so, he separated tendons in my elbow and in my shoulder. So the reasons for escalation, I don’t know other than they are unprofessional. I tried to maintain my professionality and conduct myself in a proper manner. I wasn’t cursing, I wasn’t taking things out of proportion, but those that we give our tax dollars to feel like they don’t have to maintain professionalism, I guess when they were doing their duties.

    Taya Graham:

    So you were in the back of a police car cuffed, even as they discussed the fact that they knew you were there to perform a job. How long did they continue to detain you

    Speaker 5:

    From that point? In the video where he’s explaining the legality of what I’m doing, it was another 15 to 20 minutes before I was taken out of the cuffs. That speech that he gave is typically the speech that the officers give at the beginning of the interaction to whoever complained and him giving that speech in the way he did shows that he was trained to handle a complaint that is based on such, which is based around photography.

    Taya Graham:

    What did they say to you about your charges and you also received a secondary charge? A failure to ID months later. Right.

    Speaker 5:

    So they charged me with interference of a peace officer, and that was the only charge I had at the time. It was six months later I wrote a letter to the mayor and the city council members of Morgan County. I received a secondary charge once again, six months after the fact for failure to ID a retaliatory charge.

    Taya Graham:

    You believe you are being maliciously prosecuted and retaliated against. Can you explain why you believe that?

    Speaker 5:

    Just recently I filed motions in my case and I received a memorandum in opposition to those motions. I issued a reply to that memorandum and the reason I did so they have detailed inaccuracies, exaggerations, and lies such as classifying the complainant as a victim. As the Supreme Court has ruled, photography does not cause harm. So his misclassification is fouling up these proceedings and tainting them in the interaction. Before I was cuffed, I was told to step in front of the vehicle and I kept approaching the officer that was in his vehicle. If you look at the video, I actually take four steps back and then I decide to step to the curb. So he’s misrepresenting the facts. A couple other details that were in his memorandum that were completely inaccurate. In fact, his memorandum details that I was detained solely for the act of photography.

    Taya Graham:

    So how much has this cost you to fight these charges either personally or emotionally or financially, and have you had to get physical therapy for your arm? I mean, basically how has this impacted you?

    Speaker 5:

    Yeah, it’s had a big impact. I don’t know if you understand this, but when you’re not feeling well, experiencing pain, your motivation to get things accomplished, it diminishes. And so I’ve been taking on less work. I’ve also been taking on less work because I’m representing myself. I know that they did this to me to make me have to waste my time and my money. So I’m representing myself so I don’t have to let them win on that aspect, the emotional, I can’t focus on my work, I can’t focus on my relationship. I’ve got pets that I feel like I should be taking better care of. This is a all day, every day kind of concern. Learning how to suddenly become an attorney requires a lot of time. My ability to even be, I guess as happy about life in general has been difficult, if not impossible.

    Taya Graham:

    Often people say to me, the process is the punishment. I’ve had victims who are defending themselves tell me that going through the court process is a stress and a harm unto itself. Has this changed how you view police or has it confirmed your understanding?

    Speaker 5:

    Well, and I’ve also had health conditions. I’ve been dealing with an ulcer and that and the stress and everything. I have not been able to recover from it during this process. It’s been months as you know. It’s been difficult to say the least. In fact, even just right now dealing with this, I’m not feeling well. I’ve made a determination that for every good cop video I see of cops playing basketball with kids and being a hero and providing CPR, all of those good actions get canceled out by how many negative interactions I witness and I view. It’s making it impossible for cops to be heroes. They’re giving something great, which is power and authority and what they choose to do with it is shameful and I’ve lost my respect. I still have interactions with officers that do conduct themselves properly and that I hold them highly respectable. But there are a few that still sign up for an old way of policing that is outdated and not with what the citizens want to see.

    Taya Graham:

    If you could speak directly to the sheriff’s department and you knew they were listening to you, what would you want to say to them

    Speaker 5:

    In this interaction? And since I’ve had over a dozen of my rights violated, currently, the Morgan County Sheriff’s Department has their Facebook comments turned off and their online reviews turned off. This is a public forum. This is a violation of the public’s first amendment rights to redress and express their grievances. They haven’t at one point decided to act appropriately or adhere to the law or respect the constitution. What I would say to them, you guys deserve to be defunded. Not all of them but you guys. You don’t need to exist anymore if you can’t clean your house and you can’t act appropriately, step down.

    Taya Graham:

    Now, usually on this part of the show, I do a rant, for lack of a better word. That is I try to add some context to the case or make a broader point about policing with the idea that we can hopefully event some useful truths about the stories we unpack here. But I’m going to do something different today. I’m going to dig a little deeper into Jahshua’s case. I’m doing this now because I thought you should hear from him first before I explore what has happened since the arrest now that we’ve spoken to him, I want to go through the process. I will call the aftermath. As we all know, the arrests we cover are only the beginning of the ordeal for the people who suffer through them. That’s why we spend so much time speaking to the people who experience questionable detainment, it upends their lives, threatens their jobs, and otherwise turns the world upside down.

    But there’s another aspect of being put in handcuffs and thrown into the criminal justice system without justification. I’ve noticed it in case after case a yearning prompts the victim to dedicate themselves to proving one simple fact they did nothing wrong. I think it’s a deeply embedded desire in a society that invests so much in arresting, charging and otherwise labeling people as criminals regardless of circumstance. It’s a need to clear one’s name regardless of the obstacles that in different system often places in one’s way. To emphasize that point, I want to show some of the extra video that Jahshua gave us. It depicts his efforts to obtain the evidence related to his case, specifically the body-worn camera. I think it reveals something beyond the typical and personal bureaucracy that can often obscure and otherwise bury important truths behind laws and regulations. It shows that even when the handcuffs are taken off, there is another potent barrier to obtaining justice. It depict a man who simply wanted to be treated with the presumption of innocence when doing his job, which should define our society and our laws, and that he wanted the government that had been cruelly depriving him of his basic rights to simply acknowledge the truth that he had been wronged. But of course, that did not turn out to be easy. Let’s just watch as he tries and fails initially to get the body-worn camera that we just showed you.

    Speaker 5:

    So I will be getting the body cam footage and the dash cam footage today.

    Speaker 7:

    Probably not.

    Speaker 5:

    How long will that take?

    Speaker 7:

    I’ll send you the form and it’ll have all the information on it for you.

    Speaker 5:

    The form?

    Speaker 7:

    Yeah,

    Speaker 5:

    I need the body cam footage.

    Speaker 7:

    Yeah, I’ll give you all the information

    Speaker 5:

    To fill that out.

    Speaker 7:

    No,

    Speaker 5:

    To request it?

    Speaker 7:

    No, it’ll be denied.

    Speaker 5:

    You’re going to deny me?

    Speaker 7:

    Yes.

    Speaker 5:

    The body cam footage of the incident that I was involved in.

    Speaker 7:

    Yes.

    Speaker 5:

    Why?

    Speaker 7:

    Everything will be, all the information will be provided to you and the statutes.

    Speaker 5:

    So I’ll just contact the ombudsman?

    Speaker 7:

    Yes, you can if you’d like.

    Speaker 5:

    She’s

    Speaker 7:

    There for,

    Speaker 5:

    You’re not going to tell me the reason why.

    Speaker 7:

    Yes, it’ll all be on. I’ll send you all the information.

    Speaker 5:

    I can’t have access to the body cam footage of the incident I’m involved in.

    Speaker 7:

    It’s going to be denied.

    Speaker 5:

    So since it’s civil rights violations involved, it seems as though there’s some corruption in Morgan County and they’re trying to hide.

    Speaker 7:

    That’s not what I’m saying

    Speaker 5:

    And suppress this.

    Speaker 7:

    No, that’s not what I’m saying at all.

    Speaker 5:

    I won’t. Well, that’s the fact. If I don’t receive the body cam footage,

    Speaker 7:

    I won’t. I do the state law. It’ll all be, and then everything as far as the grammar process will be provided to you.

    Taya Graham:

    Now, this was the first time he requested the body-worn camera, and it was denied under the auspices of the Utah statute. I’m showing you on the screen now. This law describes dozens of exemptions that allow the state government to deny anyone access to public information. I mean, the list is so vast. I’m surprised that anyone can get anything from Utah that the bureaucrats decide they don’t want to release. It certainly puts the work of transparency on the back of the citizen seeking the information. But Jahshua persisted. He asked, not once, not twice, but three times. The reason I wanted to show this video is because it reveals how hard it is to persist and prevail when trying to show that the government has wronged you, how much you must fight, how much red tape you must unravel to reveal the truth, and more importantly, how much the system has been constructed to prevent you from doing so.

    I wanted to show this for all the people fighting the same battle as Jahshua, for all the guests who’ve appeared on our show, despite the prospect of retaliation from police or other arms of government, how people when wronged who have everything to lose, still fight against a bureaucracy that can arrest, detain or otherwise destroy them, and they don’t give up and they keep going despite the odds, often without lawyers, usually without support and frequently amid pushback and retaliation from the police themselves. And usually when I ask why they tell me they’re not just pushing back for themselves, not just to be vindicated, but for the community. Their quest for justice is not simply about their own law enforcement predicament, but it’s about a concern for others to ensure that their fellow citizens are not engulfed in questionable arrests or overly aggressive law enforcement. It’s a spirit of communal good, so often missing from today’s political discussion that pits ideologies and factions against tribes and parties.

    And yet in our midst among the least empowered exists a group of people who I’ve had the privilege to speak to, people who embody all the best aspects of our constitutional republic, who despite all odds strengthen and bolster the underlying ideals of our body and laws and of our Constitution, people who renew democracy by believing in it. That’s my rant for today. It’s my statement of respect, admiration, and support. Yes, a journalist support for people like Jahshua who keep fighting. I salute him and all our other guests because they are the ones who will save our rights and we must respect them for their work and for their sacrifices on our behalf. I want to thank our guest, Jahshua, for sharing his story with us and his fight for justice. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Steven, Janice for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you Steven

    Speaker 6:

    Te. Thanks Ami. I appreciate it.

    Taya Graham:

    And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R, for their support. Thanks Noli D and a very special thanks to our accountability reports, Patreons, we appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R. David k, Louis p, Lucia, Garcia, and super friends, Shane, b Kenneth K, pineapple Girl, matter of Rights, and Chris r. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police accountability report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at teos Baltimore on Twitter and Facebook. And please like and comment. I really do read your comments and appreciate them. And of course, if you can hit that Patreon, don’t link pinned below in the comments. We’d appreciate it. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Private companies and state governments have long exploited the 13th Amendment to create a profitable agribusiness system that runs on prison slave labor. “If you look at the history of agriculture in the United States, it’s built on dispossession, it’s built on enslavement,” says Joshua Sbicca, director of the Prison Agriculture Lab, and the legacy of that violence lives on in the big business of “agricarceral” farming today. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host and former political prisoner Mansa Musa speaks with Sbicca about the prisoners farming our food, the parties profiting from their exploitation, and the ongoing fight to uphold the basic rights and dignity of incarcerated workers.

    Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to Rattling Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

    We oftentimes, when we look at agriculture in society, we see fields and fields of crops, irrigation system, birds flying and chirping. This is the agribusiness as it relates to a fantasy. But when you look at the agribusiness in prison, you see an entirely different story. You see men in the same kind of uniforms providing the labor to produce plants and crops. You see officers, guards on horseback with shotguns, overseeing them, making sure they do not run or escape.

    Prisoners are left out in the field, as Malcolm said, one time from, can’t see in the morning to can’t see at night, but they’re left out there at ungodly hours. Recently I spoke with Professor Joshua Sabika, who is an educator, community builder and associate professor in the Department of Sociology at Colorado State University, author of Food Justice Now: Deepening the Root of Social Struggle and co-author of A Recipe for Gentrification, Food, Power, and Resistance in the City. Thank you for joining me, professor Joshua Sabika.

    Joshua Sabika:

    It’s a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me on your show.

    Mansa Musa:

    And introduce yourself to our audience and tell them how you got into the space that we’re now talking about today.

    Joshua Sabika:

    Sure. Yeah. I’m the director of the Prison Agriculture Lab out of Colorado State University. And the Prison Agriculture Lab is a space for inquiry and action related to understanding agricultural operations inside the criminal punishment system.

    And we do a lot of research to understand what’s happening and provide translations of that research for a public audience, for a media audience, so that people can see behind the curtain of the prison and understand specifically what it’s like to be on a prison farm and to understand the scope of that work.

    So I come at this work originally actually through doing food justice work and in particular working with an organization called Planting Justice, who is an organization that works with formerly incarcerated people. It’s also worked inside prisons like San Quentin State Prison in California. And through that work was exposed to the perspectives of a lot of formerly incarcerated people who’ve had to work in prisons, but also who were working in a more positive way with plants and in gardens.

    But it stoked this question in me, though, what’s happening more broadly in the US prison system when it comes to agricultural operations. And so that sort of curiosity was really the impetus behind the launch of the prison agriculture lab.

    Mansa Musa:

    And I did 48 years in prison, and I was in the Maryland system and one of the prisons, they called it the penal farm. And the reason why they called it the penal farm is because that was when it was first built. That’s what the design was. It was designed for producing food for the prison population, as well as the general society in that region, which was western Maryland. Professor, can you give our audience an overview of the history of the agribusiness and practice in prisons in the US?

    Joshua Sabika:

    Yeah, absolutely. And maybe I’ll start first with just laying out what are some of the trends right now that we know? So through our research, we found there are around 660 adult state-run prisons that have agricultural operations of some kind.

    And we found these fall into four categories, horticulture and landscaping crops, food processing and production, and animal agriculture. And within each of those, kind of broad categories, are a whole bunch of specific practices.

    And so you have everything from essentially plantation-style, large cropping kinds of operations, to more diversified gardens. And so it really runs the gamut, but we do see a concentration of agricultural operations in the South. We also know that in the South there’s a greater number of prisons in that region compared to other parts of the US.

    And we’ve also asked kind of why are these things taking place? And so currently, according to the prison system, there’s four main reasons why these operations take place. One is idleness reduction. So essentially, kind of because prisons force people to work in the name of, they don’t want “idle hands doing the devil’s work.”

    Another is financial reasons, so feeding the prison population or producing profits for the prison system. There’s also more or more, I should say training purposes. So educational and vocational programs are tied to ag operations.

    And then lastly, a very small subset are reparative. So we understand this is for community service purposes, donating the food that’s grown, or greening the prison or something like that. But I’ll say that that’s a huge exception, that there are those sorts of reasons for these operations.

    As far as the more historical kind of connections, you know, one of the pieces that I think is really clear is that if you look at the history of agriculture in the United States, it’s built on dispossession, it’s built on enslavement. And a lot of those violent kinds of logics in agriculture find their way into the prison system, as the US prison system begins to develop in the 1800s.

    And the same groups who were bracketed out of this sort of agrarian utopia that was being built for white immigrants to the US, as those people were bracketed out, they were then incarcerated again as the prison system began to develop. And yet agriculture was somehow imagined as a tool to discipline incarcerated people and compel them into being an orderly subject, basically.

    And so in many ways, agriculture helped build the prison system. As prisons begin to develop, they needed to find a way to afford what they were creating. And so if you had a captive free labor force, you could force that labor force to grow a bunch of food to feed all the people that were then in that system. And so, farms were really central actually to the building of the US prison system and have continued to play a role over time.

    Mansa Musa:

    And you listed four things, talk about the relationship between how they work out as far as the agri, and as it relates to the support of the institution and the profit margin that come out in support of the prison industrial complex profiting off of it.

    Joshua Sabika:

    So maybe I’ll kind of start with breaking down a little bit, these two differences. So when it comes to agricultural operations in prisons and the financial benefits of those operations, it comes in two forms. One is essentially a subsidy to the prison system in the form of food that goes to feed the prison population. And this acts as a cost savings.

    So instead of a prison having to go into the open market and buy that food from a corporation, they have their prison force do that work, anything from $0 to cents on the hour. There’s a large number of prisons that subsidize the cost of feeding people in this kind of way. And food is one of the few pieces within a budget in the prison that is controllable in many ways.

    And so prisons have sought to make that expenditure less and less and less over time, and it’s at a great cost to the health of people within prisons. And I’ll note that, even in cases where food is going into the prison system, it usually isn’t enough to completely feed everybody. And so food has to be bought anyway.

    And then there’s the food that’s being sold on the open market. So if we were to think about it, I think about it like an agricultural/industrial complex, where have prisoners that are selling or that are working to produce crops that then get sold. And also raise animals and livestock.

    So in Texas for example, there’s a huge livestock operation. A bunch of this livestock is going into livestock auctions throughout the state of Texas. And then that beef is making its way into food supply chains that go into the consumer market, where you know may be having a hamburger at McDonald’s where some portion of that was produced in a prison in say, Texas.

    And so, in terms of how much money is being made, like an exact dollar figure, this is something that actually the prison agriculture lab is trying to get information on. And so we’re in the middle of a project where we’re compiling a bunch of these numbers and we’re compiling the companies that are buying from the prison system. But just to name a few know there’s big companies like Smithfield or Cargill, these large multinational corporations that are purchasing some part of their food supply from prisons. And so tracing that is much more complicated, but it’s nevertheless happening.

    Mansa Musa:

    Are you familiar with the farm line litigation involving the Louisiana State Penitentiary? And can you talk about your research as it relates to that and any other views you might have on that?

    Joshua Sabika:

    Sure. I guess the first thing that I’ll actually say here is, I was retained by the plaintiffs as an expert witness in the farm line litigation. So I can speak about some things and not other things.

    But I guess what I’ll say first is a little bit about the research that the prison agriculture lab has done. So as it pertains to Louisiana know, our research has found that there’s a lot of different agricultural operations in prisons in Louisiana, at Angola specifically. So Louisiana State Penitentiary, we know that there are large cropping operations, and that’s sort of the majority of the kind of agricultural work that takes place there.

    And there’s work that’s run by the prison industry itself in LSP. And then there are fields that are run by LSP itself. And so those operations run parallel to each other but serve different kinds of purposes.

    And part of what the farm line litigation is about, and this has been all kind of publicly recorded and reported on, I should say, is focusing on the heat conditions that men incarcerated at LSP are subject to, particularly in the summertime. And then the harms that are associated with working in a plantation-style agricultural system that’s reminiscent of chattel slavery. And so the pending class action lawsuit is seeking to address those two concerns.

    Mansa Musa:

    And to your knowledge and your research, how much money do they make versus how much profit comes out of that space? I know you say y’all was trying to pin down how much profit, but if you can give a general view of the profit margin relative to how much the wage margin.

    Joshua Sabika:

    Yeah, I mean it really varies a lot by prison and state across the US, but if we’re talking about a state like Louisiana and a prison like Angola, prisoners are paid anywhere from zero to 4 cents an hour, so basically nothing. And in terms of the farm line itself, what’s come out in kind of public declarations, is that food actually goes back into feeding the prison population. So it’s different than some of the other agricultural operations that are producing food for the open market.

    In terms of the exact dollar figures, I don’t have those exact figures, but if you were to look like in the aggregate, the Associated Press released a report about a year or so ago, and they essentially found that there’s likely hundreds of millions of dollars that are being made by this agricultural system within prisons. And so you could do some ballpark math to realize essentially that you have incarcerated people paid basically nothing while companies and/or the state are profiting off of this labor.

    Mansa Musa:

    And it is known that when you’re dealing with any type of large agricultural situation that you have to have some type of pesticide, or some type of way to preserve the plants that you’re growing, or create an environment for the plants to grow. In your research, have y’all found any relationship between the pesticides being used and the health, or health related issues, from men or women that’s working in these environments?

    Joshua Sabika:

    Our research hasn’t looked specifically at that relationship between, kind of the environmental exposures and then the health of incarcerated people working in these systems. But one thing that I can say, is that based on various cases that I’m aware of around the country, that the use of pesticides and herbicides is part of some of these agricultural operations. So I’m particularly familiar with the case of Florida where I’ve done extensive research and I know that pesticides and herbicides are used in various farming operations. Now whether or not they’re being safely applied and whether or not people are getting sick as a result of those exposures, I think is another question.

    There have been reports, again, this is in sort of publicly available documents that at places like Angola, that crop dusters are used. Again, the question is how safely is that practice happening and are people around when those practices are happening? The prison system is notoriously opaque and it can be incredibly hard to verify what’s happening in any systematic way, but there appear to be reports and information to suggest that these chemicals are being used. And then it’s whether or not it’s harmful to people is the bigger question.

    Mansa Musa:

    The real news recently reached out to Louisiana State Penitentiary for comment on how frequently they use crop dusters, and has not yet been provided with any official response. I come out of prison myself. When I look at the farm line and I look at the whole agribusiness as it relates to the prison industrial complex.

    Unless a person is coming out of the system and buying acres of land and planting and feeding them on their own self, even with a marketable skill is virtually impossible. If you are in an environment where agriculture is the primary industry that exists in the Maryland system, in the federal system, they have industry and it is exploitative in and of itself, but they provide you with a marketable skill where a person might come out with upholstery, a person might come out with plumbing, a person might come out with cabin making, even though they’ve been exploited all them years.

    I find the connection between when a person doing long-term in the Angola, or long-term on any prison where it’s agri is concerned, that they don’t have the necessary job skills to be competitive back in society. Do you have a view on that?

    Joshua Sabika:

    Yeah, I do. And I think that’s a really important point that you’re making. And one of the claims of many state prison systems is that there is some sort of educational or vocational benefit to the agricultural work that people are performing.

    Unfortunately, there’s very little evidence to suggest that that’s actually happening. And I think that there are several reasons for that. I think one is part of it’s like a tracking problem. It’s very difficult to track people once they leave prison. But I think more fundamentally is the point that you made, which is that you can’t buy land coming out of prison. It’s very, very unlikely that you’re going to be able to do that. And moreover, the skills that you actually developed are probably for a more frontline position.

    Mansa Musa:

    Exactly.

    Joshua Sabika:

    So working as a field hand or milking a cow or something of that sort, and if you look at the pay that’s associated with that work, it’s very low pay, and agricultural work is some of the most dangerous work that exists in the economy. And so the thing that I’ve thought a bit about is what is it actually signaling to incarcerated people when you say, this is the kind of work you’re going to do? It signals that they don’t deserve better work.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. Exactly.

    Joshua Sabika:

    It signals that they deserve some of the most backbreaking, brutal work that we know exists. And to suggest that people are going to come out with a skill then, in that same sector that continues to abuse people, is ultimately this sort of disciplinary and brutal logic that has no intention of actually taking care of people.

    Mansa Musa:

    And under the law, you have crime, you have punishment, and the punishment is the sentence that you receive. I commit a crime, I get punished for it. The punishment is the sentence I receive. The punishment is not where I go at, and then in turn be brutally punished or physically punished.

    And according to the concept of penology is that once I get into the system, then I’m supposed to be provided with the opportunity to change my behavior, to develop a work ethic, to develop social skills, because ultimately I’m going to be returned. Within in the agri system, and much like in the industrial system as well, but in the agri system in and of itself, you’re going to find very few people that come out of the system that is equipped to re-socialize themselves back into society, primarily because everything is done in a plantation style. If I don’t work, if I refuse to work, I’m going in solitary confinement. Or the threat of solitary confinement exists that if I don’t get on the farm line that exists, and more importantly, I’m doing long-term, the average person is doing 15 to 20 years in that environment and come out that environment, have very little skills to adjust back in society.

