Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
On the Prairieland Defendants
0 Plays3 seconds ago
In this episode we feature two interviews regarding the Prairieland trials and defendants.
The first interview is with two people from the support crew, made up of friends and family of the defendants. We talk about how things went down at the noise demo that led to these arrests, how the trial went and how everyone is holding up.
The second interview is with Xavier de Janon, from the People’s Law Collective, and the National Lawyers Guild. We speak with them in more detail about the charges, and the unprecedented way these cases are being dealt with in general.
Please follow along with these cases and upcoming trials, as there is a lot more to come and they need all the support they can get!
Best place to find info is at https://prairielanddefendants.com/ Please donate if you can at https://www.givesendgo.com/supportDFWprotestors
Here is some more info about Dario’s upcoming trial
https://www.keranews.org/criminal-justice/2026-03-10/dario-sanchez-prairieland-ice-shooting
This article is mentioned in the interview with Xavier
And here is two more recent articles with good info
https://thelensnola.org/2026/04/02/prairieland-protest-ice-convictions-texas-louisiana/
https://www.nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/the-state-vs-the-emma-goldman-book-club/
Check out People’s Law Collective here
And the National Lawyers at
https://www.nlg.org/
More info on International Solidarity Movement at
https://palsolidarity.org
and follow them on instagram and upscrolled at
@ismpalestine
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to 'The Beautiful Idea' Podcast
00:00:09
Speaker
Hello. You're listening to The Beautiful Idea, a podcast from a collective of several anarchist and autonomous media producers scattered around the world. We're bringing you interviews and stories from the front lines of autonomous social movements and struggles, as well as original commentary and analysis.
00:00:25
Speaker
Follow us on Mastodon and at thebeautifulidea.show. Thanks for listening.
Prairieland Defendants Conviction Discussion
00:00:43
Speaker
Hi, thanks to both of you for joining us on The Beautiful Idea. Today we're speaking with some members of the support committee for the Prairieland defendants who were just convicted on March 13th by a federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas for their alleged roles during a July 4th noise demo outside the Prairieland Ice Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. In a number of criminal charges, various defendants have been found guilty by the jury of rioting,
00:01:08
Speaker
providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, using and carrying an explosive, attempted murder of officers and employees of the United States, discharging a firearm during, in relation to, and in furtherance of a crime of violence,
00:01:23
Speaker
corruptly concealing a document of record and conspiracy to conceal documents. I hate listing out all these things, but they are technically the charges that have been publicized. So just putting that out there for context.
Overview of July 4th Noise Demonstration
00:01:36
Speaker
And so to to kick us off, do you either of you mind just introducing yourself quickly to listeners, however you'd like to be introduced? And then I'm going to ask you for a bit of an overview on the case.
00:01:47
Speaker
My name is Amber Lowry. My sister, Savannah Batten, is one of the Prairieland defendants. So basically what happened is last July 4th, you know, a couple of different groups of people sort of, you know, became connected by a group chat. They they had come across the same invitation to a noise demonstration that would be held at the Prairieland Ice Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas that and that evening.
00:02:13
Speaker
So a couple of different groups of friends rode out to the noise demo together. You know, there was, there was one group was doing fireworks. You know, some people had bullhorns, maracas. mean, the whole idea was just to, to get out there, make some noise. Some, ah like I said, some of them did a fireworks display for the detainees. Apparently the back wall of the detention center is just a full kind of sheet of glass.
00:02:35
Speaker
And so there was a fireworks display that was set up right behind that so that the detainees being held inside could see the fireworks show.
Shooting Incident Controversy
00:02:42
Speaker
Somewhere something went wrong. um we know We know a little bit more now than we knew beforehand about, you know, because the original story was, you know, bill this group of protesters, you know, went and shot up the ICE facility. And obviously that is that is far from what happened. Basically, an officer showed up.
00:03:01
Speaker
And that as he testified in court, he kind of jumped out of his vehicle with his weapon already drawn. He chased two fleeing protesters, apparently intending to shoot them in the back. And so the alleged shooter, what we learned in court, never actually even aimed his rifle at the officer. He sent eight rounds. not There was no multiple shooters. There was no 30 to 40 to 50 rounds.
00:03:25
Speaker
Eight rounds were sent into the pavement. We saw this on close, was it closed circuit TV video that was shown in the court. These eight rounds went into the pavement. And so the original story was that the officer was shot through the neck and then he was shot through the back.
00:03:41
Speaker
He was pinged by a ricocheting shot off the pavement. And we actually don't even know if the shot came from the accused shooter or if it was other officer fire. That was all very messy.
00:03:52
Speaker
So. That's super helpful overview of the case. I just want to ask the other person on the call, do you want to introduce yourself really quickly and maybe explain how you're connected to the support crew?
00:04:05
Speaker
Yeah, so I'm Cruz and I've basically just been helping with court support efforts and stuff like that and reaching out, just stuff like that. Cool. So you just gave the really helpful overview, Amber, of what happened on July 4th.
00:04:21
Speaker
Could you also explain a little bit about what happened in the aftermath? You know, how did that event wrap up and how have defendants and their families been impacted by everything that's happened since?
State's Portrayal as Antifa Terror Cell
00:04:32
Speaker
So in the aftermath of this, so several officers, at wardens, not armed officers, but wardens at Prairieland ended up, ah we found out during their testimony in the trial, actually ended up asking the protesters to leave. They they testified that they had peaceful, respectful, no issue, like no nobody tried to harm them. nobody They had conversations. they He basically said, you're on federal property, you need to leave.
00:04:58
Speaker
And so the defendants who were down in the field cleaning up, yeah that they asked for a few extra minutes to clean up their trash. So they clean up their firework trash. And they were already I mean they had walked all the way. They were my understanding is several football fields away before any of the shooting started.
00:05:13
Speaker
And so they were they had already been asked to leave, had left. I think there were two or three people left on the on the property ah when when the shooting actually happened. So the ones who had left were actually intercepted by officers, like I said, several football fields away, and they walked right past the officers, you know, we saw on body cam video.
00:05:31
Speaker
I will note here that when we saw the protesters walking by on body cam video, they were not wearing the Black tactical black block, etc, etc. We saw people walking by in blue jeans, white sneakers, somebody had pink and white sneakers. My sister was wearing like a little skimpy tank top and blue jeans that she had worn to work that day. So that whole thing ended up being, you know, we saw we saw this on video.
00:05:54
Speaker
Anyway, so I believe we are up to either 18 or 19 total people arrested now. Some of them were, most of them, I guess, were not not even at the facility. ah You had people being arrested for removing people from group chats. One person was arrested for telling someone how to remove someone from a group chat. Someone was arrested for picking literally he picked up ah a box of his own belongings. This box hasn't been changed or altered since 2022. It was his own personal box of things that he moved from his wife's house. And so what ended up happening basically is a lot of just extraneous, you know, evidence that wasn't really evidence of anything ended up kind of getting thrown out there.
00:06:34
Speaker
And there were there were extra people who were providing support for people who had been arrested that ended up getting arrested themselves as the state kind of tried to cobble this whole story together of this Antifa terror cell that really never existed. But as you see, they were successful for now.
00:06:53
Speaker
Yeah. And speaking of that, I mean, it sounds like the picture that the state has been trying to paint of what happened and the people involved is pretty different from what actually happened.
00:07:04
Speaker
And so I'm wondering if you all want to speak to that a little bit about like, what do you think is happening here? Why is this case ah played out the way it has? Is this, you know, being used as pawn to like further a specific narrative? And what is that narrative? Curious for your thoughts on that.
Defendants as Scapegoats in National Narrative
00:07:23
Speaker
So I guess it's just the classic tactic of scapegoating. I guess they're trying to grip these people and use them as sort of evidence for the wider narrative of like this Antifa scare that's going on nationally and sort of pointing a finger ah at these people to be like, oh, these are the source of our problems or whatever. And I guess this kind of ties in at the implications of the case.
00:07:48
Speaker
So as as as is often the case record cases, they often cite past cases where there was like a ruling and and stuff like that. So this case could be used for cases around the country to try to be like, oh, this judge ruled this to justify ah further oppression that we see in this in this case.