    So it’s inevitable that they’re going to revert back to some kind of criminal behavior which opens that cycle, repeat that cycle. And this has been my experience that I’ve seen over and over again when people leave out, we’re not prepared, we’re not equipped and we’re confronted with a society that we have to live in. We don’t have the ability to get housing, our medical benefits, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

    But in closing, professor, tell our audience where you see this farm line litigation going. If you can give an overview on that or based on your research and your knowledge of these types of litigation, where do you think this might end up at?

    Joshua Sabika:

    Yeah, it is a great question. And when we look at how some agricultural operations are run in this plantation style, like you were talking about, where the point of the system is to heap punishment on top of a sentence, as you put it.

    When we see that these kinds of systems exist, it breathes life into the argument that we need to get rid of, for example, exception clauses from state constitutions that say, you can be subject to slavery or involuntary servitude if you’ve been convicted of a crime.

    So these kinds of systems, they breathe life into this analysis that prisons are akin to chattel slavery, and they traumatize people in ways that are akin to chattel slavery. And so, even though plantation style agricultural operations are the exception in the American prison system, they’re demonstrative of the larger logics in the prison system that abuse people that use incarceration and capturing the time of people in order to prop up, essentially a giant public works program.

    And then on top of that, the entanglements of that system with private industry, which profits off of the captured time of people. And so when thinking about something like the farm line litigation or kind of more broadly what it represents, I think that’s why it’s significant, and that’s why we should be paying close attention, and thinking about how that logic is maybe happening in many other places as well. And so there’s an opportunity to crack that open and engage in efforts that actually uplift the human rights of people who are incarcerated, and that sees the human dignity of people who are behind bars no matter what they’ve done.

    Mansa Musa:

    Based on your research and your study and your knowledge of the history, what would be a good solution for the type of problem that we just outlined?

    Joshua Sabika:

    Yeah, I mean, I guess the one thing that I would point to is that it’s always important to take direction from people who are on the front lines, and that’s incarcerated people, and look at the analysis and demands of people who are subject to abusive systems.

    So if you look at efforts like the Free Alabama movement or efforts in the State of Florida, for example, to engage in various prisoner rights organizing, I think it’s really important to find those organizations and those individuals that are already doing the work and to find a way to plug into it wherever you’re located.

    There are prisons in every single one of these states that we live in here in the United States, and there are many people that are locked up in that system. So making connections with people on the inside I think is really important.

    I think on a more outside level, knowing those companies that are profiting off of the labor of incarcerated people and refusing to spend your money to support those companies is also something that we can all take ownership of ourselves and be aware of how we’re entangled with the prison industrial complex. And so I think that’s another set of actions that consumers can be taking.

    And I think the last piece is, in those cases where there is a litigation or other kinds of efforts to hold prisons accountable, that people find ways to support those efforts. So those are the things that I would offer here today.

    Mansa Musa:

    And will say, tell our audience how they can follow you or keep track of some of the works that you’re doing in terms of your advocacy.

    Joshua Sabika:

    Sure, you can find the work of the Prison Agriculture Lab at prisonagriculture.com. And personally, I’m on Blue Sky and you can find me on Blue Sky if you want to follow me on social media.

    Mansa Musa:

    Professor Joshua Sabika, you rattled the bars today, and we want to always be mindful of this to say that we’re talking about human beings. We had the United Farm Workers that was working in the fields for pennies a day and inhumane conditions that was able to unionize and ultimately get treated like a human being, get a livable wage.

    We had people that, when we look at this country that was working in sweatshops, that unionized and was able to get treated like a human being. The thing with the prison population as the professor outlined, is the 13th Amendment. The 13th amendment is the one thing that’s preventing prisoners from being treated like human beings, because it says that except for those who’ve been duly convicted of a crime, they can be treated as a slave. Anybody else cannot. If you’ve been duly convicted of a crime, you can be treated as a slave. And as we see from the Louisiana farm system or any other system where it’s agriculture involved, we see this 13th amendment being carried out.

    The only difference between the 1800s and now is everybody’s not on the plantation. They don’t have free reigns to round people up to go kidnap people. But once you’re in that system, it’s like you’ve been kidnapped, and that’s the end of your life as it exists during that time.

    We want to ask our audience to continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bar. We ask that you give us your feedback on these conversations because it’s important that we hear what you got to say. If you agree with it or don’t agree with it, we still want to hear it because it’s only through discourse that we can get a better understanding of the direction that we want to take and treating each other like human beings. Thank you, professor.

    Joshua Sabika:

    Thank you. It’s been a pleasure.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • An audit of past rulings by a controversial medical examiner found that 36 cases of police custody deaths deemed accidents should have instead been classified as homicides. 

    The comprehensive review of 87 determinations regarding deaths resulting from police use of force stretched back 16 years from 2003 to 2019. It highlights the often questionable conclusions the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) used to determine that police were not culpable.  

    Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, whose agency managed the audit of former Chief Medical Examiner Dr. David Fowler, said the audit was disturbing and that the reclassified cases warranted further scrutiny. 

    “These findings are of great concern and demand further review,” Brown wrote in the preface of the report. 

    The report is simply an audit. It does not formally reclassify any of the cases that have been reviewed. Normally, changing an autopsy determination requires a hearing in front of a judge.

    The push to examine Fowler’s past rulings came after he testified at the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Chauvin was charged with murder after video surfaced of him sitting on George Floyd’s neck for roughly nine minutes. Floyd later died at a nearby hospital.  

    The case sparked outrage and nationwide protests.  

    Fowler testified that Floyd did not die from positional asphyxiation, the result of the downward pressure of Chauvin’s knee. Instead, he attributed carbon monoxide poisoning from a nearby tailpipe to be the primary cause. 

    The testimony sent shockwaves through the medical community. An open letter penned by roughly 450 medical experts called for a review of Fowler’s rulings in light of his testimony. The pushback prompted the state to undertake a comprehensive audit, the findings of which were released in a 90-page report. 

    But prior to Fowler’s testimony and the subsequent review of his rulings, family members of victims and activists had been calling attention to his determinations. TRNN also consulted an independent pathologist to review Fowler’s cases

    Among them is the death of a 19-year-old Eastern Shore resident, Anton Black. 

    Black died after police chased him to his mother’s home. The body camera showed officers lying atop the former track star, who weighed 160 pounds at the time of the arrest. Fowler ruled the death an accident due to an underlying heart abnormality and bipolar disorder, a decision his family said did not reflect the evidence. 

    The Real News consulted noted pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht to review the case. Wecht said Black’s death was not the result of an accident, but police use of force. 

    “This is a classical case of positional asphyxiation in which somebody is placed face down, and then someone leans on his back, presses down on his back, and he’s tasered, after several minutes, and then he goes limp,” Wecht told TRNN. 

    Black’s family eventually won a $5 million settlement of a wrongful death suit against the state. Sonia Kumar, senior staff attorney at the Maryland chapter of the ACLU, who was lead counsel on the lawsuit, released a statement calling the audit result long overdue. 

    “This report vindicates what family members and communities—mostly Black and Brown Marylanders—have been saying for decades: that the entire system has been complicit in making police-involved deaths seem inevitable,” Kumar wrote. 

    The audit also includes other cases covered by TRNN. 

    Among them is the death of Tyrone West. West was pulled over in 2013 in North Baltimore after officers stopped his car for a broken taillight. Officers dragged him out of his vehicle and beat him for roughly an hour. West died later at a nearby hospital.

    Fowler ruled his death was accidental, the result of dehydration and an underlying heart condition. Prosecutors also declined to press charges.  

    But Tyrone’s sister Tawanda Jones fought back. She started a series of protests known as West Wednesdays that have continued every week since her brother’s death in 2013. 

    Jones noted that the first protests were staged outside Fowler’s office. 

    “That’s where West Wednesday started, at his office. And now the right is finally coming out. I am just overwhelmed.”

    Now she is calling for the prosecutor to reopen her brother’s case. 

    “Yes absolutely, I am going to keep pushing forward.” 

    While Fowler’s police custody cases were more widely scrutinized, TRNN has also explored how his less notable rulings negatively impacted Baltimore residents

    In our Hidden Victims series, we examined how Fowler’s unusual classification of large numbers of deaths as unclassified or ‘undetermined’ impacted cases with suspicious circumstances that might have warranted further investigation

    The series examined multiple cases, including the death of a woman who was found buried under a pile of mulch, which were ruled undetermined. It also explored how investigations into the past deaths of women who suffered from addiction might have overlooked evidence of foul play

    Critics say Fowler’s misclassifications were purposeful, with the aim to lower the number of homicide cases in a city where political careers are made or broken by the murder rate. Other sources say the primary goal of his questionable findings was to protect police officers from accusations of wrongdoing. But families like Tawanda’s are simply seeking closure and justice. 

    “I’ve been fighting for my brother and other families for so long. I just want the truth to be known.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • A notorious federal prison in Dublin, CA, was closed in 2024 after years of complaints of rampant and systematic sexual abuse, medical neglect, and human rights violations. Now, the Trump administration is pushing to reopen the facility as an ICE detention center, but an interfaith coalition of community members and human rights advocates are fighting to keep the facility closed.

    Edited by: Cameron Granadino


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Speaker 1:

    The Dublin City Council and Representative DeSaulnier, as well as Representative Zoe Loughran, we would like everyone to join them in opposing the opening of FCI Dublin as an ICE detention center.

    Speaker 2:

    On April 16th, faith leaders and activists gathered outside of a federal correctional institute, Dublin, a site of horrific abuse, neglect, and state-sanctioned violence, calling for the facility’s permanent closure and to reject a plan to use it as an immigration detention center. That’s from a statement released by Interfaith Movement and Human Integrity and the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice. The statement further details that countless people incarcerated at FCI Dublin survived being sexually abused by the Bureau of Prison staff and faced inhumane conditions, retaliation and medical neglect, and that now ICE appears to be moving forward with converting FCI Dublin from a BOP facility to an ICE facility, despite congressional opposition, its abusive history and dangerously dilapidated infrastructure.

    Speaker 3:

    Led an amazing campaign to organize to shut that prison down. We want to honor their dreams that this harm not be continued and perpetuated on other people and other communities. So this is why we’re preventing, here to prevent ICE from reopening Dublin as a detention facility.

    Speaker 2:

    Immigrants incarcerated at Dublin who are not citizens were specifically targeted by BOP staff who threatened to turn them over to immigration and customs enforcement, or made false promises that in exchange for sex, they could help them stay in the United States. In 2023, the Real News spoke with organizer Erin Neff of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners about the lawsuit filed on behalf of incarcerated women who were experiencing abuse at the prison.

    Erin Neff:

    In the case of Dublin, just to give it an historical context, 30 years ago there was a horrific incident of abuse upon many people, and there was a big case and a big settlement, and it is heartbreaking to see that 30 years later, the same thing is happening. And what it exposes is a culture of turning a blind eye to this abuse. There’s cooperation, there’s cover-up. It’s very difficult to report, let alone confidentially report. So in recent times, what you’re seeing are people being abused who are undocumented. So first of all, they’re being targeted because the staff knows that they are people who are going to be deported. So there’s an exposure there. They are threatened that if they say anything, they’ll be deported. So these people are people who’ve been here maybe their entire lives, all of their families here, they’re being retaliated against by putting in isolation. They are getting strip searched. It goes on and on. They’re being deprived of medical care, of mental health care.

    Speaker 2:

    At the recent vigil, outside the gates of FCI Dublin, Reverend Victoria Rue read a statement by Anna, a survivor of FCI Dublin.

    Rev. Victoria Rue:

    Like so many other immigrant women, I was sexually abused by an officer at FCI Dublin. After I was finally free from the hell of FCI Dublin, I was taken to another hell, an ICE detention center. The conditions at the detention center were terrible. I saw so much suffering. After months and months, I finally won my freedom. I am finally home with my children and trying to heal from the U.S. Government, from what the U.S. Government did to me. When I saw on the news that they wanted to reopen FCI Dublin for immigration detention, my heart fell. That prison is toxic and full of the pain of so many people. I pray that it is demolished, given back to the birds that live on the land there.

    Speaker 2:

    There was also testimony from Ulises Pena-Lopez, who is currently incarcerated in ICE detention. According to the Santa Clara rapid response team, early on February 21st, as Ulises was getting ready to leave his home, ICE agents showed up and forcibly arrested him, disregarding his rights and his health. Despite Ulises invoking his right to remain silent, to speak with a lawyer and to not exit his vehicle with without seeing a warrant, ICE officers responded with violence, smashing his car window with a baton and dragging him out of his vehicle. Without receiving proper medical care, Ulises was released into ICE custody and is currently being held at the Golden State Annex Detention Center in McFarland, California.

    Ulises Pena-Lopez:

    It fills me with strength, encouragement, joy, knowing that we are not alone. That you are standing in front of us, that you are our voice and I know and I feel that you’ll never leave us. God bless all of you. Physically, I feel like half of my body is numb, my foot, my right hand. I’m losing vision in my right eye and my face without mobility. Psychologically, I feel like I’m having pauses. They detected my medical and psychological condition as serious and they’re giving me treatment. I can’t sleep. When I call someone or whatever I need, I’m scared. I tremble. I start to sweat. My heart races because of everything they did to me; because of the way we’re not supposed to possess medication in here. If you want two painkillers, you have to submit a request. If you have to put in the request, it usually takes two or three days to be approved.

    Speaker 2:

    This comes from the statement of Ulises’s campaign and his supporters. They are calling and sending emails to Congress members Ro Khanna and Alex Padilla to demand ICE to release Ulises from the Golden State Annex ICE Detention Center in McFarland and provide access to medical care, treatment and medications.

    Ulises Pena-Lopez:

    I want to tell you that despite what ICE did to me, when they beat me in front of my wife, in front of my daughter, and they took me to an alley, they continued to beat me. They performed CPR on me to revive me. After they called the ambulance, they still had the audacity to send the ambulance bills to my wife, not once but twice, saying that she is responsible and has to pay for these bills for what they did to me.

    Speaker 2:

    The list of demands issued by the organizations Interfaith Movement and Human Integrity and California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice includes: honor and uplift survivors of FCI Dublin; demolish and permanently close the FCI Dublin; reject all forms of ICE detention in Dublin and the ongoing terror and criminalization of immigrant communities; return and transform the land to meet community needs and reaffirm that places of worship and religious observance should remain sensitive locations free from the reach of immigration enforcement.

    Speaker 7:

    Just to close, we know that if Dublin is reopened as an ICE detention center, if people are once again caged in those empty buildings across the street, abuse and neglect will continue. As Dublin survivors have said so many times, the horrors that happened at Dublin are not unique. Abuse is baked into our prison system. Everywhere there are cages, there is violence. In BOP, in ICE in the Santa Rita jail across the street. What is unique about FCI Dublin is that survivors of this violence came together and they organized and they spoke out and they made themselves heard. Dublin survivors shut for years to shut that prison down and they won and it must stay closed forever.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Across the country, chairs sit empty around dinner tables.

    Husbands, brothers, sons, mostly, are missing.

    Caught up in a government dragnet that picked them off the streets.

    Or took them from their homes. Or ripped them off of buses or from their workplaces.

    The news gushes over how safe the country of El Salvador is today.

    But for the thousands of families who’s innocent loved ones were taken from them 

    And locked into high security prisons without a key…

    This is not a paradise.

    It’s a nightmare. 

    In March 2022, President Nayib Bukele ordered a state of exception and unleashed raids that have locked up more than 70,000 people around the country. 

    They are accused of being affiliated with gangs. 

    Gangs that wreaked havoc in the country

    with one of the highest homicide rates in Latin America (or the world).

    People say they couldn’t leave their homes without fear of violence.

    But in Bukele’s gang crackdown

    he also picked up the innocent. 

    Thousands. Tens of thousands of innocent people.

    Police grabbed people with impunity. 

    Without asking for proof, or a warrant.

    And in jail, they are languishing. Most incommunicado from their families.

    Incommunicado from a lawyer. 

    Waiting for years.

    And there are no charges. No court cases. No trials. No conviction. 

    They are just held, indefinitely. 

    Their crime: Being young. And male. And, in many cases, tattooed. 

    And this system has the stamp of approval from the United States,

    which is now openly participating, by sending Venezuelans to be housed in El Salvador’s jails. 

    Also under the pretext of being gang members, even though many are not. 

    The rule of law is dead. Habeaus corpus, buried.

    Buried in the name of the war on gangs. 

    Buried in the name of the United States. 

    But people are fighting. 

    Family members are marching. 

    On May 1, International Workers Day, the family members of the detained lead the way. 

    They carry signs of the loved ones who have been ripped from them. Husbands. Sons. Brothers. Breadwinners for their families, now languishing in prisons. 

    They carry signs and images, strangely reminiscent of the pictures of those detained, killed, and disappeared during the 1970s and ’80s… in another time and another war, funded and backed by the United States. 

    Those also kidnapped in the name of the United States.

    But the Salvadorian relatives are not the only ones marching for their loved ones.

    So are Venezuelans, standing up in Caracas and other cities against the illegal deportation of their compatriots to another country far away.

    So are people in the United States.

    But family members in El Salvador are leading the way.

    They are marching. They are organizing. Demanding the freedom for their loved ones. 

    Demanding to be allowed to speak to them. 

    Demanding that there be justice.

    Resisting, despite so much impunity.

    Despite so much injustice.

    ###

    Thanks for listening. I’m your host, Michael Fox.

    I was in El Salvador for the May 1 march a couple of years ago, and did some reporting on the situation in the country and the widespread dentition of innocent people. I’ll add links in the show notes for some of my stories for The Real News. 

    This is episode 26 of Stories of Resistance — a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, I bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.

    If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, leave a review, or tell a friend. You can also check out exclusive pictures, follow my reporting, and support my work at my patreon, www.patreon.com/mfox. 

    Thanks for listening. See you next time.


    In El Salvador, thousands of innocent people have been locked up in Nayib Bukele’s crackdown on gangs. They have been held without due process for years. But family members are standing up. And on May 1 they march, carrying the pictures and the names of their innocent loved ones detained and held without rights, with the ever-increasing support of the United States. 

    This is episode 26 of Stories of Resistance — a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.

    If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. You can also follow Michael’s reporting and support at patreon.com/mfox.

    Written and produced by Michael Fox.

    Below are some links to Michael Fox’s previous reporting on this issue with The Real News.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Apr. 25, 2024. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    This is a breaking story… Please check back for possible updates…

    Federal agents arrested a sitting Wisconsin judge on Friday, accusing her of helping an undocumented immigrant evade arrest after he appeared in her courtroom last week, FBI Director Kash Patel said on social media.

    In a since-deleted post, Patel said the FBI arrested 65-year-old Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan “on charges of obstruction.”

    “We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse… allowing the subject—an illegal alien—to evade arrest,” Patel wrote. “Thankfully, our agents chased down the perp on foot and he’s been in custody since, but the judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public.”

    FBI arrests judge in escalation of Trump immigration enforcement effortFederal agents arrested Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan on obstruction charges. Dugan is accused of “helping” an immigrant evade arrest.The fascism getting turned up!

    RootsAction (@rootsaction.org) 2025-04-25T15:05:29.289Z

    It is unclear why Patel deleted the post. U.S. Marshals Service spokesperson Brady McCarron and multiple Milwaukee County judges confirmed Dugan’s arrest, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. McCarron said Dugan is facing two federal felony counts: obstruction and concealing an individual.

    The Journal Sentinel reported that Dugan “appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries during a brief hearing in a packed courtroom at the federal courthouse” and “made no public comments during the brief hearing.”

    Dugan’s attorney, Craig Mastantuono, told the court that “Judge Dugan wholeheartedly regrets and protests her arrest,” which “was not made in the interest of public safety.”

    The FBI had reportedly been investigating allegations that Dugan helped the undocumented man avoid arrest by letting him hide in her chambers.

    Here's the magistrate-signed complaint in US v. Dugan. She's charged with two counts, 18 USC 1505 and 1701; it doesn't appear they used a grand jury.

    southpaw (@nycsouthpaw.bsky.social) 2025-04-25T16:13:49.370Z

    Wisconsin state Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-19) said in a statement Wednesday that “several witnesses report that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] did not present a warrant before entering the courtroom and it is not clear whether ICE ever possessed or presented a judicial warrant, generally required for agents to access non-public spaces like Judge Dugan’s chambers.”

    Clancy continued:

    I commend Judge Hannah Dugan’s defense of due process by preventing ICE from shamefully using her courtroom as an ad hoc holding area for deportations. We cannot have a functional legal system if people are justifiably afraid to show up for legal proceedings, especially when ICE agents have already repeatedly grabbed people off the street in retaliation for speech and free association, without even obtaining the proper warrants.

    While the facts in this case are still unfolding, it’s clear that actions like Judge Dugan’s are what is required for democracy to survive the Trump regime. She used her position of power and privilege to protect someone from an agency that has repeatedly, flagrantly abused its own power. If enough of us act similarly, and strategically, we can stand with our neighbors and build a better world together.

    Prominent Milwaukee defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Franklyn Gimbel called Dugan’s arrest “very, very outrageous.”

    “First and foremost, I know—as a former federal prosecutor and as a defense lawyer for decades—that a person who is a judge, who has a residence who has no problem being found, should not be arrested, if you will, like some common criminal,” Gimbel told the Journal Sentinel.

    “And I’m shocked and surprised that the U.S. Attorney’s office or the FBI would not have invited her to show up and accept process if they’re going to charge her with a crime,” he added.

    FBI has arrested Judge Hannah Dugan in Milwaukee, WI, for "helping an illegal escape arrest." FBI hasn't provided an arrest warrant or criminal complaint, but Judge Dugan already sits behind bars.We told you it would escalate when they disappeared immigrants without due process. This is fascism.

    Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@qasimrashid.com) 2025-04-25T16:21:08.953Z

    Julius Kim, another former prosecutor-turned defense lawyer, said on the social media site X that “practicing in Milwaukee, I know Judge Hannah Dugan well. She’s a good judge, and this entire situation demonstrates how the Trump administration’s policies are heading for a direct collision course with the judiciary.”

    “That being said, given the FBI director’s tweet (since deleted), they are going to try to politicize this situation to the max,” Kim added. “That sounds an awful lot like weaponizing the DOJ, doesn’t it?”

    Responding to Dugan’s arrest, U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said on the social media site Bluesky: “The Trump admin has arrested a judge in Milwaukee. This is a red alert moment. We must all rise up against it.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • On April 12, 2015, lifelong Baltimore resident Freddie Gray was arrested, hogtied and thrown into the back of a police van by six officers. When Gray was pulled from the van less than an hour later, he was in a coma. A week later, he passed away from severe injuries to his cervical spinal cord. The incident, and the revelations thereafter, set Baltimore and the entire country ablaze. Details of the case alleged officers had taken Gray for a “rough ride,” a police brutality practice where individuals are intentionally left unrestrained in police vehicles during dangerous driving maneuvers. After a coroner ruled Gray’s death a homicide, the six officers involved in his arrest were charged with crimes ranging from false imprisonment to manslaughter. But the damage was done, not only to Gray, but to his community, which had endured decades of deprivations and abuse by Baltimore police. The resulting Baltimore Uprising shook the city and the nation to its core, fueling a fresh wave of Black Lives Matter protests building on the murders of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and Eric Garner.