00:08:07
Speaker
Is there anything you wanted to add to that, Amber? Yeah, I mean, I would just say that I think what's different about this case, this case is not unlike all of the, you know, the ICE shootings we've heard. You know there was the woman in Chicago who was shot five times by ICE and they tried to lie and say, oh, she rammed us. She did this. She did that.
00:08:27
Speaker
And then once the case goes to court, you learn that the story that the police had told her, it's not even... I don't even know that it's always the police, because in our case, it wasn't the police who were the problem. It's the feds that are the problem, because we we ended up finding out in court that the federal government has either. I don't know whether you would what you would say, because I haven't seen the the pages myself, but there were signed sworn officer statements in the government's evidence binder for every officer witness that they brought in. And you kept seeing one after another, after another, officers would get up on the stand and their testimony did not align with what was in their signed sworn statement.
00:09:06
Speaker
And so one in particular that was interesting was I'm going back to officer Reedy, who is a warden at Prairieland was last July and and it currently is still there. He was asked about a major inconsistency in his testimony, which had him, he testified to having seen four people, In one spot, which was outside the fence line of Prairieland, which is where the fireworks display for the detainees was being set off.
00:09:32
Speaker
Well, his written, his signed sworn statement said that he had seen 20 plus people near the tree line, which would have put him or or them completely on the other side near the alleged shooter. So what actually happened is that he was the first, Officer Reedy and Officer Harp were the first two people to be sent outside. And they approached the protesters, the ones who were setting off fireworks and those were who were just watching. And he, like I said, he told them, you know, you're on federal property, you've got to go. Well,
00:10:00
Speaker
He was asked about his statement, why his testimony was not corroborating, you know, what wasn't matching up with what was on a statement. Well, the defense attorney who was crossing him at the time, she said, well, if I show you your written statement, do you think it would refresh your memory or clear this up? So she goes over and she shows him his statement.
00:10:19
Speaker
And he says right there on the stand, oh, no, ma'am, that's not my statement. i I didn't, I've never seen that. I did not write that. I did not sign that. And she asked him, yeah well, Dina, who wrote it for you?
00:10:30
Speaker
He had no idea. And this happened multiple times. Eventually, as officers continued to stumble over their testimony, the judge started to just let them read from these written statements in the government's binder. They weren't even testifying anymore. They were literally just reading because nothing that was written was you know what they had actually experienced.
00:10:51
Speaker
And again, it's not different from any of these other cases that you're finding out after the fact that either whether it's the police or if it's the federal government that's lying. The difference here is that it happened in Texas.
00:11:02
Speaker
And we have a very, a very interesting political situation. Most of our politicians, and most of our our government officials would be on board with with a big cover up like this. So going to be up to us to fight to get this information out and to prove that what they're saying is not what happened.
Trial Irregularities and Mistrial
00:11:20
Speaker
So on that note, what is next for you all? You know, I am curious about, maybe we can talk about this in a minute, you know, about how people have been impacted in the immediate aftermath.
00:11:31
Speaker
but I'm also curious about just like legally next steps. Maybe we'll be able to get into this in other parts of today's episode, but do you think there will be an attempt to push back on these rulings? Is there a possibility that people will appeal? What is kind of on the horizon?
00:11:49
Speaker
Absolutely. we yeah We absolutely will be appealing the verdict. there There are a few things that, first of all, we have we have a lot of grounds. I mean, the the entire trial was very irregular, the way that it was held.
00:12:01
Speaker
The circumstances surrounding the mistrial on February 17th, which is when the trial was supposed to begin. i know Are you aware of the mistrial situation that happened? or Maybe you could explain it for for listeners.
00:12:14
Speaker
So trial was set to begin February seventeen And they they didn't want they really didn't want people or press. They didn't want anyone in the courtroom. So we were put into a very small courtroom that held, I think, less than 50 people. They ended up blocking off a third of the courtroom for law enforcement. And so we were struggling to get family members in and let alone the journalists who wanted to be in.
00:12:36
Speaker
So the first jury pool, let it be known that they were not supportive of the Trump administration. And they certainly were not supportive of um immigration control and enforcement.
00:12:48
Speaker
All of the questions about that. i mean, people, people were sort of sparring with the judge a little bit about things like that. The jury also came back largely neutral on the statement. You can't take a gun to a protest.
00:13:00
Speaker
So This whole all of these things stuff started to go sideways. Well, then the judge stopped the defense attorney who was asking about guns at a protest. And he basically said, is this the best use of the court's time that all of the attorneys out to confer amongst themselves?
Judge's Conduct and Skewed Proceedings
00:13:15
Speaker
But when they came back, this gun question never came up again. Instead, it had come up that one of the defense attorneys was wearing a blouse. with civil rights figures on it in honor of Jesse Jackson, who had passed away that morning. And so there was a big kerfuffle. And the end result of that was Judge Pittman said, you know, this is I've never declared a mistrial before. I'll never do it again. But this this case, this has got to be a mistrial over this attorney's shirt. You know, basically, you're you're going to influence the jury.
00:13:45
Speaker
So mistrial happened. And then he ordered twice as large a jury pool for the following week. He also did not permit the attorneys to participate in jury selection. He had them to submit questions under seal that he could or not choose to ask of the jury. He selected the jury from his double-sized jury pool on his own.
00:14:08
Speaker
He did not allow the the attorneys to participate. So there were... The whole thing, the the entire trial went very much that way. It was like, I think I can remember twice that, that he did not overrule the prosecution, but literally 99% of the the defense objections were overruled. i mean, it was just very much skewed toward, toward the government, you know.
00:14:33
Speaker
And so, yeah, there there are a lot of irregularities. We'll just say that. So we had some other things happen throughout the trial. And then it even all the way up until up until jury deliberation, we found what we didn't find out.
00:14:46
Speaker
Some of us heard we were sitting outside the courtroom on the last day, the day the day that the verdict came in. And about an hour before we were told to come in for the verdict. We heard a huge shouting match, fight, whatever was happening. Well, there was a big fight in the jury room and attorneys had to go and have U.S. Marshals go in and and break this fight up, basically.
00:15:08
Speaker
And then we noticed during the reading that two of the male jurors, they were, you know, you could just you could look at them and just tell something was wrong. But they actually openly cried during the reading of the verdict.
00:15:18
Speaker
So we know that something happened in that jury room. So that's going to be under investigation, as well as all of the other irregularities and things that went wrong during trial. So...
00:15:30
Speaker
Yeah, those are some really big things to investigate. I'm sure I'll have a big implication on what happens next. I'm curious now to to talk a little bit more about the impact that this is having on defendants and on family and community.
00:15:45
Speaker
Could you all talk a little bit about how folks are doing right now in this moment, how they're being treated currently? What are some of their biggest needs right now? Yeah, so would say that, you know, our people are are doing as well as can be expected. You know, we're we're staying positive for them because,
00:16:06
Speaker
we know that this is not the end. You know, it can't be overstated the impact that this is going to have on on our our, you know, the broader community, because these are the people who are out in the streets, you know, taking care of folks that most people won't even look at, you know, they're out doing the mutual aid and they're out feeding people and protecting the unhoused people from having their encampments destroyed and I mean, all of these people are for all of the the rumors that are flying around about them. These are are better humans than than anyone that I know.
00:16:35
Speaker
I mean, these are the people who who are out taking care of everyone else. So, you know, the government claims that they've dismantled this Antifa cell. They actually said during the lead prosecutor, John Smith, said that the word community implies something nefarious, conspiracy or wrongdoing. The word community.
00:16:57
Speaker
And so my take on it is I say, you know, you guys are, you know, you're going out telling the world, oh, we dismantled this Antifa cell. Honey, no, there's no Antifa cell. But what you actually did is you took, you took like some of the best people in the world and you've locked them up.
00:17:14
Speaker
But you brought all of our families and all of our communities together. And this is just not the end. It's not going to happen. You know, so we're we're doing everything we can to take care of the Prairieland defendants. you we're making sure that every everyone has what they need. And of course, they're doing what they do inside. You know, they're they'll they'll call us one day and say, you know, hey, can you take this amount of money from my commissary and send it over to this random person so that they can call their mother? And that's, that's who they are.
00:17:40
Speaker
They're kind of building their own community on the inside, taking care of people, they they get information out to us about other people who are being abused or neglected or have issues coming up. So then we can, we can, you know, do what we do, and make sure that that things are set right for those people. So This is what our life is going to look like, you know, for the foreseeable future. And we're just we're making the most of it because this is this is what we have.
Harsh Conditions for Defendants in Jail
00:18:03
Speaker
And we know the truth and it's not going to stand.
00:18:07
Speaker
Do you want to add anything on to that, Cruz? Not really. I think that was beautifully put. Yeah. You did just talk a little bit about how people are supporting other folks that they're in jail with right now. Is there anything else that has happened in jail? How long have they been in jail for? if you could give like a little bit of that timeline and just what the day to day is looking like right now.
00:18:34
Speaker
Yeah, so I can tell you that so nobody has gotten out of jail. None of these defendants have gotten out of jail. they They've been in since July 4th. ah For the first three months, my sister, and and I believe others too, but I wasn't as intimately aware of their situations at the time, but my sister, Savannah, was in solitary confinement for the first three months of her incarceration by herself.
00:18:58
Speaker
The only human contact she had were federal agents who would come in and lie to her and tell her that her attorney said it was fine to speak with you without counsel present. That's what she had for three months.
00:19:09
Speaker
There were some others who were not in solitary who also at Johnson County Jail had to kind of doula a woman through giving birth in her cell because the guards at Johnson County mocked her and ignored her and called her a liar for two days until she had a baby on her filthy cell floor.
00:19:29
Speaker
They tried to lie about it, but she ended up actually talking with some of the journalists that we had been in contact with. So she was able to share her story. there i mean, there have been people who have been abused. There have been people who were starved.
00:19:42
Speaker
One of the um cooperating defendants is an elderly woman who was roughed up physically. She was threatened. She had her medication withheld. She had her hearing aid stolen by the guards at Johnson County.
00:19:56
Speaker
That was sort of part of... coercing her to accept the the plea deal. and And that's that was that went for all of the defense. mean, all of the defendants went through hell at the hands of guards and federal agents that just, you know, they they said the the um lead prosecutor said to one of the defense attorneys, you know,
00:20:15
Speaker
We're under strict orders from the very top, from the highest levels to get these plea deals, whatever it takes. So it is what it is. You know, even though some of the the lawyers had relationships with this person were and were able to say, OK, we've we've seen the same discovery, you know, that this person didn't do this. And it was just like it is what it is.
00:20:35
Speaker
So it's been a very, very rough time for all of them, all of them. well So I know there's been some solidarity letter writing nights and support rallies across the country. April 4th is going to be a day of solidarity with the Prairie Land defendants coming
Solidarity Efforts for Defendants
00:20:51
Speaker
up here. People are making solidarity statements. especially at the the No Kings rally, I think is supposed to be tomorrow. So I think there's a concerted effort to try to get more people to learn about this case and to support the defendants.
00:21:07
Speaker
I've heard some people traveled to the trial to support throughout that process. Could you all tell us a little bit about some of these efforts? What kinds of support has been really useful to defendants? If there's ways that it would be most helpful for people just learning about the case to plug in and to support?
00:21:24
Speaker
Yeah, so during in the days in trial, so people were organizing events outside and food was organized for people attending those events in trial. The idea was basically to basically show like jury or whoever's passing by to be like, oh, we're just like normal people we trying to be good friends. And yeah, so there was like speeches, poetry poetry readings.
00:21:45
Speaker
Things like that. And yeah, many out-of-town people showed up and helped with that. And yeah, I think something that was very meaningful for the defendants were some of the noise rallies that were organized. Some of them said that they were able to hear like while they being they were being transported or or whatever, they were able to hear the noise. And yeah, yeah ah that was meaningful to them.
00:22:05
Speaker
Cool. Anything else that you all can add around ways that people could plug in now or ways that's really helpful support wise? I know, you know, like I said, there's the letter writing stuff and donating. um It sounds like the Give, Send, Go is almost 97,000 out of a desired 125,000, which is a really big milestone.
Community Involvement and Awareness
00:22:27
Speaker
Yeah. Is there any other ways that people can support? And yeah, what are the best ways for people to to support right now?
00:22:35
Speaker
So, yeah, obviously there is the give, send, go, which is accessible through the prairielanddefendants.com website. tell Tell everyone you know about the case. I mean, that's that's one thing is that early on before we learned what actually happened with the shooting, it seemed that every, you know, individuals and organizations, most were afraid to touch the case. They wanted nothing to do with it because, you know, you're hearing again, oh, these These scary people and all this tactical gear shot up an ice facility and this and this. So, of course, no one wanted to touch it.
00:23:08
Speaker
Well, you know, then we end up finding out that actually the accused shooter stopped a police officer from murdering two unarmed protesters. And however you feel about that, you know. it it changes things. And so, you know, we have court notes available for every day of trial, we had a phenomenal note taking team. And I just so many, like, we had the outside court support, we had the inside court support, people were taking notes, people were, you know, planning events and doing all of this stuff. So I feel like we haven't thanked everyone properly for all the things that they've done. But yes, our volunteer team of note takers, every minute of trial has been recorded and transcribed. And so while we wait for the transcript to be available, which is we hear could take months, those court notes are available. If you have the time, go and read through the court notes, get an understanding of what actually took place at trial, because all all of the lies that the government was caught in are documented there. i mean, it's just right out there for everyone to see. But yeah, it's going to take time, you know, as we go through the appeals process. So I'd say, educate yourself. On the case, letter writing is always welcome. I mean, there's what there are a lot of defendants and they do appreciate getting mail. I mean, we we talk to them almost daily. Some of our spoken to daily, but yeah, we just try to keep the letters coming in and keep, you know, lifting their spirits. People send books sometimes and like little care packages are really nice.
00:24:24
Speaker
But yeah, one one thing for me too, is that I wasn't really a big community person before, but this whole thing has taught me as I've been literally just shoved out into community. This is very important. you know making those connections before something like this happens is very important. These are the people who these are the protectors, these are the people, the defenders, the people who are out there, you know, fighting for our immigrant neighbors. And I say fighting, not shooting cogs for our immigrant neighbors, but, you know, doing doing noise demos, doing protests, you know, staying aware of what's going on and making sure that things that the crimes that ICE are committing are being reported. I mean, these are the people that are out really protecting our most vulnerable members of society.
00:25:07
Speaker
And so when when you have a whole group like this get snatched up, you know, we have to get in. So I would just say, if you're not already involved, if you're not going to No Kings protest, if you're not already involved in mutual aid or out in your communities, get there.
00:25:19
Speaker
Because this is coming for all of us. This is not, it's not just, just these people. And yes, things went really sideways because this happened in Texas. And we are very, very corrupt in Texas. But this is going to be happening everywhere. And they will use this case. And imagine all the black block.
00:25:35
Speaker
Okay, any anyone wearing first of all, they weren't wearing black block, but some of them were wearing maybe a piece or two of black clothing. And so things like that will be used reading materials, a printing press, like There are literally people sitting in jail right now who did nothing, who stood on grass outside of the facility, and now they are convicted terrorists. Understand that this is coming for all of us. And so it behooves all of us to get involved, to help educate and and you know start getting organized. mean We have to.
00:26:06
Speaker
you know that's how That's how we can all help. Awesome. Well, I think you already mentioned this, but there's a support website, right?
Supporting Defendants via Social Media
00:26:14
Speaker
Prairielanddefendants.com. There's a Give, Send, Go fundraiser that's also linked from that website. Is there any other stuff that you would recommend that people follow to get more information?
00:26:26
Speaker
Maybe an Instagram account or something else? Yes, we do have dfw support committee accounts on, I believe, Instagram, Twix, if you will. Sorry, X. Let's see, Instagram, Twitter, Blue Sky. We are on Blue Sky. is it do Are you aware of any other screws that were on social media?
00:26:45
Speaker
Mastodon, you mentioned the website, right? Yeah. Yes. Plug into the website, follow us on any of those social medias and and just just stay connected. Share our stories.