    In a special 10-year anniversary documentary, TRNN reporters Stephen Janis and Taya Graham asked Baltimore organizers, activists, teachers, and residents for their reflections on Freddie Gray’s death, the subsequent uprising, and where the city is now. What did they feel when they first received news of Freddie Gray’s death? Did they have any hope the police would be held accountable, and has Baltimore City and its police department changed for the better as a result of the uprising? The following conversation is a thoughtful meditation on the long term impact of police brutality, the limitations of legislating cultural change, the power of community organizing, and the determination to still love and heal this city.

    Headquartered in Baltimore City, TRNN was on the ground when the uprising began 10 years ago. You can find an archive of our original reporting here.


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    [CROWD CHANTING]:

    While they’re smiling, we are dying. While they’re smiling, we are dying. While they’re smiling, we are dying. While they’re smiling, we are dying. While they’re smiling, we are dying. While they’re smiling, we are dying. While they’re smiling, we are dying. While they’re smiling, we are dying.

    Taya Graham:

    In 2015, 25-year-old Baltimore resident, Freddie Gray, locked eyes with a police officer. He was chased, arrested, hogtied, and thrown into the back of a van. He died a week later from severe spinal cord injuries. Baltimore City rose up to protest his death, the result of decades of aggressive over-policing. 10 years later, the real news spoke to activists and community leaders about what they remembered, how it affected them, and the impact on the community, and finally, their thoughts on the future of our city. This is what they said.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Taya Graham:

    Thank you. Thank you so much. Really appreciate that. Welcome to a special live edition-

    Taya Graham:

    Just before the uprising began, I was actually hosting a town hall with Michelle Alexander, who’s the author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Michelle Alexander:

    We maintain this attitude that we ought to be punishing those kids and teaching them a lesson by putting them in literal cages.

    Taya Graham:

    And activists and organizers from all throughout the city had joined us. Members of the ACLU, Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle. All types of community members were there, and we were actually there initially to discuss the school-to-prison pipeline, but one of the people spoke up and spoke about the video of Freddie Gray that had just been released to the public.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Adam Johnson:

    I know here in Baltimore, in particular, we’ve been dealing with the issue of police brutality for quite some time. And Freddie Gray recently, his spine was severed and he died, I think two days ago.

    Dayvon Love:

    I actually got a text from a cousin of the Tyrone West family, and I still have it, a text message that has the picture, the famous picture that we’ve all seen of Freddie Gray in hospital while he was still alive, but on life support and says, “This is Freddie Gray. This just happened and we think this is going to cause a big uproar.”

    Tawanda Jones:

    When I seen Freddie Gray getting dragged into that van, it was like opening up my brother’s casket all over again.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Eddie Conway:

    Tyrone West’s family held their 200th-week protest and demonstration, trying to demand justice for Tyrone West, who was beaten to death by a dozen police in the city and still has not received any justice.

    Tawanda Jones:

    Hearing him screaming and moan, it just took me to, with my brother moaning and groaning and screaming and hollering, he was getting beat down in the same streets in Baltimore, not in the same streets, but in the same city, and nobody being held accountable. It broke my heart and that’s when I met Freddie Gray’s mom, Ms. Gloria, and I was just telling her pretty much to hold on, just keep fighting, and I was being prayerful that he was going to survive his attack.

    D. Watkins:

    I never forget, I was over Bocek’s, Bocek Park in East Baltimore and I got a homeboy that’s like he is one of those guys that he wanted to be affiliated. Rest in peace. He’s dead. This particular day, he was outside. He was riding around the city with my homeboy daz because they was filming a video and they was on a basketball court, and he just started blacking out. He was going crazy. He was going back and forth, and I’m like, “What’s wrong?” And he was like, “The police did such and such,” to my man, and he was going through it. So, that’s how I first heard about the story.

    Michael Wilkins:

    That morning, that morning, I actually had a hearing for a parole violation down in classification on Biddle Street, I think it is in Baltimore. And when they call you in for parole hearing for a violation, if they’re calling you into the actual jail itself, it means you’re not coming up.

    Doug Colbert:

    I was supervising law students who were representing people in criminal court, and we had many cases just like Freddie Gray, where the police would react to a black person who was not showing the proper respect and decorum, and they would then chase them down and eventually apprehend them and search them. And of course, those searches would not have been constitutional legal. So, my students won most of those cases.

    Michael Wilkins:

    So, I’m at home, and I’m like, “I don’t want to go to jail today.” Who wants to go to jail? So, I’m like, “I don’t want to go to jail,” and I’m praying. And then the riots break out, shuts the whole city down.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Jaisal Noor:

    In Baltimore on Saturday, April 15th, about 1500 people took part in the largest demonstrations to date against the killing of 25-year-old West Baltimore resident, Freddie Gray in police custody.

    D. Watkins:

    When people see things on video, it brings a different type of anger than just us talking about it. That’s the first thing. The second thing is poor leadership in a police department. We never really tracked down the source of who made the decision to shut the bus lines down, but some people said it came from the state, and then some people said it came from the police department. I don’t know. But whoever made that decision is a very, very bad decision.

    Doug Colbert:

    Oh, I think what happened in terms of the video was so unusual. It’s when you see something and then you have live witnesses who can tell the story that made a huge difference, and the reaction was immediate and predictable.

    Michael Wilkins:

    It made me feel as it relates to the city that once you push any population enough, once you keep them under your thumb enough, once you continually to kick them and prod them and laugh at them and mock them, it gets unbearable after a while.

    Taya Graham:

    For years, our community had yelled out and screamed out, people are experiencing misconduct, people are experiencing brutality. We had endured 10 years of zero-tolerance policing, where corners were cleared. People were taken off blocks for loitering or expectorating, spitting in public or simply not even having your ID on you to prove that you lived in the neighborhood. I actually endured that on multiple occasions in my own neighborhood, I would have to produce ID and be questioned on who I was, where I was going, and did I belong there.

    [CROWD CHANTING]:

    No justice, no peace, no racist, police.

    Doug Colbert:

    Freddie Gray was well-known in his community, and there were a lot of Freddie Grays who had suffered the same consequences. So, when people were actually there, they were able to tell the story firsthand.

    Michael Wilkins:

    Freddie Gray, unarmed. Freddie Gray dying in the custody of police. And then the first thing the police do is try to soften the situation and then they try to devalue Mr. Gray by victimizing him, putting the blame on the victim, saying that it was his fault that he died. All that together with everything else going on, it was a powder cake and it grew up.

    [CROWD CHANTING]:

    Justice for Fred. Justice for Fred. Justice for Fred. Justice for Fred.

    Michael Wilkins:

    You have to understand the atmosphere surrounding Freddie Gray’s murder, the uprising, which grew from, you have to understand the climate.

    Jill P. Carter:

    I think zero tolerance had a lot to do with it. It’s not me just thinking that the entire Department of Justice thought so because it’s all throughout the report that led to the consent decree.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Vanita Gupta:

    EPD engages in a pattern or practice of making unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests.

    Jill P. Carter:

    So, it absolutely did. How does it not? How do you have 100,000 people in a city of 600,000 people? Many of them are not even eligible for arrest because they’re either super old or super young. So, you take out, out of the 600, you got what, 300 or 400 that are actually maybe arrest eligible or likely, and then you got a hundred thousand people arrested each year, each year.

    Michael Wilkins:

    Nothing is in a bottle, you know what I mean? Nothing is isolated, you know what I mean? It’s like a silo with wheat flurries going through it. All it takes is a spark for that silo to ignite. It’s like being at a gas pump and the fumes in the air and you light a cigarette, the pump might blow. So, the fumes, in this case, the wheat flurries in this case of the silo of Baltimore was the policing, was the attitude of the police.

    Jill P. Carter:

    I think that the ongoing confusion that people have, as well, when those arrests were coming, wasn’t that what was needed? Well, no, because those were also years that we had astronomical homicide numbers and astronomical violent crime numbers and astronomical shootings that didn’t lead to homicides.

    Dayvon Love:

    Whenever I talk about the Baltimore case, I just, I point viewers or people talking to two figures. One figure is spending on parks and rec, and the other is spending on policing, starting in 1980. I think in 1980, parks and rec spending was like $35, $45 million parks and rec spending in 2015 was $35, $45 million. Policing was maybe, I think 140 million, policing by 2015 was three times, that was approximately 430, 440 million. Now, it’s above, I think, it’s maybe 500, 550 if not more. And then you look at where that spending goes, that spending goes into a martial approach to policing.

    Some of the factors that I think led to the uprising is that law enforcement is a very insular industry, and the way that the system of white supremacy operates in this society is that there’s a fundamental disregard for the humanity of people of African descent. And that manifests itself in the notion that the community having oversight of law enforcement and light respectable “political establishment society” is seen as ridiculous.

    Taya Graham:

    The fuel, the gasoline was all the crimes that had gone unpunished. And when I’m speaking of these crimes, I’m talking about police crimes, Baltimore City police crimes against our community.

    Dayvon Love:

    Because I remember talking to a reporter at the time for whom I mentioned this concept of community oversight of law enforcement and young white women whose response was almost like she found it a little bit of a stretch.

    D. Watkins:

    If I walk out here right now and you put a gun on me and rob me, the last thing on my mind is going to be, “Call the police.” I’m never going to think that unless I had something that was insured and I was like, “Oh, I can get that bread back.” Then I might be like, “All right, back, call the police.” But other than that, if I can’t get my stuff back or figure it out, then that person was meant to have whatever they took and that’s just theirs. That’s just what it is.

    Dayvon Love:

    But I’m mentioning that because when you think about all the structural forces that in terms of socioeconomic denigration, lack of access to resources, disempowerment of community, when you have all those factors, the community doesn’t have the levers that it needs to be able to push back against police abuse.

    Lester Spence:

    Yeah. So at that point, what happens is when an event happens that people didn’t predict, and remember, I didn’t predict, I do this, but I didn’t really predict it. So when something happens that people can’t predict something explosive like this, it disrupts everything. It disrupts alliances. It disrupts institutions. It disrupts the solutions that people routinely believe should be applied to political problems.

    Jill P. Carter:

    I was infuriated. So the arrest and ultimate death of Freddie Gray literally happened days after the conclusion of the 2015 legislative session. And that was a session where for the second time in a row, 2014 and 2015, I had proposed a multitude of different pieces of legislation that would do things to create police reform.

    Dayvon Love:

    So police, in many respects could run rough shot as a result of that, the community not having those mechanisms of accountability because they’re fundamentally politically disempowered given the society that we live in.

    Jill P. Carter:

    One of the ones that I thought was really important was we’ve ultimately passed something similar now, but whistleblower protection so that officers would be free to report on other misconduct within their institutions and other officers and even their leadership without fear of repercussion. This happened a number of times and there were a lot of different mothers testifying. And why was that painful? Because my colleagues within the legislature just didn’t seem to care.

    Michael Wilkins:

    I don’t think that people really realize that nobody on the corner wants to be on the corner. Whoever’s doing bad, selling drugs, shooting people, robbing people, nobody wants to do that. That’s the reality of it. And if anybody comes and says, “Look, we’re going to help you find a job, that’s all that they want.” You think some man wants to go home to his girlfriend and two kids after spending all day on a corner, hustling drugs?

    Doug Colbert:

    And what then happened is that three nights a week, they did drug suites or gun suites or whatever arrest, whoever was on the street on a Sunday, Tuesday, or Thursday, if those were the three nights would be arrested.

    Jill P. Carter:

    Those were the years, the O’Malley years where everybody wasn’t safe outside of their home. You are sitting on your steps on your porch, you’re in your backyard, you’re on your street, you’re on your corner, just being present and being black could often result in an arrest without charges. So out of those 100,000 or so arrests every year, at least 1/3 were without charges, meaning we had no reason to legitimately arrest you.

    Michael Wilkins:

    Is directly proportionate to these men having jobs now. And we’re talking about a very impoverished area. People in trouble with the law already. And from personal knowledge, I can tell you how difficult it is to have a criminal record, a felony record, and not being able to find a job. I mean, there’s a lot of despair involved in that. There’s a lot of give up in that. I mean, you talk about taking a knee, try going to an interview, getting hired, and then a week later getting fired because your background record comes back. People get tired of that. So the easier path, is just to go on the corner. I can make 75, $100 a day hanging on the corner for 8 hours, and that’s enough that they’ll get me by until tomorrow.

    Doug Colbert:

    And I remember having a conversation with the mayor because we happened to both belong to the downtown athletic club. Baltimore is a very small town, and I’m going, “Martin, these arrests are not legit.” He says, “We got five guns off the street, that’s five less people that are going to be in danger.” I said, “But the other 95 people should never have been arrested in the first place.” He said, “Well, they shouldn’t have been out in the street.” I said, “Martin, they have fines that they didn’t pay.”

    Lester Spence:

    I think when Martin O’Malley was mayor, I think over a three-year period, he made more arrests than Baltimore had black citizens. So each of those arrests ends up leaving a mark. Leaves a mark on the individual, leaves a mark on that individual’s family. And as much as those arrests are concentrated in certain types of neighborhood, it leaves marks on those neighborhoods.

    Taya Graham:

    So the protests had been going on for days, and Marilyn Mosby calls a press conference. So at the time, everyone was a little bit nervous. No one was sure what was going to be said, but we knew it was going to be important.

    Michael Wilkins:

    And you have a brand new city-state’s attorney, Marilyn Mosby, who nobody thought would win, who was an extreme outsider fighting against the system just being a black woman and running for city-state’s attorney. And she wanted to show that she was different.

    Taya Graham:

    So she calls a press conference in front of the War Memorial, and it seemed like the entire world was there. There were reporters from across the country, and even international reporters were there to listen to what SAO Marilyn Mosby had to say.

    Marilyn Mosby:

    First and foremost, I need to express publicly my deepest sympathies for the family of the loved ones of Mr. Freddie Gray. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Gray’s family to discuss some of the details of the case and the procedural steps going forward. I assured his family that no one is above the law and that I would pursue justice on their behalf to the thousands of city residents, community organizers, faith leaders, and political leaders that chose to march peacefully throughout Baltimore, I commend your courage to stand for justice. The findings of our comprehensive, thorough and independent investigation coupled with the medical examiner’s determination that Mr. Gray’s death was a homicide which we received today, has led us to believe that we have probable cause to file criminal charges. The statement of probable cause is as follows.

    Lester Spence:

    So Marilyn Moseley was one of the beneficial… It’s complicated, but her election was one of the beneficial consequences of organizing. She had far less money, if any, than her person she was running against, and she ran on the platform of holding police accountable.

    Taya Graham:

    City state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby walks out to the memorial and she drops a bomb that she’s charging all six officers. As much as it was what people in the community wanted, I think we were all shocked that was actually really happening.

    Speaker 21:

    This morning at seven o’clock, I said, on one of the national networks that I would trust, whatever Marilyn Mosby did. I didn’t know that a decision would be coming down today. And the other thing that I said was this, that I believe with all my heart that she would take the facts, once she did all the research she needed to do, size it up with the law and make the right decision. And I said this morning before I knew any of this, that whatever her decision would be because of her integrity and the fact that I believe in her, that I would accept that decision.

    Tawanda Jones:

    I was so shocked that Marilyn Mosby stood up because I never saw a state prosecutor stand up and say, “You know what? You all hold your peace while I get accountability, gave the greatest speech that I have ever heard.”

    [VIDEO CLIP] Marilyn Mosby:

    To the youth of this city, I will seek justice on your behalf. This is a moment. This is your moment. Let’s ensure that we have peaceful and productive rallies that will develop structural and systemic changes for generations to come.

    Tawanda Jones:

    And I’m like, “Oh my God.” I’m at work. I’m in tears. I didn’t know, because I’m thinking in my mind, “Nobody’s going to be charged. They didn’t charge nobody in my brother case.” But when she came out with those words, I’m like, “Oh my God,” and that speech was profound. I’m like, yes,

    D. Watkins:

    I know it didn’t make her a lot of friends, but at the same time, it made her a hero to a lot of people. So a lot of people, they still talk about that, but on one side, and then a lot of people on the other side can’t stand her for that.

    Michael Wilkins:

    She wanted to show that her constituency matter to her. That she was going to stand up for them and with them, because she is part of them and she charged them. She charged those officers like they should be charged.

    Doug Colbert:

    What prosecutor state’s attorney Mosby did, which she really has never gotten the full credit for, is that she handled that case so differently from the way that most criminal prosecutions against police officers would take place. So in the first instance, she did not allow the police to investigate police officers because the outcome of that situation, not just here in Baltimore but throughout the country, was that there would never be charges filed.

    Taya Graham:

    But as soon as she announced those charges, the pushback from law enforcement began even before the trial. There were, let’s say, advocates on behalf of the law enforcement industrial complex in Baltimore city that were going on CNN, lawyers who were calling her juvie league and saying that she was rushing to judgment. There was an entire media blitz to discredit Mosby from the very beginning of her actually announcing those charges, let alone the trial itself.

    Doug Colbert:

    Steve, I think what people forget is how close the prosecution came to convicting Officer Porter, who was the first to go on trial. As I recall, the jury went out late Monday afternoon, probably around four o’clock if I recall, and they deliberated very little on Monday. They had a full day on Tuesday. On Wednesday, they sent a note to the judge in the afternoon saying that they had not reached a verdict, and the judge had Thursday, there was a holiday weekend coming up, as I remember. The judge easily could have allowed them to deliberate some part of Thursday at least to see if they could have resolved their difference. Surprisingly, the judge did not do so, and that’s when the mistrial took place. But I think that outcome really scared the bejesus out of the police union because they saw how close a jury of 12 people came to convicting the first officer.

    Taya Graham:

    I sat in that courtroom, and I can tell you, even though there had been a lot of chatter about how Judge Williams was going to be a fair judge, he was an honest judge and a forthright judge. When I was sitting in that courtroom, I couldn’t help but feel like the fix was in.

    Dayvon Love:

    So I think the officers that participated in arresting Freddie Gray that ultimately led to his death, them being clear, is, I think, a little complicated. There is a natural relationship between the prosecutor and law enforcement. So in some ways there’s an inherent structural mismatch between the notion of a prosecutor holding police accountable, and having the tools that when a prosecutor decides to do that, having the tools to do that, because you need law enforcement in order to do the investigations, in order to hold them accountable.

    D. Watkins:

    And I tell people, I don’t claim to be an expert on anything, but it is hard to be a revolutionary, identify as a revolutionary, and work as a prosecutor. If you want to be loved by the masses, you got to go be a public defender.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Marilyn Mosby:

    There were individual police officers that were witnesses to the case, yet were part of the investigative team, interrogations that were conducted without asking the most poignant questions, lead detectives that were completely uncooperative and started a counter investigation to disprove the state’s case by not executing search warrants pertaining to text messages among the police officers involved in the case.

    Dayvon Love:

    So in terms of them being cleared, for me, it is a result of the structural mismatch between the fact that law enforcement in many respects, as a matter of policy, had developed a structure where they’re the only ones that could investigate. And so with just the culture of the blue wall of silence, it makes it nearly impossible

    Michael Wilkins:

    When those cops, when those six policemen were exonerated, I don’t want to sound cliche, but it was just deflation. It was an air balloon with the oxygen being turned off. But at the same time, I’m old enough and I’m wise enough to realize that police is a very powerful beast with a very powerful ying and a very long reach. And they stay together, they stick together. There’s not too many juries and judges around that’s going to facilitate willfully their incarceration.

    Dayvon Love:

    And there are ways that both her deciding to indict those officers and prosecute marked her in ways that was detrimental to her and her family. But it was a net positive to have a person in that seat who took the positions that she ended up having to take. It was a net positive. I think it helped us on police accountability, juvenile justice. Her being there really helped in some of the policy work that we’ve done on a lot of relevant issues. And I think the targeting of her in many ways was not just about her, the individual. It was about her policy platform and pushing back against it.

    Taya Graham:

    So after the Uprising, the Baltimore City government makes a really extraordinary choice, and that choice was to give a billionaire a $600 million tax break to build out Port Covington.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Stephanie Rawlings-Blake:

    So my office began working with Sagamore Development months ago to make sure that all of the people of Baltimore benefited from Port Covington.

    Lester Spence:

    And as much as that’s all occurring within a dynamic in which Baltimore is being hollowed out in social service provision, and they’re giving tax breaks to a combination of high income earners and then to either corporate actors like Under Armour or even like my employer, like Hopkins, who doesn’t pay taxes, it ends up creating this hollowed out city in which I think the word that comparative politics or IR scholars would use to describe Baltimore if it were a nation, I think the term is Garrison State. It’s a state in which most of its governing resources are put into policing.

    Taya Graham:

    This tax break of $600 million going to a billionaire is going to allow him to build out Port Covington, also now known as the Baltimore Peninsula. Now, this area is isolated from the rest of Baltimore City, so the amenities, the luxury apartments, the Under Armour headquarters, none of this is actually going to benefit city residents.

    Lester Spence:

    The degree to which there were some actors who were able to benefit far more than others, and that in some ways, even though the priorities shifted, they didn’t shift, they shifted, right? So they shift a little bit, but not enough where giving a $600 million basically tax write off to a major development actor wasn’t deemed to be abnormal. It was still business as usual.

    Tawanda Jones:

    Again, it’s just a capitalist system that perpetuates off of poor people and use our paying for its game, just like they built a Freddie Gray community center. What is the Freddie Gray community center? How is it helping black and brown folks, or needy folks? What is it doing? Do anybody know what is it doing?

    Jill P. Carter:

    Where you spend your money is indicative of your priorities and your moral code, your moral compass. So if you’re spending your resources or expending resources to help billionaires while you have neighborhoods of people starving, that shows you the priorities. And that’s indicative of the leadership of the city that’s always been in place. I’m born and raised in Baltimore, and I wasn’t always astute about decisions of leadership and how they affected everyone, but when you look at the entire history of the city, we’ve always had leadership and an establishment that feeds the rich and starves the poor.

    D. Watkins:

    Freddie Gray got robbed by one of those settlement companies. You’re supposed to get a lead check for like a half a million dollars, and they come through with like 15, 20 cash, it was something criminal like that. So it’s like you’re being preyed upon by the people at the corner store, you’re getting preyed upon by the payday loan people, you’re getting preyed upon by some of the ripoff preachers. So many different people are just picking at you, and you got to exist in that reality. And then you got a world of people speaking on your behalf, and they don’t fuck with you either, in a real way.

    Tawanda Jones:

    It’s the haves and the have-nots. They take care of what they want to take care and neglect what they want to neglect. And the saddest part, they get more money in the city than they do anywhere else. And then they take our money and run with it, and take care of what they want to take care of, and leave people in food deserts, leave them. It is the same exact way. And in fact, it’s getting worse.

    Taya Graham:

    It was a hastily called press conference at City Hall. Mayor Catherine Pugh, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Police Commissioner Kevin Davis announced they had reached an agreement over how to reform the Baltimore City Police Department.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Catherine Pugh:

    I want to say that the agreement recognizes that the city’s Baltimore Police Department has begun some critical reform, however, there is much more to be done.

    Taya Graham:

    A process that started last year with the release of a damning report that revealed the Baltimore City Police engaged in unconstitutional and racist policing. But the devil was in the details. Among them, a civilian oversight taskforce charged with assessing and recommending changes to the city’s civilian review process, requirements that suspects are seatbelted when transported, and that cameras are installed in all vans. It also included additional training and emphasis on de-escalation tactics.