00:26:56
Speaker
I will. Any other thoughts or anything else that you want to leave people with as we close out this conversation? i do have one thing. It might not seem like a lot, but I want to emphasize the letter writing because prisons are organized to make it easy for people to get forgotten and to basically just isolate people. So if you can send a letter, even if you're just like a stranger doesn't know these people, yeah, it can mean everything.
00:27:21
Speaker
Thank you. Yeah. Anything else? Yeah, I mean, that's that's it. You know, help, you know, if you know someone who's incarcerated or or if you can help any any of the political prisoners, including the Prairieland defendants, yeah, write to them, hold the noise demo, um hold the letter writing night, you know, anything that you can do to help support. And obviously, you know, we we are now in a situation where we're going to have to assemble and and Avengers, you know, defense team for the appellate court. So, I mean, any donations are welcome. I mean, just anything that you can do to get involved is just, is anything help.
00:27:54
Speaker
We appreciate it. every bit of support that we get. Cool. Well, thank you both so much for taking the time to come on and to speak with us and share a little bit more about this case. It's so important and glad to get the word out more. So take care. Thank you. it's So nice to meet you. We appreciate it very much.
00:28:15
Speaker
We wanted to add a note here to stress the importance of supporting the rest of the Prairieland defendants who have upcoming state trials happening soon. The first of which is starting April 20th for Dario Sanchez, and it's in a smaller town called Cleburne, Texas.
00:28:30
Speaker
His charges are especially wild, and if he's found guilty, it could have a lot of ramifications for digital communications. Additionally, eight of the people who just had the federal trial still have individual state cases.
00:28:43
Speaker
Three people still need state lawyers, and two people who took non-cooperating plea deals also have state cases. And then there are two more people who are waiting to be indicted or who are indicted.
00:28:54
Speaker
So, including Dario, that's at least 13 separate state trials for which they'll need support of all kinds. Reading from the support crew's announcement, Dario needs our support as he fights unprecedented charges.
00:29:07
Speaker
Come to Cleburne to take notes during the trial, support outside the courthouse, or help with logistics like cooking. Fill out the court support form at tinyurl.com slash DarioCourt.
00:29:19
Speaker
If you can't come to Cleburne, plan an event in your city or town during the trial dates. We will link to their website so you can follow updates there, and we'll include links to relevant articles and more information in the show notes.
00:29:31
Speaker
Stay tuned for our next interview, which goes into a lot more info about these cases.
Legal Implications and Signal Misconceptions
00:30:10
Speaker
Hey everybody, so I'm here today with Javier of the People's Law Collective and maybe you can just go ahead and introduce yourself and any other affiliations you'd like to share.
00:30:23
Speaker
Yes, thank you for having me. My name is Javier de Janan and I am a part of the People's Law Collective which represents political defendants across the South and I also work at the National Lawyers Guild separately.
00:30:37
Speaker
Great. And we are here today to talk about the Prairieland case from sort of a legal angle, talk about what happened, what some of the updates of the case are and and what they mean. And folks who are listening will have already heard a segment talking about the protests that happened on July 4th and the arrests and the case that followed and what it means for the defendants and everything. So we'll mostly be focusing on on some of the legal aspects of that. And just to get started, i guess one thing that i'm I'm really excited to ask you about, because I've just been seeing so much chatter online, so much speculation and maybe even alarmism about what exactly this verdict means. Obviously, it's a very bad verdict. and We can say a lot about that. But, you know, I'm seeing people say things like, you know, in this case, they used the fact that people were using Signal, the encrypted messaging app, as evidence of terrorism. So using Signal as terrorism now. So even journalists who are using Signal are at danger of being accused of being terrorists. What do you think of that kind of reading of this verdict? Yeah.
00:31:43
Speaker
Yeah, that's a good question. So I think, I mean, to be clear, what actually happened in this verdict in North Texas is that eight people were convicted of riot, use of explosives to commit a felony, which is the riot, and material support for terrorism.
00:31:58
Speaker
One of those eight people was also convicted of attempted murder. And discharging firearm in a federal building. And then a ninth defendant was only convicted of the concealing evidence charges. And then unfortunately, one of the other eight was also on a conspiracy accusation. So, you know, from start, legally, there actually is no conviction of terrorism in this case.
00:32:22
Speaker
There is a material support for terrorism, but when you read the statute, it actually doesn't even need a terrorist organization. It doesn't need terroristic intent, which is what they call when people are trying to like coerce or influence the government. All it requires is aiding or helping or and supporting certain federal crimes. Many of one is terrorism itself.
00:32:45
Speaker
So it's not true that there's a conviction for of using signal, meaning that you're a terrorist. that Legally, that's not what happened. However, also from, I guess, more of a political perspective, which in many ways the law is a political tool, what this case does it it gives the green light to other prosecutors to try similar theories, similar ideas.
00:33:07
Speaker
cases similar legal arguments in other situations. So if you ask me what are the like legal consequences of this verdict is that now the Department of Justice and other prosecutors are emboldened to use as evidence signal messages, wearing all black, printing and reading zines, right?
00:33:27
Speaker
These things that the government presented in Texas as proof of crime is now going to be used again elsewhere probably. on On a more narrow perspective, you know the legal repercussions that I am actually more concerned about is the fireworks conviction.
00:33:44
Speaker
The fact that fireworks resulted really in these three convictions, riot, use of explosives, and material support for terrorism, that really should worry us. Beyond the use of signal and encrypted communications alleged to be crimes, I mean,
00:33:59
Speaker
That wasn't even required for any of these convictions. From a legal perspective, consumer-grade fireworks could get you in this situation. And that, for me, is actually where activists, movement organizers should be aware and thoughtful because fireworks at protests are actually pretty common. And in 2020, there were fireworks every day all around the country to make noise and to protest.
00:34:25
Speaker
What is really concerning, too, is that there was evidence that The fireworks didn't even cause any damage. And a lot of post-trial motions have to do with this in the case. But this over estimation of the case that now a Signal is a crime, I don't think that's legally accurate. I do think politically, though, you know, it makes sense because the government might be able to use Signal as evidence of a crime.
00:34:51
Speaker
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So I guess that that brings up another question about precedent and how precedent works. So I've heard people saying that precedent is something that's more set at a higher court level. Is that true? Or is there like some degree to which other cases, even before this goes to a higher court for appeal, could be citing this as like a formal legal argument for why, you know, similar charges could be brought in other cases?
00:35:22
Speaker
or Or is it more like what you said, it's just kind of emboldens prosecutors to push a little further? So, yes, legally, it has to be an appellate case and a published appellate case to be binding precedent in a very specific place, a very specific jurisdiction. So, yeah, I mean, even in the Fifth Circuit, which is where the Northern District of Texas is, this verdict and the rulings that the judge had Legally, don't bind other courts in the Fifth Circuit. And of course, no court outside of the Fifth Circuit.
00:35:56
Speaker
So yes, technically, legally, there is no ah binding precedent. But in the US legal system, what is considered persuasive precedent is super, super expansive. And so...
00:36:09
Speaker
There are many situations where unprecedented cases don't have many things to cite because it just hasn't happened before. I mean, the criminalization of Signal wouldn't exist because Signal is new technology, right?
00:36:24
Speaker
There is no case law. There's no appellate. guidance on this. So what other courts do and what lawyers do all the time is they refer to these non-precedent decisions. So for example, a prosecutor in a district in New York who is trying to prosecute fireworks noise demonstration could refer that judge, that court, to the Northern District of Texas rulings. Even though it's not published, even though it's not legal precedent in terms of being binding, it could be referenced as an example. Look, the judge in North Texas already did that and this is how it went.
00:37:01
Speaker
So you should do it too because, you know, they did it over there. Many judges, especially less right-wing judges, are unconvinced by this, you know, very, like, low-level trial court decision-making.
00:37:13
Speaker
But other more conservative right-wing judges might actually look at what Judge Pittman ruled and how he ruled. and considered that enough footing to stand on.
00:37:24
Speaker
You know, in the 60s civil rights movement, it was actually the progressive lawyers who were doing precedent this way. They were getting rulings in district courts across the country and then referencing each other, even though it was in binding case law, to then try to get the same outcome.
00:37:42
Speaker
We're seeing the same actually happen in immigration cases where there's these habeas corpuses being filed. And so immigration lawyers are referencing district courts across the country, even though they're not binding precedent, it's guidance for the other court. So unfortunately, even though, again, like legally, technically, Judge Pittman's decision are not binding, other clever prosecutors and even other defense lawyers, if they have anything in favorable, could reference him as support for their arguments.
00:38:14
Speaker
So another thing that people are talking about with this case, a big headline way it's being discussed is this idea that it's like a test case for the Trump administration's efforts to criminalize Antifa as
Antifa Terrorism Narrative and Political Influence
00:38:28
Speaker
an organization. I know you kind of touched on this a little bit already about there not actually being a charge of there being a terroristic organization here. But can you talk a little bit about how this idea of anti-fascism or Antifa works?
00:38:41
Speaker
came up in the trial and what that might mean going forward or for people who consider themselves anti-fascists? So, I mean, the Antifa of it all was present in the case since opening arguments in the trial itself and in closing.
00:38:59
Speaker
The federal government, after the verdict, actually very quickly issued a press release saying that they did get a conviction against the North Texas Antifa terror cell.
00:39:09
Speaker
So for this federal government, this was an Antifa trial and they did convict Antifa, even though Antifa had nothing to do with the charges themselves, with the burden of proof. In fact, the Department of Justice's press release says Antifa cell members convicted in Prairie Land ICE detention center shooting. So again, even though legally Antifa was not a part of this case, it was irrelevant in many ways for the charges, politically,
00:39:39
Speaker
the government did accomplish goals. It was able to create a terror cell, create an imagined organization, get a conviction kind of related to it. And now it can say, look, we're doing it to its masses and you know to other activists and other anti-fascists. I think the concern under Trump's NSPN-7 memorandum and the attorney the U.S. Attorney General's guidance on enforcing the memoranda is that if someone believes in anti-fascism, organizes protests and actions that are anti-government and anti-authoritarian, the Department of Justice has signaled and is saying very clearly that they consider those to be part of terrorist groups, domestic terrorist groups.
00:40:24
Speaker
So, you know, even though, again, legally Antifa was not convicted, legally that organization, that enterprise was not established, politically for the government it has been.
00:40:36
Speaker
And especially for the government's base, right, the Make America Great Again base that's huge, and even, you know, centrist right-wingers, this is proof that Antifa does exist, right? The Department of Justice saying we did it, we got them, is enough proof.
00:40:51
Speaker
Something that I think anti-fascists and anarchists forget often is that the majority of Americans see the legal system and the courts as the ultimate providers of truth, right?
00:41:03
Speaker
the ultimate providers of what reality is. And so if the Department of Justice, even for you know a moderate Democrat, the Department of Justice says this is what happened, people in this country, in this culture, believe that that is true.
00:41:20
Speaker
We remember, all of us, the trial of O.J. Simpson. And even though, you know, people will jokingly say, well, we know he did it, when it was a not guilty, the public, the media, culturally, it was accepted that he didn't do it, right? This is the level of effect of the legal system in people's imagination. So yeah, now we're in a moment where even though we can be specific that Antifa was not convicted, the government now has more tools and more propaganda to convince people that Antifa does exist.
00:41:55
Speaker
So speaking of the North Texas Antifa cell that the government alleged to have been part of this protest, a couple of weeks after the verdict came down, this article came out by Adam Fetterman in In These Times that revealed through a bunch of FOIA documents of internal FBI investigation reports that that the FBI had actually been investigating some of these folks under this moniker of of a North Texas Antifa cell or or something along those lines, all the way back in the first Trump administration, and had actually come to the conclusion that these groups were not criminal in nature and were not any kind of violent threat.
00:42:38
Speaker
So a lot of people are saying that this was a type of evidence that the prosecution should have provided to the defense as part of discovery and that them not doing that was like a serious
FOIA Documents and Prosecution Misconduct
00:42:53
Speaker
misconduct. Can you can you say a little bit more about that? Is that the sort of thing that will be coming up in appeal?
00:43:00
Speaker
Certainly. So during the federal trial, there was a federal agent who basically explained connections between present groups, right, presently existing groups and political associations in the DFW area, in Dallas-Fort Worth area, and connected them back to what was called DFW-Antifa or Antifa-DFW, know, many different names that had. So what the federal government told the jury and told the judge, told everyone during the trial was that there's a direct connection between the people who were on trial, the defendants, and DFW and TIFA.
00:43:36
Speaker
And they went as far as saying that the Emma Goldman Book Club, a book club that was organized to read books every week, every month, was a direct descendant of DFW and Tifa that no longer existed. And it was just the front because of that. And what the government presented is that the Emma Goldman Book Club and these other, you know, what they call above ground organizations, the Socialist Rifle Association and other groups were recruitment fronts for the North Texas Antifa terror cell. And so, again, they said this happened because if you look at the people and the social media accounts, there's a lineage between DFW and Antifa and the groups that were criminalized during the trial.
00:44:18
Speaker
And so documents that say precisely the opposite, that say DFW and Antifa was never criminal and we investigated them, we surveilled them, We looked around, we followed them around, and we saw no crime, right? If this happened, the argument the government made is nonsense.
00:44:36
Speaker
It's illogical. And this evidence, if it it wasn't turned over to the federal defense attorneys, so They weren't able to confront these FBI agents and say, but wait, you're saying there's a direct lineage, but the direct lineage would be from no crime to no crime, right? You already concluded 2018 that there's no criminal element to this. So therefore, in 2025, the same should be true, right? On their theory, if this is a recruitment front, it's recruitment front for no crime, right?
00:45:06
Speaker
following their their own theory. I think this is, for me, also a tip of the iceberg because of the nature of FOIA requests and the fact that these documents weren't turned over, they're not public. I suspect that there's so much more to what the federal government did to DFW and TIFA in Trump's first administration that might have changed the outcome of this trial.
00:45:30
Speaker
I mean, if a, you know, North Texas regular juror hears, but wait, the FBI already said there was no crime here. So why would these people be part of any plan or or intent to do anything? mean, it might've flipped them to not guilties, to acquittals. And so, yeah, I mean, I think that,
00:45:48
Speaker
These issues will probably keep coming up in the case. I'm not sure if it'll be on appeal, if it'll be on a post-trial motion, if it'll come up in hearings soon.
00:45:58
Speaker
But like I said, i do think this is a tip of the iceberg. And with a lot of these federal investigations, they tend to be so broad that if the broad dragnet already concluded there was no crime, that should have been provided to the defense on these same allegations. I mean, if the government says, look, Antifa's here, Antifa's here, it's Antifa, and they already said, well, we already looked into it and there was no villain under the mask, then yeah, they should have turned it over.
00:46:26
Speaker
Yeah, so and on that note, so in that same In These Times article that discusses the FOIA documents showing that the FBI decided that this Antifa group was not a threat, it says that one of the lawyers actually filed a motion for additional discovery, basically asking for things along these lines, anything including information used by law enforcement and prosecutors to conclude that the North Texas Antifa cell was a, quote, militant enterprise. And the judge not only denied this request, but actually fined the lawyer $500 for filing what he called a frivolous motion. And apparently this same judge has actually gotten in some trouble with higher courts in the past for fining lawyers for for motions in this way.
Judicial Bias and Fines for Defense Motions
00:47:13
Speaker
Can you speak a little bit to that and like just sort of how this judge was acting in the case? Is it unusual for something like this to happen? I've never heard of that before, but obviously I don't really know that much about you know federal case law.
00:47:27
Speaker
Yeah. So, I mean, part of what the motion for discovery was, was essentially we think there's more. We have like a suspicion and a belief that there's more than what the government is giving us.
00:47:38
Speaker
All the government had to do was say, nope, we handed everything over. This motion is silly. And then the judge agreed, like, yeah, you're filing frivolous motions. They already handed it everything they have, denied.