    Doug Colbert:

    The federal consent decree is the best thing that has happened in legal circles since Freddie Gray’s killing. And I say that because once you have a federal judge monitoring police behavior and police conduct, and Judge Bredar, another unsung hero has been doing so for the last, what, eight years, and he doesn’t just bring people in to pat them on the back. He’s always demanding, “What are you doing to control that practice?”

    Dayvon Love:

    So what I’m about to say is not super popular. So initially when the consent decree was conceived, I wasn’t super excited about it. And I think sometimes people say “consent decree”, but aren’t even entirely clear structurally what it is. It is in essence an agreement between the federal government and local jurisdiction that we would sue you, but we won’t unless you meet these certain standards and obligations in order to withdraw any potential legal action. So that is in essence structurally what a consent decree is. And so the consent decree doesn’t impact policy as much as it impacts the internal practices of the institution of the police department.

    Jill P. Carter:

    Right on the heels of the consent decree, there’s an entire unconstitutional lockdown because an officer is possibly shot and killed in one of the neighborhoods.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Jill P. Carter:

    The idea of making people understand that we understand that we’re valuable, I think that the message of what they did because of the detective’s homicide or potential homicide versus the lack of that kind of action with the other 60 or so people that were killed in West Baltimore this year.

    [VIDEO CLIP] Speaker:

    The second day when this was locked down, this board should have went to the media and said, “You’re in violation.”

    Jill P. Carter:

    Now every day, there are people that are not officers that are shot and killed, and we don’t have lockdowns of entire neighborhoods. That shows you that the priorities were no different even after the consent decree.

    D. Watkins:

    These questions are really complex, and it’s hard to give a straight answer, and I’m going to tell you why. If I’m living as an outlaw, I don’t give a fuck about a consent decree. I’m an outlaw, I’m not thinking about that shit. I’m not even watching… I love Debra Wynn, I’m not watching them talk about the dissent decree. You know what I’m saying? So it’s not even a part of my reality. So there’s nobody who’s like, “Yo, I’m going to be a bigger criminal because the police officers are nice now.”

    Doug Colbert:

    At that time, the police were still being extremely aggressive. The Gun Trace Task Force had been in effect and operating for probably six years. And so on the street, people knew about the hitters. I mean, they would just jump out of their car and they would go after whoever they wanted. And there was no regulation, there was no supervision.

    Michael Wilkins:

    For years, very passive, and it was part of that, them not working for the city and working for Marilyn Mosby, they would just not do it. And I believe that it was a complete call of duty for them not to perform their duties and tasks. I really strongly believe that.

    Taya Graham:

    I recently went to Gilmore Homes in order to speak to residents, and I have to be quite straight with you that it doesn’t look that much different than it did in 2015 when I was reporting from Gilmore Homes. Even as I was standing on the playground, there was a woman there picking up broken glass so the children wouldn’t be injured. As I looked across the street from the playground, I saw that the row houses that were connected, one of them was burned out in the middle. I mean, imagine having your home connected to a completely burned out and abandoned home.

    Dayvon Love:

    So I think what has happened in the 10 years since the death of Freddie Gray and the Baltimore uprising, it’s mixed. I think that one of the biggest outcomes of the uprising was that I think there was recognition of the demand for more black community control of institutions and more investment in black folks’ capacity collectively to have control of major institutions.

    Doug Colbert:

    We have to be investing in our schools, we have to be investing in our kids. It’s not that complex. And it doesn’t mean we’re going to succeed for everyone. And if we succeeded for half of the people, that would be enormous, because that would set an example for the other half. Right now, once you get a criminal record, once you get a criminal conviction, your chances of getting a good job have decreased considerably. In wealthy neighborhoods, we often will give enormous tax benefits, and that makes it, I guess, the profit-

    And that makes it, I guess, the profit margin higher. But we’re talking about a city which has a very high poverty rate and a very high low income rate. And we’re just neglecting so many people.

    Michael Wilkins:

    No, it hasn’t changed and it won’t change. It won’t ever change. That’s the hood, that’s the ghetto. That’s where lower income Black folks are relegated to. That’s their designation. That’s their station. That’s where they’re from. That’s the way it will always be. Gilmor Homes, that whole West Baltimore area is huge. So to change the whole area, you have to change that huge amount of real estate and space. And what are you going to do? What developer is going to walk in there and step on those? And then what do you do with the people when you try to redevelop it? So no, it’s not going to change. It hasn’t changed. Nothing’s changed. Poverty is poverty. Poverty is necessary, some people believe, and Gilmor Homes faces the brunt of that belief.

    Jill P. Carter:

    It’s possible that 10 years ago, if you had asked me if I thought that was possible or if I had some optimism about what might happen, I probably would’ve said yes. But 10 years later, having watched what has occurred since then, no, I’m not surprised at all. There’s no real interest in… There’s a belief that the people that have been ignored, neglected, deprived, criminalized, demonized, are always going to be that way and it’s just okay. We got to always have some group of people that we can just prey on. Do you know what I mean? Do I think anyone in leadership is that crass or that insensitive? No, but it’s a subconscious kind of thinking.

    Dayvon Love:

    The decline in homicides and non-fatal shootings the last few years in Baltimore City I think is one of the most important things to discuss and I think it has national implications.

    Doug Colbert:

    In some ways, we certainly have improved. I always like to start with the positive, especially in these times when sometimes it’s difficult to find positive, but our murder rate has decreased almost in half. I mean, whoever expected it would ever go under 200. And that reflects maybe a different approach to policing. I don’t get as many complaints or reports from citizens. I’m not saying they don’t happen, but I used to get regular calls, “We need your help. We need you to look at this.”

    Dayvon Love:

    So let’s just start with just the facts of where we are. Baltimore City Police Department for the past several years has said that it has a shortage of officers. So they’re having trouble recruiting officers, retaining officers, and therefore they will claim numbers between maybe 500 to almost sometimes, let’s say, a thousand short in terms of police officers in Baltimore City. What has happened simultaneously are precipitous declines and homicides and non-fatal shootings. So the argument that we have a police shortage, but homicides and non-fatal shootings go down that the case that makes is that law enforcement is not central to addressing public safety. The historic investments, and this is where the current mayor, Brandon Scott, should get a lot of credit. One of the first mayors to make the level of historic investments and community-based violence prevention. And what that means pretty simply is investing in people who are formerly involved in street activity, clergy that are really engaged and on the ground level, and a variety of other practitioners from the community and historic investments in their work to mediate conflicts, to prevent conflicts.

    Jill P. Carter:

    I do give credit to some of the violence intervention efforts that have sprung up since Freddie Gray and definitely since George Floyd. I don’t just give credit to the grassroots and neighborhood-based organizations actually to some of the political leaderships credit, they’ve funded and resource some of these organizations in ways they never had before. That is helpful, 100% helpful. But I also believe that I don’t understand why nobody ever looks at the decrease in population as well. You’re always going to have lower numbers if you have less, fewer people. What I would like to see it change, I would like the same way that it protects white folks. I would like for it protect brown and Black folks too, the same way it gives white privilege, we need Black privilege. That’s what I would like.

    Michael Wilkins:

    I think 10 years post Freddie Gray uprising, I think it has changed the city in the sense that the residents feel a certain compatriotism, they feel tied to each other. They feel as though they’re a collective, that they can move as one, that they can achieve goals, that if they stick together, if they hang together, if they are together, then they can move forward.

    D. Watkins:

    Invest in the residents, not just with money, but with ideas and that main idea being that this city is yours. It’s yours. You should love it and you should nurture it and you should take care of it because you can own a piece of it too. This is your city. It’s not a place where you rent. It’s not a place where you’re visiting. It’s not a place where you’re here until something tragic happens to you, this is yours.

    Taya Graham:

    Looking back 10 years after the uprising, I have a hope I didn’t before. And that’s because I have seen community organizers and activists and just community members actually feel like if they raise their voices, they can be heard. And I have seen incredible work from our community organizers going to the Maryland legislature asking for reform, crafting legislation.

    Doug Colbert:

    The criminal justice system always can be improved, always, but there are signs at least that lawyers are fighting for their clients. I always want them to fight harder for their clients. So we have a place to start. And if we can just keep adding to that and adding more resources to all of those different areas, I think we’re going to have a bright future.

    Dayvon Love:

    I think for me to overcome the narrative so that people aren’t freaked out by Black folks that are self-determined and that taking that posture doesn’t mean I dislike white people, but it is clear that there is no form of freedom where me being self-determined should be a threat to the space if folks are serious about liberation.

    Jill P. Carter:

    I’m always going to have hope because I’m always going to want to see people do better. I’m always going to want to see political leadership be better for all the people. But at this moment, I could honestly say I’ve been disappointed for the most part in what I’ve seen. But there’s always hope. Let me tell you, every generation there’s something that happens, some events that kind of galvanizes people around. And so I’m sure that there will be things in the future who’ll do the same thing.

    D. Watkins:

    Obviously we know a lot of people didn’t care when it happened and they don’t care now. A lot of people started off on their little activist journey and then they realized they weren’t going to get no bread, so they went and did something else. But there’s a whole lot of people who remember that, who remember those curfews, who remember seeing those tanks, who remember what happened, and they started moving differently as a result. And I think that’s important too. I’ve known some people that have passed and didn’t really have an opportunity to mobilize a city like that. I think his life mattered and I think his life put a whole lot of people on the journey towards being better people.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • One year ago, Columbia University became ground zero for the student-led Gaza solidarity encampment movement that spread to campuses across the country and around the world. Now, Columbia has become ground zero for the Trump administration’s authoritarian assault on higher education, academic freedom, and the right to free speech and free assembly—all under the McCarthyist guise of rooting out “anti-semitism.” From Trump’s threats to cancel $400 million in federal grants and contracts with Columbia to the abduction of international students like Mahmoud Khalil by ICE agents, to the university’s firing and expulsion of Student Workers of Columbia-United Auto Workers union president Grant Miner, “a tremendous chilling effect” has gripped Columbia’s campus community. In this urgent episode of Working People, we speak with: Caitlin Liss, a PhD candidate in history at Columbia University and a member of Student Workers of Columbia-UAW (SWC); and Allie Wong, a PhD student at the Columbia Journalism School and a SWC member who was arrested and beaten by police during the second raid on the Gaza solidarity protests at Columbia on April 30, 2024.

    Additional links/info:

    Permanent links below…

    Featured Music…

    • Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song

    Studio Production: Maximillian Alvarez
    Post-Production: Jules Taylor


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Alright. Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network and is brought to you in partnership within these Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like you. My name is Maximillian Alvarez and today we are continuing our urgent coverage of the Trump Administration’s all out assault on our institutions of higher education and the people who live, learn and work there. Today we are going deeper into the heart of authoritarian darkness that has gripped colleges and universities across the country and we’re talking with two graduate student workers at Columbia University. Columbia has become ground zero for the administration’s gangster government style moves to hold billions of dollars of federal funding hostage in order to bend universities to Donald Trump’s will to reshape the curricula culture and research infrastructure of American higher ed as such and to squash our constitutionally protected rights to free speech and free assembly, all under the McCarthy’s guise of rooting out supposed antisemitism, which the administration has recategorized to mean virtually any criticism of an opposition to the state of Israel.

    The political ideology of Zionism and Israel’s US backed genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians just one year ago. Columbia University was also ground zero for the student-led Palestine solidarity protests and encampments that spread to campuses across the country and even around the world. It was exactly one year ago that the first Gaza solidarity encampment began at Columbia on April 17th, 2024 and that same month on more than one occasion, Columbia’s own president at the time minutia authorized the NYPD to descend on campus like an occupying force, beat an arrest protestors and dismantle the camps. Now fast forward to March of this year. On Friday, March 7th, the Trump administration announced that it was canceling $400 million in federal grants and contracts with Columbia claiming that the move was due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students. The very next day, March 8th Mahmud, Khalil was abducted by ICE agents at his New York City apartment building in front of his pregnant wife and disappeared to a Louisiana immigration jail.

    Khalil, a Palestinian born legal resident with a green card had just completed his master’s program and was set to graduate in May. He had served as a key negotiator with the university administration and spokesperson for the student encampment last year. He’s not accused of breaking any laws during that time, but the Trump administration has weaponized a rarely used section of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, invoking the Secretary of States power to deport non-citizens if they supposedly believed their presence in the country could negatively affect US foreign policy. Just days after Khalil’s abduction, the university also expelled grant minor president of the Student Workers of Columbia Union, a local of the United Auto Workers, and that was just one day before contract negotiations were set to open between the union and the university. On March 13th, I was expelled from Columbia University for participating in the protest movement against the ongoing genocide in Gaza, minor rights in an op-ed for the nation.

    I was not the only one. He continues, 22 students, all of whom like me had been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing, were either expelled, suspended for years or had their hard earned degrees revoked on the same day all for allegedly occupying a building that has been occupied at least four times throughout Columbia’s history. And then there’s Y Sao Chung, a 21-year-old undergraduate and legal permanent resident who is suing the government after ICE moved to deport her, following her arrest on March 5th while protesting Columbia’s disciplinary actions against student protestors. I mean, this is just a small, terrifying snapshot of the broader Orwellian nightmare that has become all too real, all too quickly at Columbia University and it is increasingly becoming reality around the country and things got even darker last week with the latest development in Mahmood Khalil’s case as the American Civil Liberties Union stated on Friday in a decision that appeared to be pre-written, an immigration judge ruled immediately after a hearing today that Mahmud Khalil is removable under US immigration law. This comes less than 48 hours after the US government handed over the evidence they have on Mr. Khalil, which included nothing more than a letter from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that made clear Mr. Khalil had not committed a crime and was being targeted solely based on his speech. He’s not yet scheduled for deportation.

    Listen, this isn’t just a redux of McCarthyism and the red scare. It has elements of that absolutely, but it is also monstrously terrifyingly new. I don’t know how far down this road we’re going to go. All I know is that whatever comes next will depend on what people of conscience do now or what they don’t do. Will other universities cave and capitulate to Trump as quickly as Columbia has? Will we see instead faculty, staff, students, grad students, parents, community members and others coming together on campuses across the country to fight this or will fear submission silence and self-censorship went out? What is it even like to be living, working and studying at Columbia University right now? Well, today you’ll hear all about that firsthand from our two guests. With all of this going on, I got to speak with Caitlin Liss, a PhD candidate in history at Columbia University and a member of Student workers of Columbia, and I also spoke with Alie Wong, a PhD student at the Columbia Journalism School, and a student workers of Columbia member who was arrested and beaten by police during the second raid on the Gaza solidarity protests at Columbia on April 30th, 2024.

    Here’s my conversation with Caitlin and Allie recorded on Saturday April 12th. Well, Caitlin, Allie, thank you both so much for joining us today on the show. I really appreciate it, especially in the midst of everything going on right now. And I basically wanted to start there and ask if you could tell us from your own firsthand experience as student workers at Columbia, like what is the mood on campus and in your life right now, especially in light of the latest ruling on Mahmud Khalil’s case?

    Caitlin Liss:

    Okay. Yeah, so thank you for having us. I’m happy to be here. The mood on campus has been, you probably won’t be surprised to hear pretty bleak, pretty bad. We found out yesterday that Mahmood Kalila is not going to be released from jail in Louisiana. I think a lot of us were hoping that this ruling that was coming up was going to be in his favor and he would be released and be back home in time to be there for the birth of his baby. And it didn’t happen. And I think it’s just another horrible thing that has happened in a month, two months of just unrelenting bad news on campus. So stuff is feeling pretty bad. People are afraid, especially international students are afraid to leave their house. They’re afraid to speak up in class. I hear from people who are afraid to go to a union meeting and even those of us who are citizens feel afraid as well.

    I mean, I wake up every day and I look at my phone to see if I’ve gotten a text message telling me that one of my friends has been abducted. It’s really scary. And on top of the sort of personal relationships with our friends and comrades who are at risk, there’s the sense that also our careers are industry are at risk. So, and many other members of student workers of Columbia have spent many years dedicated to getting a PhD and being in academia and it’s increasingly starting to feel like academia might not exist for that much longer. So it’s feeling pretty bleak.

    Allie Wong:

    Yeah, I would definitely agree. And again, thank you so much Max for having us here. It’s a real pleasure to be able to share our stories and have a platform to do that. Yeah, I would agree. I think that there is a tremendous chilling effect that’s sunk in across the campus. And on one hand it’s not terribly surprising considering that’s the strategy of the Trump administration on the other. It is really a defeating feeling to see the momentum that we had last year, the ways that we were not only telling the story but telling it across the world that all eyes were on Columbia and we had this really incredible momentum. And so to see not just that lack of momentum, but the actual fear that has saturated the entire campus that has indiscriminately permeated people’s attitudes, whether you’re an American citizen or not, whether you’re light-skinned or not, has been something that’s been incredibly harrowing.

    I know that after Mahmood, I at least had the anticipation of quite a bit of activity, but between that ranjani the other students and Columbia’s capitulation, it actually has gone the opposite way in that while I expected there to be tons of masks on campus after Columbia agreed to have a total mask ban, there was no one when I expected to see different vigils or protests or the breakdown of silos that have emerged across the campus of different groups, whether they’re student groups or faculty groups, I’m just hoping to see some kind of solidarity there. It hasn’t, and I think it’s largely because of the chilling effect because that this is the strategy of the Trump administration and unfortunately it’s such a dire situation that I think it’s really squashed a lot of the fervor and a lot of the fearlessness that many of us had prior to this moment.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    It feels like a ice pick to the heart to hear that, especially knowing not just what we saw on campuses across the country just a year ago, but also the long tradition of campus protests and universities and higher education being a place of free speech, free thought free debate and the right to protest and lead with a moral consciousness like movements that help direct the whole of society to see that this is what is happening here now in front of all of us. And since I have so much more, I want to ask about the past month for you both on campus, but while we’re on that subject that Allie just brought up about the expectation right now, which I have heard echoed a lot of places online and offline of why aren’t there mass protests across higher ed in every state in the country right now, you would think that the generation of the sixties would do just that if Nixon had tried such a thing. And a lot of folks have been asking us why aren’t we seeing that right now? And so I wanted to ask if y’all had any thoughts on that and also if that would in your mind change things like if you saw other campuses that weren’t being targeted as intently as Columbia is, if you saw students and faculty and others protesting on behalf of what’s happening to you, would that change the mood on campus you think?

    Caitlin Liss:

    I mean that there’s a few things going on. Part of it is, like Allie said, the chilling effect of what’s been happening is making a really large percentage of our members and people in our community afraid to publicly take action. International student workers make up a really big percentage of our membership, and a lot of those people are afraid to even sign their name to a petition. In my departments. We sent a joint letter to the departments about what was going on, and a bunch of students didn’t want their names appearing on this letter that was just being sent the chair of the departments. So the chilling effect is real and very strong, and I think that that’s preventing a lot of people from showing up in ways that they might have done otherwise. I think that another part of it is just the kind of unrelenting nature of what’s been happening.

    It has been one horrible thing after another and trying to react to everything as it comes in is difficult, but I don’t think it’s the case that we’re not doing anything. We are doing quite a bit and really trying through many different avenues to use our power as a union to fight back against what’s happening. We are talking with other unions on campus, we talk to other higher ed unions across the country, and so I think that there is quite a lot going on, but it does sometimes feel like we can’t keep up with the pace of the things that are happening just because they are happening so quickly and accumulating so fast.

    Allie Wong:

    Yeah, I mean I would definitely agree. I think that it’s the fire hose strategy, which has proven to be effective not just on Columbia but across the nation with the dismantling of the federal government attack on institutions, the arts, the legal processes and legal entities. And so I think that again, that that’s part of the strategy is to just overwhelm people with the number of issues that would require attention. And I think that’s happening on Columbia’s campus as well. If we take even divestment as an example where it was a pretty straightforward ask last year, but now we’re seeing an issue on campus where it’s no longer about Palestine, Israel divestment, it’s about immigration reform and law enforcement. It’s about the American dream class consciousness. So many of these different things that are happening not just to the student body, but to faculty and the administration.

    And so I think that in terms of trying to galvanize people, it’s a really difficult ask when you have so many different things that are coming apart at the seams. And that’s not to say it’s an insurmountable task. As Caitlin mentioned, we are moving forward, we are putting infrastructure in place and asks in place, but I think it’s difficult to mobilize people around so many different issues when everyone already feels not only powerless but cynical about the ability to change things when again, that momentum that we had last year has waned and the issues have broadened.

    Caitlin Liss:

    Just in terms of your question about support or solidarity from other campuses, I think that one of the things that has been most dispiriting about being at Columbia right now is that it’s clear that Columbia is essentially a test case for the Trump administration. We were the first school to be and are still in many ways kind of the center of attention, but it’s not just us, but it feels like the way that Columbia is reacting is kind of setting the tone for what other universities and colleges can do across the country. And what Columbia is doing is folding, so they are setting an example that is just rolling over and giving up in terms of what other colleges can do. I think we’re seeing other universities are reacting to these kinds of attacks in ways that are much better than Columbia has done. We just saw that Tufts, I think filed some legal documents in support of Ru Mesa Ozturk because she is a student there.

    Columbia has done no such thing for Ranjani, for Uno, for Mahmood. They haven’t even mentioned them. And so we can see other universities are reacting in ways that are better. And I think that that gives us hope and not only gives us hope, but it gives us also something to point to when people at Columbia say, well, Columbia can’t do things any differently. It’s like, well, clearly it can because these other universities are doing something. Columbia doesn’t have to be doing this. It is making a choice to completely give in to everything that Trump is demanding.

    Allie Wong:

    And I would also add to that point, and going back to your question about Mahmood and sort of how either us individually or collectively are feeling about that, to Caitlin’s point, I think there’s so much that’s symbolic about Columbia, whether it has to do with Trump’s personal pettiness or the fact that it was kind of the epicenter of the encampments list last year. I think what happened with Mahmood is incredibly symbolic. If you look at particularly him and Ranjani, the first two that were targeted by the university, so much of their situations are almost comical in how they planned the ambiguity of policy and antisemitism where you look at Mahmud and he, it’s almost funny that he was the person who was targeted because he’s an incredibly calm, gentle person. He provided a sense of peace during the chaos of last year. He’s unequivocally condemned, Hamas, very publicly condemned terrorism, condemned antisemitism.

    So if you were looking for someone who would be a great example, he’s not really one considering they don’t have any evidence on him. And the same thing for Ranjani who literally wasn’t even in the country when October 7th happened in that entire year, had never participated in the protests at most, had kind of engaged with social media by liking things, but two really good examples of people who don’t actually quite fit the bill in terms of trying to root out antisemitism. But in my mind it’s really strategic because it really communicates that nobody is safe. Whether you’ve participated in protests or not, you’re not safe, whether you’ve condemned antisemitism or not, you’re not safe. And I think that plays into the symbolic nature of Columbia as well, where Trump is trying to make an example out of Columbia and out of Columbia students. And we see that very clearly in the ruling yesterday with Mahmud.