00:47:48
Speaker
But so what this FBI report shows, though, is that the government didn't hand over everything. I mean, unfortunately, a judge might say, well, this 2018 investigation is not really relevant and you know it's not really exculpatory because it doesn't say they didn't do it. It just kind of like says that Antifa isn't criminal. That's the whole point, that if the federal trial was about Antifa, then everything related to Antifa should have been turned over.
00:48:15
Speaker
And so, yeah, in some ways, the FOIA revelation should show that what that lawyer filed was not frivolous, that there was more reports, investigations, information documents that the government had that was relevant to their theory to this case. that they didn't turn over. Something that, you know, the people on the ground have been, yeah, complaining for months is the judge's decisions and the judge's approach to this case. I've heard, i mean, from many other lawyers that the way the case was handled is exceptional.
00:48:49
Speaker
It was moved to a trial extremely quickly, even though there's so much evidence to it. The constraints the judge placed on Times, deadlines, waiving issues. If you don't file it on time, you can't file it ever again.
00:49:03
Speaker
That is also unusual. In an unprecedented case, there was unprecedented ah guardrails and limitations on arguments. Part of the scandal of this case, I believe, is because of how the judge handled it. In many ways, i think this case would have remained more low profile if the judge hadn't made such spectacular and unexpected decisions. I mean, what When the trial finally happened after he had first declared a mistrial, the way the courtroom was closed and people had to go to another city, to Dallas, to watch proceedings, even on the ground, the all the court administrators were saying, we've never done this before.
00:49:43
Speaker
Usually simultaneous broadcasts are in the same courtroom, never across towns, across cities. So, you know, the specifics of each of the judges' decisions are really brutal.
00:49:55
Speaker
At every step, there seemed to be another decision that was confusing or or problematic. So it's hard to get into the weeds. But you know overall, yeah, I think the impression people have from a legal perspective is that the judge overstepped or and even made decisions that were very questionable.
00:50:13
Speaker
Another piece of news that came out about the judge that ah raised a lot of eyebrows was that some point during the course of the trial, he was visited by former Attorney General William Barr, and they had some kind of closed door meeting together. And I guess journalists actually asked William Barr afterwards, you know, what did y'all talk about? And And he sort of declined to answer, but but said that they didn't talk about this case, which I guess I would say I find a little hard to believe.
00:50:45
Speaker
And I guess I wonder, you know, obviously we can't, you know, speculate about things we don't know about or get too conspiratorial or anything. But, you know, this is a a Trump appointed judge. And this case is obviously very important to the highest levels of the the federal government with Attorney General Pam Bondi and others like watching it very closely and seemingly pushing it forward from the very beginning. i guess like, yeah, can you just speak to what impacts this sort of high level political will behind the case has had and and is continuing to have on it?
00:51:22
Speaker
Certainly. i think that, I mean, a former U.S. Attorney General showing up to Fort Worth, Texas, right, to visit a judge and look at the first Antifa trial, I mean, that already should make people raise eyebrows. And, you know, it's so clear. This is a very political case for the government, for the prosecutors, for the court, for the defendants. It's all extremely political. And the reality is that you don't get former U.S. attorney generals coming into court for any ah regular run of the mill federal prosecution. It wasn't only though Bill Barr that was there.
00:52:01
Speaker
There was also Johnson County District Attorneys. There was attorneys representing some cooperating defendants in the cases. There was a bunch of federal agents coming in and out, in and out. I mean, at some point,
00:52:13
Speaker
The court had a whole aisle reserved for basically prosecutors and law enforcement. And they would sometimes come, they would sometimes not, sometimes the media would sit there. But yeah, this was a clear political and expensive case, I would say. You know, on the question of what does it mean when you have the federal government putting its energy and resources into a single prosecution? right because they really wanted and needed a conviction for their own sake politically. What you have as a result is a very, very expensive, thoroughly investigated prosecution.
00:52:47
Speaker
And we saw this through the multiple house raids, the surveillance of everyone's phones, the amount of records that were taken. the amount of cops that were paid to carry on the investigation.
00:53:00
Speaker
We heard, i mean, it came out that they had agents assigned to surveil in real time defendant phone calls during the first couple of days. The pursuit and eventual capture of defendant Champagne Song was such a huge use of resources for the federal government and the Texas government too. So I think that is like the reality of when you are dealing with the full force of the federal government, they have so many tools and so much surveillance and so much access to information that in many ways, it's like you're dealing with
Federal Resources and Political Attention on Prosecution
00:53:34
Speaker
Big Brother. You're dealing with an Orwellian entity that can get access to anything they want that is on the internet, on the cloud, or even remotely connected to telephones. The power of the federal government too is that they have a very organized and documented
00:53:52
Speaker
array of confidential informants. And so A lot of people on the left, you know understandably, are paranoid and suspect that people aren't informants. But in a case of this size, a federal investigation, that probably did happen. And the government probably didn't think they needed to hand it over because maybe the CIs were used years ago or they weren't really in the mix or they weren't present in the Prairie Land Detention Center itself.
00:54:19
Speaker
But that is also part of the tools, the arsenal of tools, that the federal government has. Another thing too, I mean, and and I saw this July, August, September, 2025, the power of the propaganda machine of the federal government is something that people kind of forget about.
00:54:37
Speaker
But I remember when I was learning about the Prairieland case, every single outlet, every single mainstream, local, national, international outlet repeated the same words that the federal government fed them through press releases and through their own documents and media.
00:54:57
Speaker
They called it an ambush, attack, attempted murder, coordinated, terrorist, right? These words, some outlets literally copied and pasted from each other and from the press releases. So, you know, the, I think the like people in this country are like, well, the federal government, you know, it's kind of disorganized and the disarray and, you know, it's decentralized here and your local politics matter a lot, but,
00:55:21
Speaker
When the federal government really wants a prosecution, this is what it looks like. And we shouldn't underestimate or be just or just say, well, the rule of the law will overcome it because clearly the odds are stacked against the defendants and the power of the government when focused is super, super big. Yeah, totally.
00:55:44
Speaker
Just to go back to one thing that you you said there about the defendant's jail calls were, I mean, everybody knows that jail calls are are recorded and everything, but in this case, the defendant's jail calls were being listened to in real time by federal agents. And it seems like some of those jail calls were ultimately used as evidence to convict Des and Maricela of this conspiracy to hide evidence or whatever, despite the fact that the box of stuff that Des was moving was was just a box of of his own stuff and, you know, old love letters and zines from years ago and really didn't have anything to do with the case, but somehow they were able to twist this jail conversation into some sort of convincing argument for the jury. I wonder if you could just say something ah about how jail calls are are used as evidence and, you know, just so so our listeners can kind of be aware of that dynamic.
00:56:43
Speaker
The reality of any jail call in the United States is that it's going to be recorded and potentially used against the defendant who's making the call or the accused person who's making the call. I mean, people who are familiar with receiving jail calls kind of like ignore the statement that you get at the beginning, right? All calls are recorded and blah, blah, blah.
00:57:04
Speaker
You know, we just kind of ignore that. It's like an automated voice or recorder, but it's very true. I think what's exceptional about the Prairie Line cases is that during the trial, yes, we heard from basically an English, Spanish, FBI agent who spoke both languages, that as soon as the calls were made by one of the defendants in Spanish, they had this agent come and listen to them and give a poor translation, I'm going to say, but translate it to the investigating agents. And then they would immediately act on it. And we heard, right, it was like real time, hearing the call, report made, and then Des's car started getting followed.
00:57:43
Speaker
Like this was the level of surveillance. And so I do say it's exceptional. I don't think it's common or that there's an agent listening in real time. But when there's an open investigation or they're looking, in this case, for someone who's at large, right, Champagne Song was still missing. The government clearly has the power to look through calls in real time from the jails. Because when you accept the call and when the defendant makes the call, they consent to that recording and consent to being listened to.
00:58:13
Speaker
And there are, you know, countless, countless cases where jail calls are used in the trials against the defendant, because in the United States, statements made by a defendant can be used against them in federal trials. and Sorry, and then even the state trials, the statements that the defendant makes can be used against them under rules of evidence.