    Again, that’s not to say that it’s not an insurmountable thing, but it’s disappointing and it’s frankly embarrassing to be a part of an institution that brags about its long history of protests, its long history of social change through student movements. When you look at 1968 and Columbia called the NYPD on students arrested 700 students, and yet it kind of enshrines that moment in history as a place of pride, and I see that happening right now as well where 20, 30, 50 years from now, we’ll be looking at this moment and Columbia will be proud of it when really they’re the perpetrators of violence and hatred and bigotry and kind of turning the gun on their own students. So yeah, it’s a really precarious time to be a Columbia student and to be advocating for ourselves and our friends, our brothers and sisters who are experiencing this kind of oppression and persecution from our own country.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Allie, Caitlin, I want to ask if we could again take that step back to the beginning of March where things were this terrifying new reality was really ramping up with the Trump administration’s freezing and threatening of completely withholding $400 million in federal funds and grants to Columbia just one day before Mahmood Khalil was abducted by ice agents and disappeared to a jail in Louisiana thousands of miles away. So from that point to now, I wanted to ask, as self-identified student workers at Columbia University, how have you and others been feeling throughout all of this as it’s been unfolding and trying to get through your day-to-day work? What does that even look like? Teaching and researching under these terrifying circumstances?

    Allie Wong:

    For me, it has been incredibly scary. As you mentioned, I was someone who was arrested and beaten last year after the second Gaza solidarity encampment raid and have spoken quite publicly about it. I authored a number of pieces around that time and since then and have been pretty open about my involvement being okay serving as a lightning rod for a lot of that PR stuff. And so for me, coming into this iteration of students battles with the university, it’s been really scary to kind see how many of the students that I was arrested with, many of my friends and colleagues are now either being targeted because of their involvement or living in the fear of being targeted because there is an opacity around what those policies are and how they’re being enforced and implemented. So it really does feel quite McCarthys in the sense that you don’t really know what the dangers are, but you know that they’re there, you’re looking over your shoulder all the time.

    I don’t leave my house without wearing a mask just because through this whole process, many students have been doxed. Both Caitlin and myself have been doxed quite heavily through Canary mission and other groups online, and many folks have experienced offline behavior that has been threatening or scary to their own physical emotional security. And so that’s been a big piece for me is just being aware of my surroundings, being mindful of when I leave the house. In many respects, it does feel like I am growing in paranoia, but at the same time I consider it a moral obligation to be on the front lines as a light-skinned US citizen to be serving as a literal and figurative shield for my international brothers and sisters. And so it’s an interesting place as particularly a US citizen to say, what is my responsibility to the people around me?

    What’s my responsibility to myself and keeping myself and my home safe? What’s my responsibility for sticking up for those who are targeted as someone who has the privilege of being able to be a citizen? And so I think it’s kind of a confusing time for those of us on the ground wanting to do more, wanting to help, wanting to offer our assistance with the privileges that we have and everyone’s level of comfort is different, and so my expectation is not that other people would take the kinds of risks I’m taking, but everyone has a part to play and whether that’s a visual part or a non-visual part, being in the public, it doesn’t really matter. We all have a part to play. And so given what we talked about just about the strategy of the Trump administration and the objectives to make us fearful and make us not speak out, I think it’s more important now than ever for those of us who are able to have the covering of US citizenship, to be doing everything in our power with the resources we’ve been given to take those risks because it’s much more important now in this administration than it’s ever been.

    Caitlin Liss:

    And I think on top of the stuff allie’s talking about, we do still have to continue doing our jobs. So for me, that is teaching. I’m teaching a class this semester and that has been very challenging to do, having to continue going in and talking about the subject matter, which is stuff that is very interesting to me personally and that I’m very excited to be teaching about in the classroom, but at the same time, there’s so much going on campus, it just feels impossible to be turning our attention to Ana and I hear from my students are scared, so part of my job has become having to help my students through that. I have heard lots of people who are trying to move their classes off campus because students don’t want to be on campus right now.

    ICE is crawling all over campus. The NYPD is all over the place. I don’t know if you saw this, but Columbia has agreed to hire these 36 quote peace officers who are going to be on campus and have arresting power. So now essentially we have cops on campus full time and then on top of all of that, you have to wait in these horrible security lines to even get onto campus so the environment on campus doesn’t feel safe, so my students don’t feel safe. I don’t think anyone’s students feel safe right now. My colleagues who are international students don’t feel safe. I had a friend ask me what to do because she was TAing for a class and she wasn’t allowed to move it off campus or onto Zoom, and she said, I don’t feel safe on campus because I’m an international student and what am I going to do if ice comes to the door?

    I don’t know what I’m supposed to do in that situation. And so the students are scared, my colleagues are scared. I’ve even heard from a lot of professors who are feeling like they have to watch their words in the classroom because they don’t want to end up on Canary mission for having said something. So that’s quite difficult. Teaching in this environment is very difficult and I think that the students are having a really hard time. And then on top of that, I am in the sixth year of my PhD, so I’m supposed to be writing a dissertation right now, and that is also quite difficult to be keeping up with my research, which is supposed to be a big part of the PhD is producing research and it’s really hard to do right now because it feels like we have, my friends and my colleagues are at risk right now, so that’s quite difficult to maintain your attention in all those different places.

    Allie Wong:

    Just one more piece to add because I know that we’ve been pretty negative and it is a pretty negative situation, so I don’t want to silver line things. That being said, I do feel as though it’s been really beautiful to see people step up and really beautiful to see this kind of symbiotic relationship happening between US students and international students. I’m at the journalism school, which is overwhelmingly international, and I was really discouraged when there was a report that came out from the New York Times a couple of weeks ago about a closed town hall that we had where our dean, Jelani Cobb more or less said to students, we can’t protect you as much as I would love to be able to say here are the processes and protocols and the ways to keep yourself safe and the ways that we’re here to support you, but he just said we can’t.

    And he got a lot of flack for that because that’s a pretty horrible thing for a dean to say. But I actually really appreciated it because it was the most honest and direct thing he could have said to students when the university itself was just sending us barrages of emails with these empty platitudes about values and a 270 year history of freethinking and all this nonsense. That being said, I think that it was a really difficult story to read, but at the same time it’s been really beautiful to see community gather around and clinging together when there are unknowns, people taking notes for each other when students don’t feel comfortable going to campus, students starting to host off campus happy hour groups and sit-ins together and things of that nature that have been really, again, amazing to see happen under such terrible circumstances and people just wanting to help each other out in the ways that they can.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Caitlyn, Allie, you were just giving us a pretty harrowing view of your day-to-day reality there as student workers of Columbia PhD working on your PhDs and dealing with all of this Orwellian madness that we’ve been talking about today. When I was listening to you both, I was hearing so many kind of resonances from my own experience, just one sort of decade back, right? I mean, because I remember being a PhD candidate at the University of Michigan during the first Trump administration and co-founding for full disclosure, I was a member of the grad union there. I was a co-founder of the campus anti-fascist network. I was doing a lot of public writing. I started this podcast in that sort of era, and there were so many things that y’all were talking about that sounded similar from the fear of websites like Canary Mission, putting people’s names out there and encouraging them to be doxed and disciplined and even deported.

    That resonated with me because it just ate nine years ago. That was groups like Turning Point USA, they were the ones trying to film professors in class and then send it to Breitbart and hopefully get it into the Fox News outrage cycle. And I experienced some of that. But what I’m hearing also is just that the things we were dealing with during the first Trump administration are not what y’all are dealing with now. There is first and foremost a fully, the state is now part of it. The state is now sort of leading that. It’s not just the sort of far right groups and people online and that kind of thing, but also it feels like the mechanisms of surveillance and punishment are entirely different as well. I wanted to ask if y’all could speak a little more to that side of things. It’s not just the university administration that you’re contending with, you’re contending with a lot of different forces here that are converging on you and your rights at this very moment.

    Caitlin Liss:

    Yeah, I mean I think the one thing that has been coming up a lot for us, we’re used to fighting Columbia, the institution for our rights in the workplace for fair pay. And Columbia has always been a very stubborn adversary, very difficult to get anything out of them. Our first contract fight lasted for years, and now we’re looking at not just Columbia as someone to be fighting with, but at the federal government as a whole. And it’s quite scary. I think we talked about this a little bit, about international students being afraid to participate in protests, being afraid to go to union meetings. We’re hearing a lot of fear from people who aren’t citizens about to what extent participating in the union is safe for them right now. And on the one hand you want to say participating in a union is a protected activity.

    There’s nothing illegal about it. You can’t get in trouble. In fact, it’s illegal to retaliate against you for being in a union. But on the other hand, it doesn’t necessarily feel like the law is being that protective right now. So it’s a very scary place to be in. And I think that from our point of view, the main tool we have in this moment is just our solidarity with one another and labor power as a union because the federal governments does not seem that interested in protecting our rights as a union. And so we have to rely on each other in order to fight for what we need and what will make our workplace safe.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and I was wondering, Allie, if I could also toss it to you there, because this makes me think of something you said earlier about how the conditions at Columbia, the structure of Columbia, how Columbia’s run, have sort of made it vulnerable to what’s happening now or the ways that Columbia talks about itself versus what Columbia actually is, are quite stark here. And connecting that to what Caitlin just said, I think it should also be understood as someone who has covered grad student campaigns, contract campaigns at Columbia and elsewhere, that when these sorts of strikes are happening when graduate student workers are taking action against the administration, the first ones that are threatened by the administration with punitive measures including potentially the revocation of their visas are international students. They have always been the most vulnerable members of grad student unions that administrations have actually used as leverage to compel unions to bend to their demand. So I make that point speaking only for myself here as a journalist who has observed this in many other times, that this precedent of going after international students in the way the Trump administration is like didn’t just come out of nowhere.

    Allie Wong:

    Exactly. Yeah. So I mean I think if you even look at how Trump campaigned, he really doubled down on immigration policy. I mean, it’s the most obvious statement I can say, but the high hyperbole, the hatred, the racism, you see that as a direct map onto what’s happening right now. And I think that’s part of what maybe isn’t unique about Columbia, but as we’re starting to see other universities take a stand, Caitlin mentioned Tufts. I know Princeton also recently kind said that they would not capitulate. So there is precedent for something different from how Columbia has behaved, and I think you see them just playing exactly into Trump’s hands folding to his kind of proxy policy of wanting to make Colombian example. And it’s a really disappointing thing from a university that prides itself on its liberal values, prides itself on its diversity on protecting students.

    When you actually see quite the opposite, not only is Columbia not just doing anything, it’s actively participating in what’s happening on campus, the fact that they have yet to even name the students who have very publicly been abducted or chased out of the country because of their complicity, the fact that they will send emails or make these statements about values, but actually not tell us anything that’s going to be helpful, like how policies will be implemented when they’re going to be implemented, what these ice agents look like, things of that nature that could be done to protect students. And also obviously not negotiating in good faith. The fact that Grant was expelled and fired the day before we had a collective bargaining meeting right before we were about to talk about protections for international students, just communicates that the university is not operating in good faith, they’re not interested in the wellbeing of their students or doing anything within their power, which is quite a tremendous power to say to the Trump administration, our students come first. Our students are an entity of us and we’re going to do whatever we can in our power to block you from demonizing and targeting international students who, as you said, are the most vulnerable people on our campus, but also those who bring so much diversity and brilliance and life to our university and our country.

    Caitlin Liss:

    And I think on the subject of international students, you, you’re right that they have always been in a more precarious position in higher ed unions. But on the other hand, I think that that shows us what power we do have as a union. I’m thinking. So we’ve been talking a lot about to what extent it’s safe for international workers to stay involved in the union, and our contract is expiring in June, which is why we’re having these bargaining sessions and we’re talking about going on strike next fall potentially. And there’s a lot of questions about to what extent can international students participate now because who knows what kind of protections they’re going to have? And I’ve been thinking about the last time we went on strike, it was a 10 week strike and we were striking through the end of the semester. It was the fall semester and we were still on strike when the semester ended.

    And Columbia said that if we didn’t come off strike that they weren’t going to rehire the workers who were striking for the next semester. So anyone who was on strike wouldn’t get hired for a position in the spring semester and for international students that was going to affect their visa status. So it was very scary for them. And we of course said, that’s illegal. You can, that’s retaliation for us for going on strike. You can’t do that. And they said, it’s not illegal because we’re just not rehiring you. And it was this real moment of risk even though we felt much more confident in the legal protection because it felt like they could still do it and our recourse would have to be going to court and winning the case that this was illegal. So it was still very scary for international students, but we voted together to stay on strike and we held the line and Columbia did not in fact want to fire all of us who were on strike, and we won a contract anyway, even though there was this scary moment for international students even back then. And I have been telling people this story when we are thinking about protections for international students now, because I think that the moral of the story is that even under a situation where there’s a lot more legal security and legal protection, it’s still scary. And the way that you get over it being scary is by trusting that everyone coming together and standing together is what’s going to win and rather than whatever the legal protection might be.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Caitlin and Allie, I have so many more thoughts and questions, but I know that we only have about 10 minutes left here and I want to use the time that we have left with y’all to sort of tug on the thread that you were just pulling there. Caitlin, looking at this through the union’s perspective or through a labor perspective, can you frame these attacks on higher ed and the people who live, learn and work there through a labor and working workers’ rights perspective, and talk about what your message is to other union members and other people who listen to this show who are working people, union and non-union, why this is important, why they need to care and what people can do about it.

    Caitlin Liss:

    It’s very clear why it’s important and why other workers should care. The funding cuts to Columbia University and other universities really threaten not just the university, but the whole ecosystem of research. So these are people’s careers that are at risk and careers that not only they have an interest in having, but careers that benefit everyone in our society, people who do public health research, people who do medical research, people who do research about climate change. These are really important jobs that the opportunities to pursue them are vanishing. And so that obviously is important. And then when we’re looking at the attacks on international students, if m kil can be abducted for speaking out in support of Palestine and against the genocide and Gaza, then none of us are safe. No worker is safe if the governments can just abduct you and deport you for something like that.

    On the one hand, even people who aren’t citizens are protected by the first amendments, but also it’s not clear that that’s where they’re going to stop. I think that this is a moment that we should all take very seriously. I mean, it’s very serious for the future of higher education as a whole. I feel like we are in sort of an existential fight here. And at the moment, Columbia is just completely welcoming this fascist takeover with open arms and it threatens higher ed as an institution. What kind of university is this? If the Middle Eastern studies department is being controlled by some outside force who says what they can and can’t teach, and now Trump is threatening to put all of Columbia under some consent decree, so we’re going to have to be beholden to whatever the Trump administration says we’re allowed to do on campus. So it is a major threat to higher education, but it’s also a threat I think, in a much larger sense to workers all over the country because it is sending the message that none of us are safe. No one is safe to express ourselves. We can’t expect to be safe in the workplace. And it’s really important that as a labor union that we take a stand here because it is not just destroying our workplaces, but sort of it’s threatening everyone’s workplace.

    Allie Wong:

    Exactly. That’s exactly what I was thinking too. I know it’s such an overused word at this point, but I think a huge aspect of this has to do with precedent and how, as we were mentioning, Columbia is so symbolic for a lot of reasons, including the fact that all eyes are on Columbia. And so when Columbia sets a precedent for what can and cannot not be done by University of Administration in caving to the federal government, I think that sets a precedent for not just academic institutions, but institutions writ large and the workers that work in those institutions. Because what happens here is happening across the federal government and will happen to institutions everywhere. And so I think it’s really critical that we bake trust back into our systems, both trust in administrations by having them prove that they do have our backs and they do care about student workers, but also that they trust student workers.

    They trust us to do the really important research that keeps the heartbeat of this university alive. And I think that it’s going to crumble not just Columbia, but other academic institutions if really critical research gets defunded. Research that doesn’t just affect right now, but affects our country in perpetuity, in the kinds of opportunities that will be presented later in the future, the kinds of research that will be instrumental in making our society healthier and more equitable place in the future. And so this isn’t just a moment in time, but it’s one that absolutely will ripple out into history.

    Caitlin Liss:

    And we happen right now to be sort of fortunately bargaining a new contract as we speak. So like I said before, our contract is expiring in June. And so for us, obviously these kinds of issues are the top of mind when we’re thinking about what we can get in the contract. So in what way is this contract that we’re bargaining for going to be able to help us? So we’re fighting for Columbia to restore the funding cuts we’re fighting for them to instate a sanctuary campus and to reinstate grant minor, our president who was expelled, and Ronan who was enrolled, and everyone else who has been expelled or experienced sanctions because of their protests for Palestine. And so in a lot of ways, I think that the contract fight is a big part of what we’re concentrating on right now. But there’s also, there’s many unions on Columbia’s campus.

    There’s the postdoc union, UAW 4,100, there’s the support staff and the Barnard contingent faculty who are UAW 2110. There’s building service employees, I think they’re 32 BJ and the maintenance staff is TW. So there’s many unions on campus. And I think about this a lot because I think what we’re seeing is we haven’t mentioned the trustees yet, I don’t think, but recently our interim president, Katrina Armstrong stepped down and was replaced by an acting president, was the former co-chair of the board of trustees Claire Shipman. And in many ways, I think what we’ve been seeing happening at Columbia is the result of the board of trustees not caving, but welcoming the things that Trump is demanding. I think that they’re complicit in this, but the board of trustees is like 21 people. There’s not very many of them. And there’s thousands of us at Columbia who actually are the people who make the university work, the students, the faculty, the staff, thousands of people in unions, thousands of non-unionized students and workers on campus as well.

    And we outnumber the trustees by such a huge amount. And I think that thinking about the power we have when we all come together as the thousands of people who do the actual work of the university as opposed to these 21 people who are making decisions for us without consulting us that we don’t want, and that’s the way we have to think about reclaiming the university. I think we have to try and take back the power as workers, as students, as faculty from the board of trustees and start thinking about how we can make decisions that are in our interests.

    Allie Wong:

    One more thing that I wanted to call out, I’m not sure where this fits in. I think Caitlin talking about the board of trustees made me think of it is just the fact that I think that another big issue is the fact that there’s this very amorphous idea of antisemitism that all of this is being done under the banner of, and I think that it’s incredibly problematic because first of all, what is antisemitism? It’s this catchall phrase that is used to weaponize against dissent. And I think that when you look at the track record of these now three presidents that we’ve had in the past year, each of them has condemned antisemitism but has not condemned other forms of racism, including an especially Islamophobia that has permeated our campus. And because everything is done under the banner of antisemitism and you have folks like Claire Shipman who have been aligned with Zionist organizations, it also erodes the trust in of the student body, but then especially student workers, many of whom are Jewish and many of whom are having their research be threatened under the banner of antisemitism being done in their name. And yet it’s the thing that is stunting their ability to thrive at this university. And so I think that as we talk about the administration and board of trustees, just calling out the hypocrisy there of how they are behaving on campus, the ways that they’re capitulating and doing it under the guise of protecting Jewish students, but in the process of actually made Jewish students and faculty a target by not only withholding their funding but also saying that this is all to protect Jewish students but have created a more threatening environment than existed before.

    Caitlin Liss:

    Yeah, I mean, as a Jewish student personally, I’m about to go to my family’s Seder to talk about celebrating liberation from oppression while our friends and colleagues are sitting in jail. It’s quite depressing and quite horrific to see people saying that they’re doing this to protect Jews when it’s so clearly not the case.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, I wanted to ask in just this final two minutes that we got here, I want to bring it back down to that level to again remind folks listening that you both are student workers, you are working people just like everyone else that we talk to on this show. And I as a former graduate student worker can’t help but identify with the situation that y’all are in. But it makes me think about the conversations I had with my family when I was on the job market and I was trying to go from being a PhD student to a faculty member somewhere and hearing that maybe my political activism or my public writing would be like a mark against me in my quest to get that career that I had worked so many years for and just having that in the back of my mind. But that still seems so far away and so minuscule in comparison to what y’all are dealing with. And I just wanted to ask as act scholars, as people working on your careers as well, how are you talking to your families about this and what future in or outside of academia do you feel is still open to you and people, graduate student workers like yourselves in today’s higher ed?

    Caitlin Liss:

    I mean the job market for history, PhDs has been quite bad for a long time even before this. So I mean, when I started the PhD program, I think I knew that I might not get a job in academia. And it’s sad because I really love it. I love teaching especially, but at the end of the day, I don’t feel like it’s a choice to stop speaking up about what’s happening, to stop condemning what’s happening in Gaza, to stop condemning the fascist takeover of our government and the attacks on our colleagues. It’s just I can’t not say something about it. I can’t do nothing, and if it means I can’t get a job after this, that will be very sad. But I don’t think that that is a choice that I can or should make to do nothing or say nothing so that I can try and preserve my career if I have to. I’ll get another kind of job.

    Allie Wong:

    Yeah, I completely agree. How dare I try to protect some nice job that I could potentially have in the future when there are friends and students on campus who are running for their lives. It just is not something that’s even comparable. And so I just feel like it’s an argument a lot of folks have made that if in the future there’s a job that decides not to hire me based off of my advocacy, I don’t want that job. I want a job based off of my skills and qualifications and experience, not my opinions about a genocide that’s happening halfway across the world, that any person should feel strongly against the slaughtering of tens of thousands of children and innocent folks. If that’s an inhibitor of a potential job, then that’s not the kind of environment I want to work in anyway. And that’s a really privileged position to have. I recognize that. But I think it’s incredibly crucial to be able to couch that issue in the broader perspective of not just this horrific genocide that’s happening, but also the future of our democracy and how critical it is to be someone who is willing to take a risk for the future of this country and the future of our basic civil liberties and freedoms.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Alright, gang, that’s going to wrap things up for us this week. Once again, I want to thank our guests, Caitlin Liss and Allie Wong of Student Workers of Columbia, and I want to thank you for listening and I want to thank you for caring. We’ll see you Allall back here next week for another episode of Working People. And if you can’t wait that long, then go explore all the great work we’re doing at the Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism that lifts up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. And we need to hear those voices now more than ever. Sign up for the real new newsletter so you never miss a story. And help us do more work like this by going to the real news.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. I promise you it really makes a difference. I’m Maximilian Alvarez, take care of yourselves. Take care of each other, solidarity forever.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Mansa Musa, host of Rattling the Bars, spent 48 years in prison before his release in 2019. At the invitation of the UMD College Park Young Democratic Socialists of America, Mansa delivered a lecture on his life behind bars and the political struggles of prisoners.

    Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Mansa Musa:

    I hope that at the end of this conversation that we have, that y’all will be more enlightened about what direction y’all want to go in in terms of changing social conditions as they exist now. As she said, my government name is Charles Hopkins. I go by the name of Mansa Musa. Prior to getting out in December the 5th, 2019, I did 48 years in prison. Prior to going to prison, I was a heroin addict, a petty criminal, and that’s what got me in prison.

    I went in early, I went in ’72, and during the seventies was a tumultuous time in this country. You had Kent State, you had Attica, you had Puerto Rican nationalists taking over the hospital in Bronx, you had the rise of the Black Panther Party in terms of becoming one of the most formidable fighting formations in this country. So you had a lot going on in society, but more important, the number one thing you had going on in society during that time that cost every sector in society was the war in Vietnam. Everywhere you looked, you had protests about the war in Vietnam. And you’re talking about every day somewhere in this country, 75,000, 10,000, 15,000.

    People was coming out protesting the war in Vietnam and the establishment’s response was to suppress the movement, to suppress the war in Vietnam. Anybody who was anti-war, their attitude was suppressive. And what got people in an uproar about it was when the media started showing them bringing back United States citizens bodies, and the coffins they was bringing back, they was bringing them back in numbers. So society started looking and said, “Well, this is not a good thing because a lot of people dying.”

    And in my neighborhood, I lived in projects in Southeast, my brother in ’68, back then they had, the way they had the draft was, it was like the lottery. Literally that’s what it was. They had balls that rolled up and your number came up, A1, A1. In my neighborhood in the projects in Southeast, my brother graduated in ’68, and in 68, the whole entire, everybody that graduated from high school, the men, was gone to Vietnam. So this shaped the attitude of the country. But more importantly, a lot of people that were coming back from the war in Vietnam was radicalized. And because they experienced a lot of segregation, a lot of classes in the military, a lot of them came back and joined the Black Panther Party.

    During that period, the Black Panther Party was, according to Hoover, the number one threat in the country. So the response to them being the number one threat in the country was to eradicate them. Assassination. They killed Fred Hampton, assassinated Fred Hampton, little Bobby Hutton, they assassinated him. And they locked up a lot of Panthers. That’s how I became a Panther because they locked up a Panther named Eddie Conway, Marshal Eddie Conway. And they set him up and locked him up. And I got some information over there, y’all can pick it up when y’all leave.

    When he came, so when you got the encouragement of Panthers coming into the prison system, prisoners are becoming politicized. Petty criminals like myself are becoming politicized because now we’re looking at the conditions that we’re living under and we’re looking at them from a political perspective, like why the medical was bad, why the food is garbage, why are we in overcrowded cells? Why is this cell designed for a dog? You got two people in it.

    So these things started like resonating with people, but the Panthers started educating people about understanding, raising their consciousness about this is why these things are going on and this is what your response would be. So that got me into a space where I started reading more, because that was one of the things that we did. We did a lot of reading. You had to read one hour a day and exercise. But more importantly, you organized the population around changing their attitude about the conditions. Because up until that point, everything in prison was a kind of predatory.

    Then when you had the Attica Rebellion, that created a chain reaction through the country, with the most celebrity political prisoner in prison that got politicized in prison was George Jackson. George Jackson was a prisoner in San Quentin. He spent most of his time in what now they call solitary confinement. They call it the Adjustment Center. Back then in San Quentin. Him and three or two other political prisoners was locked up in [inaudible 00:05:06] killing a correctional officer. After the San Quentin police had killed… [inaudible 00:05:14] police had killed some prisoners in the courtyard who were wrecking. And it was a dispute between white prisoners and Black prisoners. The only prisoners that got killed was Black prisoners. So that created a chain reaction in the prison system.

    Fast forward, so this became my incursion into the political apparatus in prison. While in prison, and some of the things I did in prison, my whole thinking back then when I was in prison was I didn’t want to die in prison. I had life and I didn’t want to die in prison. So I would probably go down in the World Book of Guinness for the most failed attempted escapes ever. And if I would sit back here and go back over some of the things I did, it would be kind of comical. But in my mind, I did not want to die. I could have died, I could walk, literally come out on the other side of the fence and fall out and be dead, as long as I didn’t die in prison. It was just a thing about being [inaudible 00:06:19].

    And in 2001, a case came out in the Maryland system called Merle Unger, Unger v. State. They said anyone locked up between 1970 and 1980 was entitled to a new trial. So I was entitled to a new trial because of the way they was giving the jury instructions. So at that time, everybody was getting ready to come out. Eddie Conway was on his way out. So everybody’s coming out. Now we’re able, we did a lot of organizing in prison. We had organized political education classes, we had organized forums where we had a thing where they say, “Just say your own words.” We brought political leaders in, radicals in to talk about, had books that they had a political discussion in a forum much like this. And it changed the whole prison population thinking about the way they thought about themselves and the way they thought about themselves in relation to society. So all of us coming out now.

    And when I got out, I got out December the 5th of 2019. I got out, I had, they gave me $50 and let me out in Baltimore City. I’m from Washington D.C. They let me out in Baltimore City and I’m standing there with $50. I don’t know nothing. I don’t know how to use a cellphone, I don’t know how to get on the bus, I don’t know how to get from one corner to… I know the area because the area is the prison where the prison was at, where I lived at all my life. So I know the street name. I know this is Green Mount, I know this is Madison, I know the street, I know these streets, but I never seen, that’s like me knowing somewhere I read something about something in Paris. I know the name of the street, but put me there and I wouldn’t know what to do.

    So this is the situation I found myself in and I didn’t know what, my family knew I was coming out, but I didn’t know whether they knew this particular time. And so I got $50. I see somebody coming with a cellphone and I’m like, “Look, I got, can I use?” He said, “No, I’m going to get on the bus.” So it was an elderly woman coming off. I said, “Look, miss, I was locked up 48 years. I got $50. You can get 25 of them. I just need you to call this number and tell my people.” And I heard somebody calling from the side, was my family.

    Now I’m out. While I’m out, I’m out December the 5th of 2019. It was a major event that came right in that period, COVID. So now I’m like, I’m out in society, but really I’m back in prison because the whole country was locked down. So for most people it was a discomfort. For me, I was like, “Oh, this is all right. I can walk.” You know, I’m like basically walking, like I’m walking in, I’m coming back in. I’m not, you know, there’s not a whole lot going on, so you know. And I’m working out and people dealing with each other from afar. You see the same people, everybody like, “I see you, you have a group.” And we started having like a distant social relationship like, “Hey, how y’all doing? How you doing?” And keep it moving right?

    After I got out and when COVID peaked out, I was doing some organizing in Gilmor projects in Baltimore, and backstory on that, we had took a house in Gilmor Projects, which is exactly what it is, Gilmor and their projects. Real notorious. So we took a house, we found out it was city property, we took it, renovated it and made it community property, and we started doing stuff for the kids. Because Eddie, Eddie Conway’s attitude, he’s like, “Kids don’t have no light in their face. It’s real dark.” So we started doing Easter egg hunts, showing movies on the wall, you know, doing all kinds of activities, gardening to get the kids to be kids.

    And we took it and when we took it, we say, “We taking this house.” We put the city on and we had a press conference, “Yeah, we took this house, we doing this for the community. Y’all got a problem with that, y’all come down here and tell the community that they can’t have this house.” So the city pretty much like, “Ah, whatever, we ain’t going down there and messing with them people.” So we did, we gave out coats. So this is our organizing.

    See, our organizing method was you meet people with their needs, you meet people’s needs. So it’s not only about giving out food and giving clothing, it’s about having a political education environment where you can teach people how to, you know, you got the analogy of Jesus saying like teach people how to fish. Right? Okay, I already know how to fish, now tell me how to survive. Tell me how to store, tell me how to build, tell me how to build out. So this is the things that we was doing and we would put ourselves in a position, we would network with legal organizations. The people had issues with their rent and we know it was a slum lord environment. And we would educate people about this is how you get your rights recognized.

    So Eddie, and I’m going to talk about Eddie often, right? Because that was my mentor. Ultimately, he got lung cancer and passed away December, February the 13th a couple of years ago. He passed away the day before my birthday. My birthday was February the 14th. And I was like, when his wife called me and said, “Eddie is getting ready, you know, transition. They in Vegas, can you come out here?” And I’m like, I can’t come out there. But the only thing I’m saying is like, man, whatever you do, don’t die on my birthday. I’m like, because I ain’t going to be able to take it. I ain’t going to have no birthday no more. It’s already sad for me to have to deal with it the day before, but I just didn’t want that memory of him.

    But long story short, this individual was responsible for changing the mindset of a lot of prisoners and getting us to think outside the box more or less, right? Our political education, this was one of the things that the Black Panther Party emphasized. So you see, we call it Panther porn. This is Panther porn for us. Panther porn for us is when you see the guns and you know the Berettas and the mugging, that’s Panther porn. What we identified with is the free breakfast program where we fed our kids. We tried to promote the hospital, we tried to promote where we was taking and giving sickle cell anemia tests to our people because we knew they wasn’t doing that. You know, we used to give them free breakfast program. We was getting our food, we had clothes, we was transporting prisoners, families to prisons in California. All out of the way prisons. We was holding political education classes in community and networking with people around their needs and making sure they understood exactly what was going on with them.

    One of the questions I seen that was on the question is the difference between abolition as it relates to prison and the police. And we know we had this call for divest, and I’m going be perfectly honest with you. I don’t want to live in a society that there ain’t no law and order. That’s just not me. I don’t want to live in a society where we don’t feel safe. So it’s not an issue of whether or not police should be in the community. It’s an issue of what’s their relationship? They got on their car serve and protect. Okay, if you’re responsible for serving and protecting me, then my interest should be first and foremost and I shouldn’t be targeted. I shouldn’t be like back in the sixties, everybody that had long hair that was white, they was hippies and you was treated a certain way because in their mind you was anti-sociable or anti-establishment. That’s what made you a hippie. It didn’t make you a hippie because you didn’t… Your identity was based on, I don’t really have a lot of interest in the establishment.

    But they looked at it as a threat. People had afros, they looked at it as a threat. So when we look at it’s not about abolishing the police, it’s about the police respecting the community and the community having more control over. So if you represent me in my community, then you need to be in my community, understand what’s going on in my community and serving my community according to serve and protect.

    Abolition on the other hand is we’re about completely abolishing the prison system. What would that look like? And we was having this conversation, what do that look like? You going to open the doors up and let everybody out? I’ve been in prison 48 years. There’s some people that I’ve been around in prison, if I see him on the street the day after tomorrow, I might go call the police on them because I know that’s how their thinking is. But at the same token, if a civil society, we have an obligation to help people. And that’s what we should be doing.

    You know, people have been traumatized and trauma becoming vogue now. You know everybody like oh, trauma experience. So trauma becoming vogue, but people have been traumatized and have not been treated for their trauma. So they dial down on it and that become the norm. So we need to be in a society where we’re healing people. And that’s what I would say when it comes to the abolition. Yeah, we should abolish prison as they exist now, they’re cruel, they’re inhumane. We’ve got the guards in Rikers Island talking about protesting and walkout, wildcat strike because they saying that the elimination of solitary confinement is a threat to them. How is it a threat to you that you put me in a cell for three years on end, bringing my mail to me and say that if you eliminate this right here, me as a worker, it’s going to be threatened by that non-existence. How’s that? That don’t even make sense.

    But this is the attitude that you have when it comes to the prison industrial complex. The prison industrial complex is very profitable. The prison industrial complex became like an industry in and of itself. Every aspect of it has been privatized. The telephone’s been privatized, the medical’s been privatized, the clothing been privatized. So you’ve got a private entity saying, “I’ll make all the clothes for the prisons.” You got another private entity saying, “I’ll take, I want the telephone contract for all the prisons.” You got another company saying, “I want to be responsible for making the beds, the metal and all that.”

    Which leads me to Maryland Correction Enterprise. Maryland Correction Enterprise is one of the entities that does this. There’s a private corporation that has preferential bidding rights on anything that’s being done in Maryland. I’m not going to say these chairs, but I’m going to say any of them tags that’s on your car, that’s Maryland Enterprise. I press tags. So I know that to be a fact. A lot of the desks in your classroom come from Maryland Correction Enterprise.

    So what they’re giving us, they gave us 90 cent a day and you get a bonus. Now, you get the bonus based on how much you produce. So everybody like, so now you’re trying to get… Okay, I’m trying to get like $90 a month. I’m just starting. So somebody that’s been there for a while might be getting $2 a day and some. We pressing tags like till your elbows was on fire because you’re trying to make as much money as you possibly can. You’re trying to produce as many tags as you possibly can to make money.

    Well, they’re getting billions, they’re getting millions of dollars from the labor. So I just recently did an interview with a state senator about that because he had put a bill in and I was asking him about it. And then I asked him, I said, “Okay, prisoners going to want to work.” The incentive for prisoners to work is in the Maryland prison system, you get five days off your sentence when you come through the door. Then if you get a job, then some jobs give you 10 days off, so that’s 10 days less that you do in a month. Everybody trying to get in them kind of jobs where you getting less days. So it’s not a matter I don’t want to work and it’s not a matter I like the work that I’m doing. I’m just, the incentive for me to work is really the reduction in my time in prison.

    So I asked the state senator, I said, “Listen,” I said, “Would it be better if, okay, everybody going to want to work, wouldn’t it be better if you pass and try to get a bill passed that say that everybody get minimum wage, that they’d be able to pay their social security, they’d be able to pay taxes and they’d be able to acquire some money. Wouldn’t that be the better approach? Because prisoners going to work.” So I realized when I was having this conversation with them. In Kansas, that’s exactly what they’re doing in Kansas prison. They got guys that’s in Kansas prison saved up to $75,000. They got long-term, they’re not going anywhere, but they’ve been able to have an impact on their family and have a sense of responsibility.

    So another question that came up was, that I was thinking about is what would be y’all response? What would I say to y’all in terms of what I think that y’all should be looking at? And I’m not here to lecture you, but this is for when we look at colleges and as they relate to the struggle, the majority of people that resisted in the seventies, sixties, they came out of school, they came out of college. You had Angela Davis, you had Huey Newton, Bobby Seales, they came out, they was in college, the Kent State, this was a college., they got rid of Angela Davis because she was teaching on campus, because of her politics.

    So college has always been a place where you have a propensity to like being organized or start questioning things and start developing ideas about looking at what’s going on in society today in the country and around the world. We’re in a time right now where, I don’t know how many of y’all read George Orwell 1984, but we’re in like a George Orwellian type of society. And free speech, yeah, it’s only if you talk about a subject matter that is not contrary to capitalism. And then you got the right to free speech, but then you don’t have the right to be heard. So then you got who got control of the media.

    So right now getting our voice out or taking a position and you take a position, oh you being anti, so therefore I’m going to take your grant or I’m going to take your scholarship. I only got like one more semester to graduate. Hey so what? And I’m going to blackball you or better still, I’m going to snowball you and put you in an environment where you ain’t going to be able to get a job at McDonald’s. Why? Because I’m trying to control your thinking and make sure that you don’t be organizing in a manner that’s going to be against anything that we’re doing.

    We’re getting a lot of information coming out and a lot of people is like hysterical. “Oh my god, I don’t know what I’m going to do.” No, this is what you do, you organize. We don’t have the luxury of saying what somebody else is doing going to dictate me not doing nothing. We should be in the mindset that regardless of what you’re doing, I have a right. This is what they say to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have a right if I want to be transgender, I have a right. I have a right to that. Your morality is not going to determine what I do with myself.

    We were just getting ready to do a thing on transgender prisoners. They didn’t have their biology changed. Your biology changed. According to law. You went to court and got an operation. They took you out of a female prison and put you in a male prison because they say that biology aside, you was born a male, not what you are now. And rounded them up and took them to a male prison. Who does this? Who had the right to tell you that you come from another country to come here for a better life? Oh by the way, everybody in Congress, ancestors came here for a better life. So I know they should have no issue with that because they wouldn’t be where they are right now if the Statue of Liberty would say hell no. So we passed that.

    But everybody, I ain’t talking about the people that they brought here, the people that was here before them, the indigenous people who said, “Hey, everybody get the hell out. Because this is our…” No. What you want to say that you create this false narrative that people of color from another country is creating all the crime in this country, therefore we’re going to round you all up. Kind of sound like something they did with the Japanese when they put them in internment camps, right? When they say like, these are people that was fighting for this country. These are United States citizens that were fighting in this country. They rounded them up, put them in internment camps because you’re Japanese and we fighting Japan. So your loyalty can’t be with us. Your loyalty got to be with them, or we just don’t care one way or the other.

    It sounds like kind of like that. But the point I’m making is we don’t have the luxury to sit back and allow the hysteria that’s going on in this country around some fools to make us say, I’m not going to do nothing, or get into a position where I’m just, I don’t know what to do, I’m giving up. No. Resistance is possible. It starts with education, it starts with political education. It starts with understanding the history. Lenin said that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism. We’ve seen imperialism, we’ve seen that imperialism taking shape. So a lot of this is based on the capitalist drive for greed. It’s about greed. A lot of this.

    When you talk about taking a country and say, “Oh, we’re going to take the Gaza and turn it into Disneyland.” And what you going to do with the people? “Hey we already bombed them into oblivion so they’d be glad to work, they’d be glad to put on Donald Duck suits and Mickey Mouse hats and get some money.” That’s your reality. Their reality is, “I just want to live a human life.” That’s my reality. My reality, I just want to live human. I don’t have no problem with nobody. I just want to be human and treated like a human.

    But when you say something like that, “Oh, you anti.” You ain’t got the right to say nothing like that. And if you say it on campus and you try to get them to take a position on campus, their masters who they invest with, corporate America going to tell them, say no. And Congress going to say, “Oh any money we gave you, we’re taking it back.” So the money, monetary is more important than people’s lives. That’s our reality.

    So as we move forward, my message to y’all is don’t settle for mediocrity, don’t settle for nothing less. Whatever you’re thinking that you think should be done, do it. If you think that, but more importantly in doing it, make sure that it’s having impact. When you’re dealing with, like I said, we took that place. We knew that neighborhood, the drug dealers in the neighborhood, this is what they used to say to us when we come through there and say, “Hey, it ain’t a good time to be down here today.” And they give us a warning like, “Y’all can’t come down here today.”

    And we was good with that because they knew that it was their children that we was creating a safe environment about. They couldn’t get out of the grips of their insanity and we weren’t trying to get them out of it. Our focus was on the community and people. And we feel that if we educate the people enough, if we educate the mothers, the girlfriends, the wives enough to say like, “Y’all deserve to be safe.” The people that’s not making y’all safe is your boyfriend, your father and them. Y’all need to talk to them and tell them that y’all are making our lives unsafe. All we’re doing is educating you that you have a right.

    All we’re doing is coming down there and telling you that we’re doing something with your children. We’re taking your children out of the neighborhood on trips that they’ve never been before. We’re making them feel like they have some value. We’re making them feel like, “Yeah you can get a hug today and there won’t be nothing unusual about it.” This is what we was doing and it had an impact. What they wind up doing with that neighborhood is they did with all of Baltimore, that’s a major, they started tearing down places, boarding up places. So you might be on the block or you might be in the projects and you might live in this house. The next four houses is boarded up, another house, the next two houses boarded up. How can you have a sense of community with all that blight?

    Then the trash bins that’s for the area become public trash, and then people just ride by, see a trash bin, throw trash in the area. How can you live in that kind of blight? So when somebody come and say, “I’m going to give you a voucher to move somewhere that you ain’t going to be able to afford in a year,” you’re going to take it on the strength that like you ain’t factored in, I ain’t going to be able to afford it. You say, “I just want to get out of here.” And when they get you out of there, next thing you know they come in and demolish it and they got condominiums and townhouses and it’s affordable housing for somebody that’s making 90, 100,000 dollars a year. But it’s definitely ain’t affordable housing for somebody that’s making less than minimum wage. So that’s my point. And I’m opening the floor for any comments or questions.

    Student:

    I was going to ask what can everyday citizens, meaning not politicians do to help prisoners?

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay, and that’s a good question because one of the things that we had, we had a lot of people from the community come into the institution. But what you can do is educate yourself on some of the issues that’s affecting them. Like right now in Maryland they got what they call the Second Chance Act and they trying to get this bill passed to say that after you did 20 years then you can petition the court for a reduction in sentence. It’s not guaranteed you’re going to get it, but it opens the door for a person to have hope, because after you… when you get first locked up, they give you a designated amount of time to file a petition for modification. After that, it’s over with,. The only thing available to you then is parole. If you don’t make parole then you in there forever and ever and ever.

    So this is a bill that’s being sponsored by people whose family members are locked up and been locked up for a long time. And it’s a good bill because what it do, it create hope. And when you have hope in an environment, it changes the way people think. So when you have a hopeless environment, and case in point the then Governor Glenn Denning came in front of the Jessup Correction Institution in Jessup because a guy was out on work release, had killed his girlfriend and he had life. So he sent all the lifers back, took them all out of camp and put them all back in prison and then stood out in front of the institution to say, “From now on life mean life, let me tell you that ain’t nobody, any of you got a life sentence, you going to die in prison.”

    When he left that prison, the violence went up like that. I mean stabbings, murders and everything because there was no hope. Because now people saying, “I’m going to be here for the rest of my life so I got to dominate this environment.” When the Unger case came out, bills was passed about juvenile life, they got bills passed. They’re saying if you have drug problem you can get drug treatment and the [inaudible 00:33:05] and people started going. It was whole. So to your question, monitor some of these things and look at some of the websites of the institutions, see what kind of programs they offer. They might need some volunteers to come in help with teaching classes. They might need some volunteers to come in to help with some of the activities they doing that’s helping support prisoners. Thank you.

    Student:

    First of all, thank you for coming out and really appreciate it. It’s great to hear you speak. I had a question, you kind of briefly alluded to it already, but how would you compare the political conditions, especially like during Black Power in the sixties and seventies and eighties, and like the repression that everyone faced, like especially from COINTELPRO and FBI and the police to today, and like what students and people on the street are facing right now?

    Mansa Musa:

    I think that back then the difference was technology, the internet, where we get our information from and the AI, that’s becoming vastly like the thing now. I think the difference is like back then, and Huey Newton made this analysis, what he called intercommunalism. He talked about that at some point in time technology will become so advanced that we ain’t going to have no more borders, and which we don’t when it comes to information, right?

    So the difference is that the fascists are more advanced and pluralism is more insidious. Back then, because you had a lot of repression around class, so Black people was being subjected. So you had the war in Vietnam, we had so much going on that it was easy for people to come and find a commonality. Said, “Hey, we live in this squalor here in Little Puerto Rico and New York. We live in this squalor down here in Brooklyn and so and so. We’re living in…” What’s our common thread? Our common thread is that we’re being treated inhuman. So it was easy to come together around organizing around social conditions.

    Now because of so much misinformation and so much control, that it’s hard to really get a read on what is real and what’s not real. You had the president say that when they gave everybody an ultimatum to give their report by the end, like a report card or something at the end of the week and they didn’t do it. He said, so when they put the mic in front of his mouth he said, “Oh, the reason why they didn’t do it is because the people that didn’t submit it don’t work there anyway.” So somebody getting a check in their name, in other words fraud was the reason why you got a 100 workers and only 10 people work there so the other 90 don’t exist anyway, so where that money going? That money going to somebody else’s pocket.

    But that was the narrative he painted. But when he painted the narrative, the media is so dim with it that they like, it’s almost like you asking them a question and it’s like, no you’re dumb, no you’re dumb, no you’re dumb, no you’re dumb. And I got a Pulitzer and I’m going back and forth a whole stop. I’m not even going to ask you no more questions. So that’s what we’ve been relegated to. So that’s the difference, but in terms of our response, I’m going to give you an example. When they killed, when them little kids got killed at Sandy Hook Elementary, the children said they going to do something about it. They asked their parents, they went on social media, they started finding everybody had the same attitude. Next thing you know they had 40,000 kids that say they going to Washington.

    So now I’m telling my mother, “I’m going to Washington, whether you going with me or not.” So the parents say, “Oh we’re going to chaperone you.” That’s how quick they organize. So that’s the difference. Our ability to organize is a lot fast, it’s a lot quicker now. So we can organize a lot quicker if we come to a consensus on what we’re trying to get done. And our response can be a response of like hysteria. We got to be focused. You know, we got to really sit back and say, they’re going to do what they’re doing. You know? They’re going to do what they’re doing. So if I’m doing around workers, I got every federal worker, I’m getting with every federal worker, I’m organized. I’m not going to sit back and say, “Oh well look…” No. Organized.

    You know you got a right, organize, get together, organize, bump Congress, bump, bump, filing lawsuits, bump them doing whatever they’re doing. They the problem. Get organized and say, “Okay we’re going to organize, we’re going to mobilize. We got midterms coming up, we getting in your ass. In the next presidential election, you don’t have to worry about the count, we ain’t going to give one vote. That’s going to be your vote.” That’s what you do, organize. Well don’t, we get caught up in this thing like with Trump, I don’t have no problem with him. He is what he is. My problem is making sure that I tell people and organize people and help people get some type of sense of security.