00:58:34
Speaker
And that is clear. i mean, across all states at a federal level, too. This sometimes people forget about, you know, and and sometimes feel cocky and what they can say over the phones and the jail line. But if the government really wants the conviction, they'll find anything said and presented as evidence of crime, proof of intent. And then beyond that, right, like beyond like the individual person's case, jail calls also normally, right, very normal behavior. talk about other people, right? So someone's arrested at a protest and they call their friend. They'll say, it's so normal.
00:59:11
Speaker
What happened to Johnny? Did Johnny make it home? Now the government has a Johnny to look into. Or what happened to Sammy? Sammy had the paint. Did Sammy throw away the paint?
00:59:21
Speaker
Now government's going to look into Sammy in this paint that now they're considered a criminal, right? So it's so, so harmful and violent because people in jail and prison already are isolated, right? By design, people are isolated.
00:59:35
Speaker
And what the jail calls do, you know, when people are aware of the recording is it isolates them more because everything they say on those lines is being recorded and can be used against them or against other people.
00:59:47
Speaker
I will say that there is a lot of power and relief in people being on the phone while they're incarcerated, right? This is a often a lifeline for people to remain human, maintain their relationships, stay in the know
Upcoming State Trials and Privacy Concerns
01:00:02
Speaker
of what's happening. And I think that's so good, so necessary. It should be encouraged. But speaking about the case and the specifics and the facts and anything related to it, that's where there could be real real dangers and and and threats to people and their freedom.
01:00:20
Speaker
What's so like awful about these cases is that we heard the calls and what Mari Reda was asking her husband, Dez Sanchez, to do was just take care of her affairs. And the government tried to flip it and say, look, they're hiding things and they're destroying things. But then even the box they caught Dez with was just zines and political pamphlets.
01:00:45
Speaker
So I want to talk a little bit about some of these upcoming cases as well. We've we've been talking a lot about just this first Prairieland trial, but as listeners might know, there's several more on the way. a number of the defendants have state trials to go through, as opposed to this that was a federal trial. it seems like the next one that's going to happen, unless it gets postponed, is the trial of Dario Sanchez, who is, as far as I know, as far as I understand, is only accused of removing somebody from a signal thread and wasn't even at the protest. Can you speak a little bit to this upcoming case and sort of what the stakes are for just kind of privacy and electronic communications in general? Yeah.
01:01:30
Speaker
Yeah, I mean, I think if people are looking for the signal charge, the signal case, it is Dario Sanchez's and also Janet Goreng's and Lucy Falks in Johnson County. We can't.
01:01:41
Speaker
You know, can't forget that while there were very popularized federal charges, federal prosecutions, there are also many still pending state level charges. And in no other state than in Texas, in a rural Johnson County conservative jurisdiction. So what Dario is facing now that should concern anyone who uses Signal because removing someone from Signal with no knowledge of the reason or why that is being asked to do the state of Texas is prosecuting as a crime in itself. I have talked with other people about placing this case in, you know, some decades ago before Signal existed, before electronic communications were the norm, right? When it was letters, when it was paper meetings. What Dario is essentially accused of in the digital world is of grabbing letters, being told to shred them, with no further information, right? Shred those letters, shred those documents. And then the person's like, all right, I'll do it. And then they get charged with destruction of evidence, even though they might not even know what this is about.
01:02:49
Speaker
No one denies, even the government denies, Dario wasn't at the rally. Dario didn't even, might not even have known it was happening. It's unclear whether Dario was even in more single group chats than the one that he's implicated in.
01:03:03
Speaker
But that is that is a case that, you know, the signal users should look be looking at. And my hope is that just like the Prairieland defendants are getting a lot of support from people who care about freedom and people who care about liberation, that the state level defendants don't get forgotten. Janet has been in jail all this time.
01:03:23
Speaker
Lucy has been in jail since December or January. And Dario has been on an ankle monitor with a massive bond since July last year. You know, soon it'll be a year since these cases started and the state level cases might start moving quickly and very quietly.
01:03:41
Speaker
It's to be seen if Dario's trial starts this April, you know, anything can happen in state court, especially. But even at this moment, Dario's defense attorneys are arguing that the case itself shouldn't stand, right? The accusations themselves make don't make any sense.
01:03:58
Speaker
And so we'll see what happens with them. But those are cases, you know, talking about precedent and emboldening other prosecutors, those are the cases that could really embolden prosecutions of Signal, Discord, WhatsApp, and other communications around the country.
01:04:15
Speaker
So you mentioned that some of the state level defendants or the the defendants who only have state level charges like Lucy, for example, have been incarcerated this entire time. I'm looking at the support website right now. It says that Lucy has a bond of 10 million dollars, which is wild, and is being charged with two counts of hindering prosecution of terrorism.
01:04:36
Speaker
Is this another person who wasn't even at the protests and is just kind of basically being charged with some sort of guilt by association or what's going on here? Yes. So at least from Lucy's initial arrest, she was also being charged with Dario-like charges, um removing people from signal and then teaching people how to delete signal messages. The same goes for Janet Goring. I think it is these like destruction, concealment of evidence state charges. So, yes, their cases are similar, but you're totally right. These people might not even have known each other. And they were just on Signal, you know, like many activists, organizers, and regular people who decide to join Signal groups are. They don't even know each other often.
01:05:21
Speaker
So one thing that I hear a lot, and, you know, i think people people said this a lot about the Stop Cop City, Rico case and other political cases is that, you know, there's something fundamentally different about how a political case has to be fought, as opposed to just a run of the mill case within the
Political Nature of Activist Prosecutions
01:05:42
Speaker
criminal justice system. so not Not to say that all cases aren't political in some sense. And, you know,
01:05:48
Speaker
In a sense, we could say that every trial of a black person in this country is a show trial to some extent, in the same way that this this trial is a show trial. But, you know, there are real considerations of like a a political case has to be fought politically and, you know, not just within the courtroom or whatever. And I wonder if you could speak to that a little bit and like what it really means to mount a political defense.
01:06:15
Speaker
Certainly, yes. I totally agree. Every defendant is a political defendant and every prisoner is a political prisoner because the entire legal system and carceral system was built with political goals and racial goals and a system of oppression, really. And so...
01:06:33
Speaker
In this reality, though, when the government is prosecuting because of political beliefs or political ideology or political association, the way the prosecutions happen tend to be different or particular.
01:06:48
Speaker
I see this all the time in the cases I handle and then my other colleagues handle in People's Law Collective that our lawyers and our friends do all the time. It's as if the rules and the expectations of police and prosecutors goes out the window. You hear again and again with these prosecutions of political beliefs, ideologies. Well, we never see this when the prosecutor at this point, they would have offered you a good plea. But wait, it's just a trespass. Why are they putting so much energy and resources into a trespass? That's unheard of.
01:07:23
Speaker
And that is happening all the time across the country since this country has had prosecutions because the government has political goals with these cases. It's not just convicting a person, right?
01:07:35
Speaker
What they would say it seeking justice for a crime. The goals are political in themselves. It is to silence a movement, quiet ah political position, or stop a certain way of organizing of activism.
01:07:51
Speaker
That is the goal of a political prosecution. It's not just to convict, it's to stop something else, right? In the Stop Cop City context, the unprecedented, immense RICO and domestic terrorism charges had those political goals.
01:08:05
Speaker
To this date, there is no RICO or domestic terrorism conviction, and it's been years. The goal of the government was to prosecute because that in itself was accomplishing, you know, the construction of Cop City and stopping a social movement.
01:08:21
Speaker
So when people are facing cases that are clearly politically motivated by the government, the response has to acknowledge that this isn't run-of-the-mill criminal defense case. And criminal defense attorneys can't operate as if this is a regular run-of-the-mill case.
01:08:40
Speaker
The rules change. The arena also changes. In many you know common criminal cases, right, people call them poverty crimes, right? where people commit crimes because of addiction or because of financial needs, because they don't have any other choice, because that's what the system has forced them to do.