    So we should be food building co-ops, food co-ops. Because $99 for a dozen eggs? No, we should be building a food co-op. We should be doing things where we really looking to each other to start a network. And on campus, we should be looking at how are we going to take and organize ourselves into a block where once we decide an issue then all we’re going to be forced to deal with that issue and try to make a difference.

    See some fights is not a fight worth taking because all it’s going to do is cause a loss. So you got to be strategic in your fight. We put a 10-point platform program together for the reason of identifying the social conditions that existed in society as it related for oppressed people. We chose to police the police because that was the number one issue that was affecting people. But our main thing was feeding our children, medical, housing, and education. Those were the main things we did. So we took over education institutions. That was our main thing. Our main thing wasn’t walking around with shotguns and guns. Those was things that we did to protect the community, but our main focus was programs that directly related to serving people’s needs.

    Student:

    Thank you. Thank you.

    Mansa Musa:

    You’re welcome.

    Student:

    Hi, I do have a question. First of all, I want to say great job, amazing conversation and the topics are so important. So I guess my question to you is how do… you mentioned this, like how do college students on campus build morale and boost momentum? Because I know it can kind of be a little iffy and hard to do so, especially if you have that backside fear of like this could cost me my entire like college education and the future I was wishing to build for myself?

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, and see and that’s not something that shouldn’t be taken into account. I invested in this, you know, and I invested in for a reason. I spent money. This money, my parents put in. They ain’t going to be sitting back like, “What? You did what? All that money going down the drain? Nah, that ain’t happening.” But the reality is this here, you mobilize around educating yourself, raising your consciousness and understanding historical conditions like Kent State, what college students did back then. Vietnam War and groups like this, young Democrats, socialists of America come to create political education classes, bring in speakers much like myself.

    We pass around literature of books, videos, and look at those things and develop a space for y’all coming together to talk and discuss, how that’s going to come a direction. And look at issues off the campus. Look at issues like if it’s around in this area right here, how many homeless people exist? How much property do the campus, do the school own? All right, I ain’t telling you, I ain’t going to say like don’t mess with them over in the Middle East because that’s wrong. No, I’m going to say, “Oh, damn, you know what, y’all got all this land and property and within this radius you got like homeless people sleeping on the ground. We asking that you take some of this property and turn it into homeless shelter, and in the name of Ms. Snyder or give it a name of somebody. We asking, now now we’re moving in the area, we’re asking that you take this money and feed some people.

    Now in this area, now we’re talking about that. We’re taking that you dig in this area and you help people that can’t, don’t have medical insurance but need certain things that you can get done, like dental. We’re asking that you take this money and putting it… This is things that free dental health. So you can take and say, “We providing free medical assistance at this level. We tested people for sickle cell, we tested people for HIV.”

    When Huey and them decided to do the Black Panther Party, they looked at Malcolm and they picked up where Malcolm left off at. That’s how they got in the space that they got. They just took the social conditions said that these are areas you need to focus on, because you got what they call objective and subjective conditions. Objective conditions is what you see every day. The subjective conditions is what we do, how we organize, how we develop ourselves, what we’re doing. Because that’s going to determine how effective we going to be when we go out. So if we can’t come to no consensus on direction then we ain’t going to be effective when we go out. Because somebody going to be saying do this and somebody going to be saying do that, but that ain’t going to be the problem. Problem going to be I don’t like what you doing. So now you my enemy.

    Student:

    Thank you.

    Student:

    So I think one of the questions was actually about Maryland Correctional Enterprise. So we could talk about that. Yeah. In response to student concerns about Maryland Correctional Enterprises, President Pines said students concerns is that inmates are underpaid. That’s out of our control and we have to abide by state law. But the other side of the story is that the inmates actually want the employment because it gives them skills. How do we combat this messaging?

    Mansa Musa:

    All right, so the basic thing, and somebody asked earlier, what can you do? It’s legislation because the argument is why can’t you give them minimum wage? So when we tried to unionize back in the seventies and it’s a celebrity case, North Carolina versus somebody, we tried to unionize, they said no. And the reason why they said no because then you talking about the whole prison in the United States of America, [inaudible 00:44:30] you got 2.9 million people there in prison or better. So you’re saying we in the union, we got the largest union in the country.

    So the issue is legislation and advocating for them prisoners to get minimum wage, a livable wage, no matter how much time you got. That allowed for MCE, we’re not opposed to them making money, we’re opposed to them profiting off of us and we’re not getting the benefit of it. So the issue is if I left out of prison and I had my quarter paid into social security, I had my quarters three times over. Now I’m forced to work. I got to work at least three more years or more before I get my quarter. Because when I left the street, I ain’t worked like maybe three years on it all.

    But if a person got their quarter while they in, they get minimum wage or they allowed to save money, they can make a contribution to their family. A lot of guys got locked up, they got children, they could do something for their children. They got their mother, their families travel long distances to see them. They could pay for that transportation. The phone calls, they could pay for the phone calls. So they’d be able to take a burden off their family.

    It don’t cost MCE nothing. They got preferential treatment and contract for all state institutions. Any institution that’s in state under the state of Maryland, they can do them. Whatever they make, clothes, the chemicals, signs, signs you see up and down there. They do all that. Tags, all the furniture. All the furniture you see in the state cabinet, all that. They do all that. So yeah, they could do that. That’s the alternative is for the legislator to pass a bill that says that prisoners can get minimum wage from any industry, any prison industry. If you hired in the prison industry, then you should be given minimum wage. And they got meat cutting, they do the meats, they do the furniture, they do the laundry for like different hospitals, and they do them tags. Them tags, I’m telling you, that was like… I really realized how people felt on the plantation doing them tags. That was like some… Yeah. That was labor.

    Student:

    This isn’t on the responses but this is like one of the questions that we’ve thought about. In your previous podcast episode, you interviewed the state senator and he mentioned the 13th Amendment and the connection between prison labor and slavery. So what do you think are some of the connections between the prison abolition movement and like the historical movement for the abolition of slavery?

    Mansa Musa:

    Right now, you know the 13th Amendment says that slavery is illegal except for involuntary servitude if you’re duly convicted of a crime. So if you’re duly convicted of a crime, you can be treated as a slave. And the difference between that and the abolition movement back in the historical was the justification. The justification for it now is you’ve been convicted of a crime. Back then, I just kidnapped and brought you here and made you work. So the disconnect was this is a human, you taking people and turning them into chattel slaves. Versus, oh the reason why I can work you from sun up to sundown, you committed a crime. But the reality is you put that in there so that you could have free labor.

    All that is a Jim Crow law, Black code. It’s the same. It’s the same in and of itself. It’s not no different. You work me in the system. In some states they don’t even pay you at all. South Carolina, they don’t even pay you. But they work you. In Louisiana, they still walk, they got police, they got the guards on horses with shotguns and they out there in the fields. In some places in North Carolina and Alabama, Alabama they work you in some of the most inhumane conditions like freezers, women and men, put you to work you in a meat plant in the freezer and don’t give you the proper gear to be warm enough to do the work.

    And then if you complain, because they use coercion, say “Okay, you don’t want to work? We’ll take the job from you, transfer you to a prison where now you’re going to have to fight your way out. You going to literally have to go in there, get a knife and defend yourself. So this is your choice. Go ahead, work in this inhumane conditions or say no and go somewhere and be sent back to a maximum security prison where you have to fight your way out.” So now it’s no different. Only difference is it’s been legislated, it’s been legalized under the 13th Amendment.

    And abolition, in response to abolition, so we’ve been trying to change the 13th Amendment. We had an attempt in California where they put a bill out to try to get it reversed, and the state went against it. The state was opposed to it. Because why would I want to stop having free labor? The firefighters in California, they do the same work that the firefighters right beside them, they do the same work, the same identical work. They fighting fire, their lives are in danger. They’re getting like 90 cent a day, maybe $90 a month. They don’t have no 401k, they don’t have no retirement plan, and they’re being treated like everybody else, go out there and fight the fire.

    So yeah, in terms of abolition, the abolition movement is to try to change the narrative and get the 13th Amendment taken off, out of state constitutions because a lot of states, they adopted it. They adopted it in their own state constitution, a version of the 13th Amendment that says that except if you’ve been duly convicted for a crime, you can be treated as a slave. If you’ve been convicted of a crime, you can be treated as a slave. That’s basically the bottom line of it. Thank you.

    Student:

    So like, I saw two questions kind of talking about state repression and like attempts to divide solidarity movements. So how do you kind of feel like state repression has changed over the decades and how can we kind of respond to those situations?

    Mansa Musa:

    The thing with state repression now is it’s a little bit more insidious. It’s not as overt like it was back in the sixties when they crossed the Edmund Bridge and they beat them, put dogs on them, or like they just took a move in Philadelphia, they burned the house down, burned the whole block down. There’s one house right here we got a problem with, oh hey, you had no business living in that neighborhood. We burned the whole neighborhood down, dropped a bomb on it. Or like they went to in California and they shot the headquarters of the Black Panther Party up. Or they ran down and killed Fred Hampton, drugged him and then came in there and shot him. His wife was in the bed with him. They put like 90 holes in him and not one on her. So you already knew you had the diagram where he sleep at, you knew he was drugged because the agent provocateur spiked his milk. So he was drugged, he was knocked out. And you came in there and killed him and said, “Oh, he fired out the window.”

    So the difference is now because of the media and the propaganda, you have a different slant on things, and the fear of corporate America in terms of perpetuating this fear. So you change the narrative. You can’t say certain things. You can’t. If you say certain things about certain people or certain countries, you’re going to be Blackballed, labeled. And the pressure going to come in the form of okay, you don’t care. Okay, I’m going to attack your family. I’m going to find somewhere in the scenario where I can get you to back up. If that don’t work, then I’m going to round your ass up and send you to Guantanamo Bay. I can make up something. We got the illegal combatants. You got people that’s been in Guantanamo Bay since the Gulf War and has not been sent nowhere, had not been, no due process, no where are my accusers. Oh you’ve been labeled illegal combatant, state sponsored terrorism.

    So they got so many different things they can say to make it where as though it seems to be an issue of you resisting and your right to protest and demonstration. It becomes you’re a threat to society or you’re a threat to the government. And this is how we’re saying it. We’re saying that, oh you was on the internet with somebody that’s been branded a terrorist. And that become enough to get them to say, “All right, lock them up.”

    So now the difference is when they had COINTELPRO, COINTELPRO they was doing all these things and setting people up and killing them. But we knew what was going on and we made people aware of it. Now all this misinformation, it’s hard to get a read on what’s going on. So the response got to be, again, we got to organize ourselves, develop our own information source and all the misinformation, be prepared to identify it and put it in perspective. This is misinformation. And start educating people on understanding that be mindful where you’re getting your information from. We’re addicted to social media. We’re addicted to being like, how many likes I get today? Hey, they don’t like me. Oh my God, I’m having a fit. No, I don’t care if you don’t like me because if they lock you up and send you to another country, you ain’t want to be liked by nobody. I don’t know.

    In terms of supporting countries and movements that’s fighting for their liberation in the Congo, in the hemisphere, South America, then yeah, we support a person’s right to self-determination. For us, our position right now should be to educate ourselves, politically educate ourselves to understanding social, economic, political conditions and the relationship they have between us and people. Because people going to resist. People going to be hungry, they’re going to go to stores and take whatever the hell they want to take because they don’t have nothing to eat. That’s just the reality. They ain’t got nothing to do with, I have a propensity to steal. No, I don’t have the ability to pay to feed my children.

    Versus somebody that had ability. Food is high. And then medical, they talking about the Medicaid and all that. So if they take that and poor people rely on that, how you going to get the medical treatment that you need? How you going to get the medicine that you need? So these are the areas that, this is when you’re talking about organizing people, you got to look at what they’re doing, what the repression is, how they trying to repress people and organize around the counter to that. What’s the counter to this? What’s the counter to the medical? Do y’all have medical students here? What are their attitudes towards providing services for people?

    What’s the problem with mental health? Do y’all have mental health people here that’s in that field? Social workers in that field? Then your responsibility is come and get them to say, “Listen, we need you to go in the community to organize, to help us organize this. Show us how to organize this for the community to get them to be more proactive.” Okay, what’s your purpose of your education? The purpose of my education, I want to get a degree and make some money. Okay, and what? The federal government? What’s your chances of getting a job in the federal government?

    They find people that’s on probation, person that got 20 years in one job, get a better job and they put them on probation. They say, “Oh you fired because you’re on probation.” No, I just took a better job. But the arbitrariness of this thinking is that I’m putting fear and I’m turning people into snitches because I’m making you, in order to keep what you got, you got to tell on somebody as opposed to us saying, take the institution of higher learning and look at the different departments and see how you can go into new departments and get them to become more proactive in doing some things in the community.

    And that’s the whole thing about the higher learning. Look at these other disciplines and start asking yourself, how can I get them to start doing some things in the community to help raise people’s consciousness? How can we come together to do a plan, a program around how we can invest in the community? How can we get a plan to start dealing with getting trauma to be recognized as a national mental health and get the government to do what they supposed to do in terms of providing services for people that’s been traumatized. And stop, oh, oh yeah, you traumatized but you shouldn’t have did what you did. But you’re saying that trauma, I’m in trauma, that’s why I’m doing what I’m doing. Yeah, but we don’t recognize that because you did it. All we recognize as a problem, we’re not recognizing as it relate to you. Double talk.

    Student:

    I had a question about the role of electoralism, because one part of the Black Panther Party’s historical activism that’s somewhat forgotten is elections and campaigns like Bobby Seale ran for mayor of Oakland. A lot of the modern American left is starting to be more wary of the use of elections because we’ve seen people who maybe are supposed to represent our values get elected, and then do things against what their constituents want, things like that. But I was wondering if you had any thoughts about if there’s still a role for elections to, you know, be agitational and grow the organization, or you know, how we can make sure that we’re still, you know, being agitational against the establishment.

    Mansa Musa:

    And you know, Tip O’Neill said, “All politics are local.” And Tip O’Neill was the speaker of the House, the Democrat party back in caveman days. But my position, and to reflect on what you said about Bobby Seale, when the party took that position of running Bobby Seale for mayor, we knew that he wasn’t going to get elected. But the objective was, this was the ability to mobilize people around, educating them around what this government, what the city government is supposed to do, what your government is supposed to do. So now we are on the campaign trail saying, “No, the budget is the people’s budget. The money is the people’s money. The budget got to be like this. If I’m elected, I’m going to do this,” and make him respond to it.

    But then at the same token we looked at, when we started doing that, I was telling [inaudible 01:01:59], we started looking at local elections. Our institution of elected. Ericka Huggins, who was a member of the Black Panther Party, she ran for the position to be the director of the Juvenile Services. And when she got in that position, she changed the whole narrative of how they treated the kids. So that was one way we got in there and changed policy.

    What we recognize though, that in terms of electoral system, there’s no such thing as two parties. It’s one party, the capitalist party. That’s it, that’s all. They knew that this is reality, this is the reality we confronted with. If you know Biden ain’t going to be able to cut the mustard for two years, just hypothetical, you know he ain’t going to cut the mustard for two years. Why you didn’t in two years at the end there say, “Listen, the Democrat Party that’s responsible for putting all the money up, let’s start getting a candidate now. We’re going to have open primaries, whoever come out there.”

    No, you put Kamala Harris, the top cop in this position and expected, one, they’re going to put a woman in there. Hillary Clinton was more qualified and more fascist than all of them put together. And they ain’t put her in there more qualified. She’s secretary of state, senator, her husband, Obama, Biden, Trump, Bush one, two, and three. More qualified than all of them. They definitely wasn’t putting her in there. And then they’re going to turn around and put Kamala Harris in there. That wasn’t happening.

    So what you did, so it ain’t made no difference. Trump, they got somebody come on. I don’t know if it’s AI generated or not where he’s saying that he stole the election. That yeah, Elon Musk knew how to work the computers, so that’s why I won Pennsylvania. All right. What we did on that? Ain’t nobody in their right mind think they won’t let this woman get in there. And this is a two-party system and then y’all at the 11th hour, y’all got to… So now you’re putting the pressure on everybody donate, donate. And her position was, “Look what you want to do? What you want to do? So I’m going to do something but my thing is, I’m telling y’all don’t, I’m here. This your alternate. Vote for me, don’t vote for him.”

    Why? “Because y’all going to… Look at him.” Yeah. It wasn’t like what I’m offering y’all, what am I offering y’all? How am I changing? Food was still high, gas was high. People’s everyday needs. And he, look, he did a whole bunch of crazy fire too but he played, he ran on that. Oh, he ran on that record. Oh look, y’all can’t put gas in y’all cars? Y’all can’t put food on your table? Oh man, y’all ain’t safe? Yeah, we wasn’t safe when you was in there, we didn’t have food on our table when you was in there. But you saying, “Look. Oh yeah, but look. Forget what I did. Look what they’re doing to y’all now.” Yeah. Come on.

    So in turn, in response to I look at the electoral politics like this here, certain municipalities that you can make impact policy, that you can organize people and put people in there that’s going to be responsible to that. Yeah. But when you look at Congress and they beholding to corporations, they beholding to them. You ain’t going to find a Ron Dellums. You ain’t going to find a Clayton Powell. You ain’t going to find these people like this here, Shirley Chisholm, Fannie Lou Hamer. You ain’t going to find these people that’s like, I’m here, I’m here as a representative of the people.

    Ron Dellums and he was a member of this right here. Ron Dellums was the first one that had congressional hearings about what they were doing to the Black Panther Party. This was when he was in the office and Hoover was in power. And so everybody was scared of Hoover, but Ron Dellums wasn’t scared of him. So when you look at the electoral politics, we got to take the position of Malcolm too. Malcolm said that we’re going to register as independents, we’re going to put our agenda together. You sign onto our agenda. If you don’t represent what you say you’re going to represent, then we’re going to be calling you. The same way we got you in, the same way we’re going to get you out. And make them sign on to that.

    All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. And I got some stuff over here on Eddie Conway. I got my card over there. We can take a picture of the QR code, Rattling The Bars, real news. Appreciate this, appreciate this opportunity. My call to action for y’all is, you know, just go out, sit back, get together, start brainstorming, look at some of these institutions. How can I get… That’s where you go at, go to these bodies of work, psychology, go to these bodies of work. What are you doing? What’s your position on trauma? Oh, this is my position on trauma. All right, will you be willing to do a trauma workshop in a Black community, in a neighborhood where they traumatized? Would you be willing to help set that up?

    Then go out there and find a community where they’re traumatized. Get somebody to say, “Look, hey, we want to come down here and educate y’all on trauma, but more importantly, we want to get the other part of this institution that we have that’s doing wellness to get them to create a wellness program for y’all to do it and make the institution pay for it.” Yeah, you ain’t got to tell them don’t invest in somebody. Say, “Look, invest in this.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Maryland’s Second Look Act has passed the State House, and now awaits a vote in the Senate. The bill would allow prisoners to request judicial review of their sentences after serving 20 years of prison time. Advocates say Maryland’s prison system is in desperate need of reform; parole is nearly impossible for longterm inmates, and clear racial disparities in arrest and incarceration are immediately evident—72% of Maryland’s prisoners are Black, despite a state population that is only 30% Black. Meanwhile, opponents of the Second Look Act charge that the bill would endanger state residents and harm the victims of violent crimes. Rattling the Bars digs deeper, speaking with activists, legislators, and formerly incarcerated people on the real stakes and consequences of the Second Look Act.

    Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Jheanelle K. Wilkins (Maryland State Delegate, District 20):

    Colleagues, I rise in support of this legislation, the Maryland Second Look Act, but it may not be for the exact reason that you would think. For me, this legislation is about justice. Was justice served in this sentence? We know that in Maryland, Black residents are 30% of the population, but 72% of our prisons. Our own Maryland data tells us that Black and Latino residents are sentenced to longer sentences than any other group or any other community. I’m not proud of that. Was justice served? For us to have a piece of legislation before us that allows us the opportunity to take another look at those sentences for people who were 18 to 25 years old when convicted, for us to have the opportunity to ask the question, if justice was served in that sentence, why would we not take that opportunity colleagues? If you believe in fairness, if you believe in making sure that our justice system works for all, then colleagues, you will proudly vote yes for this bill.

    Mansa Musa:

    Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. According to press releases published by the Maryland Second Look Coalition and the ACLU, “The Maryland House of Delegates passed The Second Look Act on March the 17th, recognizing the urgent need for reform in a state with some of the nation’s most pronounced citizen disparities.” The Second Look Act, House Bill 853, passed a final vote in the House. The vote was 89 yeas and 49 nays. Now, the bill will move over to the Senate, where it has until April 7 to pass. Delegate Linda Foley, representing the 15th District, who voted yes on the bill, sent a statement to The Real News Network providing some critical context. “The Maryland Second Look Act follows many other states, including California, Oklahoma, Colorado and New York, to allow a judicial review of sentences. The Second Look Act allows the individual who was convicted between the ages of 18 and 25 years old to request a review of their sentence by the court after serving 20 years in prison.”

    Delegate Foley goes on to cover the details of what this bill achieves. She states, “It’s important to note the critical safety measures in the Maryland Second Look Act. The bill does not guarantee release of any individual. It allows an individual who was convicted between the ages of 18 and 25 years old to request a review of their sentence by the court only after serving 20 years in prison. A judge must evaluate individuals based on strict criteria, including the nature of their original crime, threat to the public, conduct while incarcerated, statements from the witnesses, et cetera. The court may only reduce a sentence if it finds an individual is not a danger to the public and that a reduction of their sentence is in the interest of justice.”

    Recently, I spoke with two members of the Maryland Second Look Coalition, William Mitchell, a formerly incarcerated community activist, and Alexandra Bailey, a two-time survivor of sexual violence, about the organizing they are doing around the bill, and why it’s important to support The Second Look Act.

    William Mitchell:

    The Second Look Coalition is a group of people who come from all different backgrounds, some being returning citizens, some being people in the political realm, some being professors, and we all support what we call The Second Look Act. The Second Look Act is essentially, when an inmate has served 20 years day for day, the judge would have the authority to possibly review that inmate’s sentence, to see if the sentence is still warranted after the person has done tons of things to change their life.

    Alexandra Bailey:

    The Second Look is a mechanism that is being considered all across the country, and the reason it’s being considered all across the country is because America, for a long time, has led the world in incarceration, and part of the reason that we’ve led the world in incarceration is because we have a hammer and we think everything is a nail. We’ve addressed everything from poverty, trauma, veterans’ PTSD, domestic violence survivors’ responses, young children who are led astray by giving them lengthy prison terms, and we know that this doesn’t keep us safer. This has been statistically proven. If you’re a survivor of violent crime as I am, I think the one thing that all of us would agree on is that we want no more victims. We want a safer society. We want people to be okay so that everyone can be and stay okay.

    The first criminal offense that I ever lived through happened when I was a minor. It was a sexual offense, and the person who perpetrated that against me is serving a life without the possibility of parole sentence. I was plagued with the pain of this for many years, for a lot of my childhood and early adulthood, and as I came to my faith and came to forgiveness, what I wanted was to understand why this had happened. I reached out to the person who harmed me, and what I learned is that he had also been harmed. He also had been sexually victimized as a young person, really had nowhere to turn in order to gain support, and lived out the natural consequences of pain, PTSD, lack of health and support, mental health support, and I ended up caught in that cycle of violence.