01:08:57
Speaker
The way those cases play along tend to be very quiet, uneventful. You know, it's like a there's a rhythm to them. It's everyone's doing this choreography that people have done again and again. The political choreography has no rhyme or reason. And the Agencies involved are so multiple and the discovery is so large. Everything about them is so repressive. And so to respond to a political prosecution, i mean, my suggestion, my approach is that it does require a political defense. Using the Prairieland cases ah as an example, the federal government didn't wait even for indictments. before it issued these press releases and started forming a narrative. It was a political outcome. And so that case wasn't being fought from the start in the legal sphere. It was fought in the public sphere, in the political arena. so
01:09:50
Speaker
defendants and their people should be aware that that fight might need to happen as well. Their fight might not be in the court. It might be in the political arena, in the political sphere to begin with. So my reflections really, and the more cases I see, the more I'm validated that this is the reality, political defenses are needed for political prosecutions.
01:10:14
Speaker
This for me is so obvious, but unfortunately for traditionally trained attorneys, that is not how the system works. It's supposed to be limited to the courtroom, the rules of evidence and the motions that can be filed, not what happens outside.
01:10:30
Speaker
So it is ah schism, a juncture that has to be overcome. I mean, basically at every political prosecution, because most defense attorneys who end up on these cases aren't politically trained or aware of these dynamics.
01:10:46
Speaker
Yeah. So speaking specifically about this federal trial that just happened, after the verdict came down, there was a lot of criticism coming out from supporters of the defendants of the defense attorney's decision to rest, basically, after the the prosecution had done their arguments.
Criticism of Defense Strategy During Trial
01:11:06
Speaker
I wonder if you could just speak a little bit to that. I mean, obviously, hindsight is twenty twenty Looking back at how badly the verdict went, I think a lot of people are wishing that a different decision had been made. And I just wonder if you could speak a little bit to that sort of strategic choice. And if if you think that's an example of attorneys failing to understand the political dimension, or, you know, was it actually just kind of a kind of a good move anyways, and it it just didn't work out?
01:11:37
Speaker
I think that beyond the decision to not mount a defense, there were so many opportunities to combat the prosecutions since July 2025 that were missed.
01:11:50
Speaker
And many legal decisions are, of course, made on the context, based on the local practice, based on how cases are usually handled.
01:12:01
Speaker
But in the same vein of the rules of police going out the window with political cases, how things normally run even in established prosecutors' offices changes too. And so, yeah, beyond the decision to not mount a defense during trial, I think there were a lot of missed opportunities to mount a political defense to a clearly political case.
01:12:24
Speaker
And in many ways, it's only been post-veredict, post-guilty findings that now Legal organizations, attorneys, even defendants themselves realized that this was a political case that could only be won politically. And, you know, it's unfortunate that it took that and it took this long. I don't really know why the decision to not mount a defense was made, right?
01:12:49
Speaker
Right. Like, and of course it's an easy answer. I wasn't there, but I do mean it because in the moment after the three week trial, perhaps, The attorneys thought that this was a good idea. The government presented such a weak case that we don't need to mount a defense, right? The government already did their job for us. And this is probably what they concluded, right? The defendants and their attorneys. So I don't want to, you know, like over-criticize It was a decision made by people in the moment based on what was happening.
01:13:23
Speaker
But I do criticize other very clear, very public opportunities since July 2025 to March 2026, when there could have been defenses mounted that were not. You know, I was so excited when those discovery motions were filed that we talked about because it was aggressive litigation to an aggressive prosecution.
01:13:46
Speaker
The consequence was a sanction from the judge. But if we take a step back and we say, well, this is all political, even the sanction is unprecedented. then the response from a defense team should have been to go harder, right?
01:14:01
Speaker
To make it even clearer, to appeal the sanction, to file yet another motion, to bring up other issues that were never brought up. So yeah, I think that it is unfortunate that this is the outcome. To be honest, I don't know if mounting a defense would have changed the jury's opinion, probably, maybe.
01:14:20
Speaker
But also, the judge muzzled the defense in the trial itself, because he wouldn't allow defense of other arguments that were clearly essential for the case. So yeah, I mean, everything was stacked against the defendants. So I'm not sure if mounting defense witnesses would have changed much of the outcome. But i I understand it. And I also was shocked when it didn't happen, especially because there were so many defense witnesses that the defendants had listed as potential witnesses.
01:14:50
Speaker
Yeah. So we're definitely running a little long here, but this has been really fascinating. Thank you. And really informative. And I just have one last question to just kind of wrap things up.
01:15:02
Speaker
We heard from from Amber earlier about some real irregularities with the jury. Like obviously the jury selection wasn't going the way the judge wanted. He declared a whole mistrial, got a whole new jury. And then apparently there was some kind of fight actually in the jury chambers during deliberation.
01:15:22
Speaker
possibly a physical altercation. I don't know if that's been been shown conclusively or not. I guess, and you know, obviously you don't know what happened in those chambers either, but I guess I'm just a little curious from a legal perspective, what are the avenues for investigating whether something shady happened inside a jury? And, you know, what are the avenues to address that legally? Like, is is this something that can get sort of adjudicated during the appeal process or how does that work?
01:15:55
Speaker
Fortunately, um all defendants filed post-trial motions. um Rule 29 for acquittals, right? Basically, the jury got it wrong. There was not enough evidence and rule 33 motions for a new trial.
01:16:08
Speaker
And I know that at least one of the defendants' arguments for that new trial referred to this jury misconduct. So legally, now that that's been argued, the judge could, and I'm going to say should, the judge should investigate what happened in that jury room.
01:16:26
Speaker
Unfortunately, federal criminal juries have a really, really tight like black box around them. In many states, it's pretty normal to interview jurors. The wall between juries and attorneys is a bit like falls after the trial ends, after the verdict is issued, after there's a mistrial.
01:16:45
Speaker
But in federal courts, and definitely in the Fifth Circuit where this case happened, the silence in the jury room is is protected. I do think that there could be creative motions filed to perhaps interview the jurors or investigate what happened. And if that's denied, then it could be brought up on appeal. But that is something that for me is also a big takeaway from this case. And I think should be a takeaway from every political defendant, you know, present, future, and even past. If motions are not filed, if objections aren't made, if issues aren't raised during the case, during the trial court case, the court of appeals might not review it.
01:17:29
Speaker
And this is huge because there are so many problems in political prosecutions that defense attorneys kind of just say, well, that sucked or well, that's just how it is. And so they don't object. They don't file a motion. And then on appeal, they can't argue about it because they waived it. They gave it up. They didn't complain about it at the trial level. So, you know, for these jury things, the very clear jury drama issues that have happened, it might be necessary for this to be argued or moved on or, you know, objected to or something before the case goes on appeal.
01:18:07
Speaker
Okay, that's very informative. Thank you. i would actually love to just keep picking your brain about so many more legal minutiae from this case, but I guess I'll have to wait for another time. Thank you so much, Javier, for joining us. i really appreciate it. Is there anything you'd like to end on? Any last statement or, you know, place you'd like to direct people to?
01:18:29
Speaker
Yes, thank you. So I hope that people keep supporting the Prairieland defendants. It's more than just the federal defendants who were found guilty. As we talked, there's Dario, there's Janet, there's Lucy, and there's and the federal defendants might have state charges too. So I encourage people to go to prairielanddefendants.com where people can find how to donate, fundraising for them, writing letters, reading their statements, and keeping up with the case.
01:18:56
Speaker
Great. Thank you so much. Yes, thank you for having me.
01:19:02
Speaker
Here's one last announcement that we were sent that I'll read here. The International Solidarity Movement calls for volunteers to travel to the West Bank to support communities facing ethnic cleansing.
01:19:13
Speaker
The ISM is a Palestinian-led movement that has been engaged in tactically nonviolent resistance to the Zionist occupation of Palestine for over two decades, supporting the Palestinian struggle for liberation and justice.
01:19:27
Speaker
They are in need for more people to join them as Israeli army and settler attacks escalate and as the occupation steals more land for settlement expansion. Palestinians have requested more people on the ground, so we invite whoever can travel to join us.
01:19:41
Speaker
Learn more and apply at palsolidarity.org and follow on Instagram or upscrolled at ISMPalestine.
01:19:57
Speaker
Thanks for listening to today's episode of The Beautiful Idea. News and analysis from the front lines of anarchists and autonomous struggles everywhere. Catch you next time.