    What I say is, we need to get way upstream on the cycle of violence. Everyone, from those who are remorseful inside to those who are advocates for survivors, as I am, we have the same goal, and the only way that we’re actually going to address that is by taking our resources away from a public safety concept that we know doesn’t work, which is mass incarceration, and transferring it where it should have been, when the person who harmed me suffered his victimization. If that help had been there, if he had been able to go to a crisis center, receive the mental health support that he need, have the education and access that would have allowed him to divert his life and recover from his own trauma, I more than likely would not have been traumatized.

    As a survivor, I’m here promoting Second Look because actually, if you take a look around at who our peer recovery specialists are, who our violence interrupters are, our credible messengers, the people who are out getting in the way of other people’s victimization, it is our returning citizens who have kept the peace not just in prison, but are now keeping the peace outside, and based on my own faith, I believe that people who are remorseful deserve a chance at forgiveness. We all deserve a second chance. Also, from a practical standpoint, if my goal is that nobody suffers from what I suffered from, then the people who are best suited to help me, unfortunately in many instances, are currently behind bars.

    Mansa Musa:

    Brian Stevenson says, we’re not our worst mistake. All right, William, let’s unpack the Second Look, because earlier, we talked about how this allows for a person, the bill that’s being proposed, and you can go over the bill that’s being proposed, after a person has served 20 years, they’re allowed to petition the court for a modification, or to review their sentence, and take certain factors into account. Why can’t they do it anytime? I know under Maryland’s system, don’t you have the right to modification sentence? Don’t you have a right to a three-judge panel? Explain that for the benefit of our audience that doesn’t know the criminal justice system, and understand that.

    William Mitchell:

    Our Maryland rules, specifically it’s Maryland rule 4-345, subsection E, what it does is, it allows for a judge to have the authority to review a sentence, but that reviewing power is only from five years from the imposition of the sentence. Meaning, if you have a lengthy sentence, no judge is really going to consider, within five years, if you have a lengthy sentence for maybe a serious crime, if you’ve changed your life. Most people’s thoughts on it are, if you’ve committed a heinous crime or something that’s bad in public view, you need to sit for a long time, which may be true. Some people transition, grow and mature at different stages and different ages. My crime, I was 23, so I really wasn’t developed. I had a very immature mindset, though an adult technically, by legal standards, I was still very immature. The law right now, as it sits, say you get 50 years for an attempted murder. You’re 20 years old, it occurred when you were on drugs, maybe you were gang affiliated, family structure was broken.

    And then what happens is, you sit in prison, and right now, as the law stands, you could go into prison, take every program, become a peer specialist, work to transform everybody that comes through that door, and unless you are collaterally attacking the legality of your sentence, there is no legal means for somebody to have a judge look at their case for compassionate reasons, or to see if the very system, because the Maryland Department of Correction, their job is to correct criminalistic behavior, but right now you have a department that is supposed to be correcting it, and if they do, there is no legal avenue for you to bring it to the judicial branch and say, “Hey, DOC has done her job. This behavior has been corrected. Now, what’s the next step?”

    The system was set up many years ago to punish, to correct behavior, and then in that correction or rehabilitation, to allow the person to assimilate back into the community as a productive member. That has been taken away over the years because one law is added on top of another law, which moots out the point of the first law, and before you know it, you can’t get out. For me, I had a 70-year sentence. That means I would have to serve half of the sentence, 35 years, before I could go for parole. Meaning, I committed a crime, intoxicated at 23, coming out of a broken background, and I would have had to have been 53 to show the parole board the first opportunity to say, “Hey, I’m worth a second chance.” Most people age out of criminalistic behavior, number one, and number two, if you commit in your 20s, by the time you’re 30 something, you don’t even think like that.

    I always bring this point to anybody’s mind, whether an opponent or an advocate, nobody can say that they are the same person they were 20 years ago. I would like to meet somebody if they can stay the same from 20 years ago, because just life in general will mature you or change you. Right now, there’s just no way to bring it before the judge or a judicial body, to get any relief. Even if you change your life, right now, you’re pretty much stuck in prison until, if you have parole, you might get the opportunity to possibly get relief.

    Mansa Musa:

    Alexandra, talk about what you look for in this particular narrative, because as William just outlined, we do a lot of time, we don’t have the opportunity to get relief. We do good works while we’re incarcerated, and we have no way of having that good work brought to the attention of someone that can make a decision. Talk about that.

    Alexandra Bailey:

    Well, Second Look is just that, it’s just a look. It is not a guarantee of relief. It is not a get out of jail free card. It is literally a mechanism whereby, after two decades of incarceration, where the criminological curve shows us that most people have aged out of crime, that you can petition a judge to show your rehabilitation, and the survivor of your offense or their representatives get to be part of that process. Some of the most miraculous moments that I’ve ever seen are those moments of forgiveness. There’s this false story that goes around, that what prosecutors are doing is giving permanent relief to victims. I’m going to give them, in William’s case, 50 years before anybody can even say hi, and that’s going to heal you. That’s going to make you feel better.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s what you mean by permanent relief?

    Alexandra Bailey:

    That’s what they would say. It’s permanent relief. We are making sure that this person stays safe permanently. Now, there are some people who do not rehabilitate, but in my experience, they’re very much in the minority. The people who do rehabilitate, like I said, they’re the ones raising other people in the prison, getting them out of criminal behavior, and all we’re asking is that the courts be able to take a look. When the survivor steps into that room, and I’ve witnessed this, and actually receive the accountability, the apology, the help that they need from the system, that is where the healing comes in. It’s rarely through punishment. You know that this is true because I watch survivors who have not moved on a single day from the day that this happened to them, and if you’re reliving that trauma day by day, what that tells me is that you haven’t received the mental health counseling, support, grief support that you needed. Why don’t we focus on that and rehabilitation, as opposed to permanent punishment?

    To what William was saying, the criminological curve tells us that people age out of crime. Crimes are more often than not committed by young people who very frequently are misguided, and that is certainly true for Maryland, with a particular emphasis on the Black and Brown community. There was actually a national study that was done of survivors, which I was actually interviewed for, 60% of us who have survived specifically violent crimes are for more rehabilitation and second chances than we are for permanent punishment. Permanent punishment doesn’t get us to what it is that we need, which is a safer society, a more healed society, a society that when things are going wrong for folks, there is a place for them to turn. Our lack of empathy and kindness is not serving us.

    Mansa Musa:

    Also, I had the opportunity to talk to Kareem Hasan. Me and Kareem Hasan were locked up together in the Maryland penitentiary. He’s talking about some of the things that he’s doing now that he has gotten a second chance. I’m outside of 954 Forrest Maryland Penitentiary. I’m here with Kareem Hasan, who’s a social activist now, both us served time in the Maryland Penitentiary. When did you go into the Maryland pen?

    Kareem Hasan:

    1976, at 17 years old.

    Mansa Musa:

    All right, so you went in at 17, I went in at 19. When you went in the pen, talk about what the pen environment was like when you went in there.

    Kareem Hasan:

    Well, when I went in the penitentiary, like you asked me, the first day I went in there, I walked down the steps and it was just confusion. I was like, “Where am I at now?” People were running everywhere, all you hear is voices and everything. It was like you were in the jungle.

    Mansa Musa:

    Now, what type of programs did they have to offer when you went in there?

    Kareem Hasan:

    Well, when I went in there, they had a couple of programs, but I wasn’t too interested in the programs because I was still young and wild, running wild. I wasn’t even thinking about educating myself. All I was thinking about was protecting myself, because of all the stories I heard about the penitentiary.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. All right. Now, how much time did you do?

    Kareem Hasan:

    I did 37 years.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay, you did 37. I did 48 years. When I went in the penitentiary, they had no programs, like you say, and everything we were concerned with was protecting ourselves. When did you get out?

    Kareem Hasan:

    I got out in 2013, on the first wave of the Unger issue.

    Mansa Musa:

    The Unger issue is the case of Merle Unger versus the state of Maryland, that dealt with the way the jury instruction was given at that time, it was unconstitutional. I got out under Unger. When Unger first came out, what did that do for you in terms of your psyche?

    Kareem Hasan:

    Oh man, that really pumped me up.

    Mansa Musa:

    Why?

    Kareem Hasan:

    Because I saw daylight.

    Mansa Musa:

    And before that?

    Kareem Hasan:

    Before then, man, I was gone. I was crazy. I wasn’t even looking to get out, because I had a life sentence.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. Didn’t you have parole?

    Kareem Hasan:

    Yes, I went up for parole three times.

    Mansa Musa:

    And what happened?

    Kareem Hasan:

    First time, they gave me a four-year re-hear, and then the second time, they gave me a two-year re-hear with the recommendation for pre-release and work release.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    Then they come out with life means life.

    Mansa Musa:

    Glendening was the Governor for the state of Maryland at that time.

    Kareem Hasan:

    Yeah, he just snatched everything from me, snatched all hope and everything from me.

    Mansa Musa:

    Hope, that’s where I want to be at, right there. When Unger came out, Unger created Hope.

    Kareem Hasan:

    Unger created hope for a lot of guys, because when it first came out, I think it was Stevenson.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    I had it in my first public conviction in 1981.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    But they said it was a harmless error.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    And then, Adams came out, and then, everybody kept going to the library, and everybody was running back and forth. Everybody was standing in those books, because they saw that daylight, they seen that hope.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    And then, when Merle was fortunate enough to carry it all the way up the ladder to the courts, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, they made it retroactive.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    All that time we were locked up, it wasn’t a harmless error. They knew it, but they just kept us locked up.

    Mansa Musa:

    And you know what? On the hope thing, you’re supporting the Maryland Second Chance Act. You’ve been going down to Annapolis, supporting the Maryland Second Chance Act. Why are you supporting the Maryland Second Chance Act?

    Kareem Hasan:

    Look at me. I’m a second chance, and everything I do, I always refer back to myself. I’m looking at these young kids out here in the street, and when I talk to them, they relate to me. I need more brothers out here to help with these kids out here, because y’all see how Baltimore City is now. These young kids are off the chain, and they need somebody that’s going to give them some guidance, but they’re going to listen to a certain type of individuals.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    They’re not going to listen to somebody that went to school, somebody that’s a politician or something like that. They’re looking for somebody that’s been through what they’ve been through and understands where they at, because that’s all they talk about.

    Mansa Musa:

    When you went into Maryland Penitentiary back in the 70s, you said ’77?

    Kareem Hasan:

    ’76.

    Mansa Musa:

    You had no hope?

    Kareem Hasan:

    Oh, no. I had a fresh life sentence.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. When Unger came out, then we had legislation passed to take the parole out the hands of the governor, that created hope. Then we had the Juvenile Life Bill, that created hope. Your case, had you not went out on Unger, you’d have went out on Juvenile Life, because they were saying that juveniles didn’t have the form, the [inaudible 00:22:12] to do the crime. Well, let’s talk about the Maryland Second Chance Act. Based on what we’ve been seeing and the support we’re getting, what do you think the chances of it passing this year?

    Kareem Hasan:

    I think the chances are good, especially the examples that we set. We let them know that certain type of individuals, you can let out. Now, there’s some people in there I wouldn’t let out, but the ones we’re talking about will help society, will be more positive for the society, especially for Baltimore City, and we need that.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah.

    Kareem Hasan:

    The Second Chance Act is something that I support 100%.

    Mansa Musa:

    What are some of the things you’re now doing in the community?

    Kareem Hasan:

    Well, I have an organization called CRY, Creating Responsible Youth.

    Mansa Musa:

    What is that?

    Kareem Hasan:

    It’s a youth counseling and life skills training program, where we get kids, we come to an 11-week counseling course. After they graduate from the counseling course, we send them to life-scale training courses such as HVAC, CDLs, diesel training, and things of that nature. The program is pretty good, and I’m trying to get up off the ground more, but I need some finances.

    Mansa Musa:

    How long have you had this idea, and how long has it in existence thus far?

    Kareem Hasan:

    Well, when I first got the idea, I was in the Maryland House of Corrections, because we had a youth organization called Project Choice.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    I had a young guy come in, and the counselor told me, he said, “Hi son, can you talk to him?” He can’t relate to any of us.” I took the kid on a one-on-one, and the kid said, “He’s trying to tell me about my life, but he’s from the county. He never lived like me. My mother and father are on drugs. I’ve got to support my brother and sister. I’m the one that’s got to go out there and bring them something to eat, because my mother and father take all that money and spend it on drugs.”

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah.

    Kareem Hasan:

    The kid said, “He doesn’t understand my lifestyle, so how is he going to tell me about my lifestyle?” And then he looked at me and said, “Now see, where you come from, I can understand you. We can talk.”

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    “Because I know you understand where I’m coming from.”

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    “Because you’ve been there.”

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    He got to talking about his mother and father, and he started crying. When he started crying, I was telling him about when my father passed, when I was on lockup, and I was in my cell crying.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, right.

    Kareem Hasan:

    And then, later on that night, I was in bed, and it just hit me. I said, “Cry, create a responsible youth.” That’s how I came up with that name, and just like those boys in the penitentiary, they’re crying out, just like in the Maryland state penal system, the ones that’s positive and they change their life, they’re crying out for help, and we’re here to help. We’re here to create responsible youth.

    Mansa Musa:

    Last, you will hear from Bobby Pittman, who was in the Maryland Prison system and is now out, a community organizer and leading a bully intervention program. This is what he’s doing with his second chance, in the interest of justice.

    Robert Pittman:

    Bobby Pittman, I’m from Baltimore. I’m a Baltimorian, and I actually went to prison when I was 17 years old. I was sentenced to a life plus 15 year, consecutive 15 year sentence at 17 years old, for felony murder.

    Mansa Musa:

    How much time you serve?

    Robert Pittman:

    I served 24 years on that.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay, come on.

    Robert Pittman:

    The crazy thing, it’s been a year and a few days, it’s probably been 370 days I’ve been free.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah. Come on. Welcome home.

    Robert Pittman:

    Thank you. Since I’ve been out here, it’s been amazing. The things that I learned while I was inside of prison, actually, it carried over, with me out here. Within the last year, I helped 50 people get jobs with a connection with the Mayor’s Office of Employment Development. Shout-out to Nigel jobs on deck Jackson.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay, Mr. Jackson.

    Robert Pittman:

    We’ve got individuals, like a couple of mothers, single mothers into schooling.

    Mansa Musa:

    Okay.

    Robert Pittman:

    With full scholarships. Got 10 people into schools, people that never believed that they’d have an opportunity to get their education. We got about 10 people in school. And then, I did all that through my peer recovery knowledge, my lived experience, and understanding where these individuals come from, and assessing these individuals, seeing some things that they might need or whatever.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Robert Pittman:

    You know that you can get that. You can do that.

    Mansa Musa:

    What made you stop, once you got to a point where you said you needed to change, what made you get to a point where you started looking and thinking that you can get out? What inspired you about that?

    Robert Pittman:

    This is crazy. I actually fell off. I was on lockup one time, and I heard all this screaming and yelling. I’m like, “What is this screaming and yelling for?” It was 2012.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah.

    Robert Pittman:

    They’re like “The law passed.”

    I’m like, “What law?”

    They said, “The Unger, the Unger’s passed.” People on lockup are screaming and all this stuff. I can hear, on the compound, individuals screaming and celebrating, and things like this. The crazy thing, they were screaming and yelling about a chance.

    Mansa Musa:

    Come on, yeah.

    Robert Pittman:

    You know what I mean? It wasn’t even a guarantee.

    Mansa Musa:

    I got a chance.

    Robert Pittman:

    All they know is, I’ve got a chance, because I’ve done exhausted all of my daggone remedies.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah.

    Robert Pittman:

    But I’ve got a chance right now.

    Mansa Musa:

    Come on.

    Robert Pittman:

    To have my case looked at again.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah.

    Robert Pittman:

    That’s when it started.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Robert Pittman:

    That’s when it started. The Ungers went out, it wound up being 200 and something.

    Mansa Musa:

    People started seeing people going home.

    Robert Pittman:

    People I’ve been looking up to, now they’ve taken my mentor. My mentor is gone. I was happy for them, but now, it made me like I had to step up more, because I had to prepare for my chance. I see it now, Maryland. They said that they had a meaningful opportunity for release through the parole system.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right.

    Robert Pittman:

    But there wasn’t one person that got paroled since 1995.

    Mansa Musa:

    That’s right.

    Robert Pittman:

    It was a fight. It took about six years, but it gave us hope. We’re just waiting.

    Mansa Musa:

    Oh, yeah.

    Robert Pittman:

    We’re sitting there like, “Man.” Six years later, 2018, that’s when it was an agreement with the ACLU and Maryland courts that we’re going to restructure the parole system.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, for juvenile lifers.

    Robert Pittman:

    For juvenile lifers, and on that, they created a whole new set of criteria that an individual on parole, or going up for parole had to meet. If they meet these things, the parole commission has the opportunity to release them. I started going through that. I went through it, went through the whole process in 2018, went up for parole and all that, was denied at my first parole hearing, of course. I saw people going home.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah, through the system.

    Robert Pittman:

    I’m sitting there like, “Oh man, I saw somebody go home from parole. This is real.” The first couple I saw, I’m like, “Oh, this is real, now. I see how real this is.”

    Mansa Musa:

    Right. Talk about what you’re doing now.

    Robert Pittman:

    Now, I do peer recovery work. I’ve got a nonprofit, Bully Intervention Teams. What we do with Bully Intervention Teams, it’s not your average bully intervention. We look at all forms of injustice as bullying.

    Mansa Musa:

    Right, you’re talking about bullies.

    Robert Pittman:

    Yeah, all forms of injustice is bullying. One of the things that I see, I was seeing bullying when I went down to Annapolis this week. They’re bullying individuals through misinformation. This organization will try to make sure these individuals that receive this misinformation will receive proper information, because they’re being bullied through ignorance. It just was horrible. What we do on the weekend, Saturdays, individuals that were incarcerated, a lot of people look at them, “They’re doing good,” but they don’t know the stress of that, because you know what you’re representing. You’ve got to be a certain type of way, because you’re trying to be an example for these individuals. You’re trying to pioneer for these individuals that come out.

    Mansa Musa:

    Yeah, you don’t hae the luxury make a mistake.

    Robert Pittman:

    We have our session, our peer-run session, where we can just relieve ourselves, because it’s a lot of pressure.

    Mansa Musa:

    Oh no, that’s there. You’ve got a wellness space.

    Robert Pittman:

    We need it.

    Mansa Musa:

    You’ve got to have it, because like you say, our reality is this here. We don’t have the luxury of making a mistake, and everything that we’ve been afforded, and every opportunity that we have, we don’t look at it as an opportunity for us. We look at it as an opportunity to show society that we’re different. Therefore, the person that I’m talking about, who I’m representing on their behalf, I’m saying that I’m different, but this person I’m asking you to give the same consideration that y’all gave me is also different.

    We want to be in a position where we can have a voice on altering how people are serving time. One, we want to be able to say, if you give more programs, if you give more hope, you’ll meet your purpose of people changing and coming back out in society. But more importantly, we want to be able to tell the person, like you said, rest assured that you’ve got advocates out there.

    The ACLU of Maryland and advocates urged the Senate to pass The Second Look Act, House Bill 853. For those that are interested, the hearing for The Second Look Act, House Bill 853, in front of the Senate Judiciary Proceeding Committee will be held Tuesday, March the 25th, 2025, 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM, in the East Miller Building, room two. For more information, visit Maryrlandsecondlook.com, or ACLUMaryland.org.

    There you have it, the real news and Rattling the Bars. We ask that you comment on this episode. Tell us, do you think a person deserves a second chance, and if giving a person a second chance is, in fact, in the interest of justice.


    Photo of Linda Foley in committee by Maryland GovPics (CC 2.0). Link to license​.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • My name is Mahmoud Khalil and I am a political prisoner. I am writing to you from a detention facility in Louisiana where I wake to cold mornings and spend long days bearing witness to the quiet injustices underway against a great many people precluded from the protections of the law.

    Who has the right to have rights? It is certainly not the humans crowded into the cells here. It isn’t the Senegalese man I met who has been deprived of his liberty for a year, his legal situation in limbo and his family an ocean away. It isn’t the 21-year-old detainee I met, who stepped foot in this country at age nine, only to be deported without so much as a hearing.

    Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my first-born child.

    Justice escapes the contours of this nation’s immigration facilities.

    On March 8, I was taken by DHS agents who refused to provide a warrant, and accosted my wife and me as we returned from dinner. By now, the footage of that night has been made public. Before I knew what was happening, agents handcuffed and forced me into an unmarked car. At that moment, my only concern was for Noor’s safety. I had no idea if she would be taken too, since the agents had threatened to arrest her for not leaving my side. DHS would not tell me anything for hours — I did not know the cause of my arrest or if I was facing immediate deportation. At 26 Federal Plaza, I slept on the cold floor. In the early morning hours, agents transported me to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There, I slept on the ground and was refused a blanket despite my request.

    My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza, which resumed in full force Monday night. With January’s ceasefire now broken, parents in Gaza are once again cradling too-small shrouds, and families are forced to weigh starvation and displacement against bombs. It is our moral imperative to persist in the struggle for their complete freedom.

    I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria to a family which has been displaced from their land since the 1948 Nakba. I spent my youth in proximity to yet distant from my homeland. But being Palestinian is an experience that transcends borders. I see in my circumstances similarities to Israel’s use of administrative detention — imprisonment without trial or charge — to strip Palestinians of their rights. I think of our friend Omar Khatib, who was incarcerated without charge or trial by Israel as he returned home from travel. I think of Gaza hospital director and pediatrician Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, who was taken captive by the Israeli military on December 27 and remains in an Israeli torture camp today. For Palestinians, imprisonment without due process is commonplace.

    I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti-Palestinian racism that both the Biden and Trump administrations have demonstrated over the past 16 months as the U.S. has continued to supply Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians and prevented international intervention. For decades, anti-Palestinian racism has driven efforts to expand U.S. laws and practices that are used to violently repress Palestinians, Arab Americans, and other communities. That is precisely why I am being targeted.

    I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear.

    While I await legal decisions that hold the futures of my wife and child in the balance, those who enabled my targeting remain comfortably at Columbia University. Presidents Shafik, Armstrong, and Dean Yarhi-Milo laid the groundwork for the U.S. government to target me by arbitrarily disciplining pro-Palestinian students and allowing viral doxing campaigns — based on racism and disinformation — to go unchecked.Columbia targeted me for my activism, creating a new authoritarian disciplinary office to bypass due process and silence students criticizing Israel. Columbia surrendered to federal pressure by disclosing student records to Congress and yielding to the Trump administration’s latest threats. My arrest, the expulsion or suspension of at least 22 Columbia students — some stripped of their B.A. degrees just weeks before graduation — and the expulsion of SWC President Grant Miner on the eve of contract negotiations, are clear examples.

    If anything, my detention is a testament to the strength of the student movement in shifting public opinion toward Palestinian liberation. Students have long been at the forefront of change — leading the charge against the Vietnam War, standing on the frontlines of the civil rights movement, and driving the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, too, even if the public has yet to fully grasp it, it is students who steer us toward truth and justice.

    The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa-holders, green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. In the weeks ahead, students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all.

    Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my first-born child.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.