Hello everyone and welcome once again to reverb. My name is Alex Helberg. And I am thrilled to be joined on the mic today by my co host and CO producers Calvin Pollak.
Hey Alex, what's up?
Hey, Calvin. And coming back to the mic in a triumphant return Sophie Wodzak. Hey, Sophie.
Hi there happy to be here.
It's always a triumphant return when Sophie comes back.
Sophie is always just brings triumph with her to whatever appearance she makes on this show. It's Yes, it's always a triumph.
And that is part of my personal brand for a long time. So it means a lot for you to say that kind of
Is it? Is it Triumph, the Insult Comic dog?
is
Here in the nation's capitol, our leaders have gathered for the solemn process of voting along party lines, and the Republicans have complained about the length of these hearings and having to sit in the chamber for so many hours without having a spine to support them.
There's a little there's a touch of that in there.
Not quite as not quite as many bathroom jokes probably as triumph, the Insult Comic dog, or at least you know, not historically, but you know, I guess
Just wait, we'll see.
She's been developing her material. Good. I'm looking forward to that. So on today's show, I wanted to bring us back to the mic. We've taken a little bit of a break from the show, just over the summer, we've had some transitions with some of us getting new jobs and settling into new living spaces. But we are back again at it's analyzing what has I think over the past few years gone a little bit under reported, this issue is starting to become a little bit more of an issue of national concern ever since a recent flashpoint in the media. And I'm referring, of course, to the protest movement known as stop cop city. So I want to ask my co hosts just to begin, what do you know, up to this point, or I guess, what have you heard about stop cop city? What do you know about this movement? What it is against what it stands for?
Yeah. So I mean, I don't I don't know a whole lot about the ins and outs. But I do know that in Atlanta, they are planning to build a very, very large, what they're calling a police training facility, and what is casually known as capcity. Because basically, they're making a little pretend city where they can practice being police in. And not only is that, you know, problematic in a lot of ways, because you do we need to police need more places to practice being violent, maybe not. But then also the another part of it that makes it so unappetizing to the people of Atlanta, and to the people of country, I would say is that they have to raise this entire forest in order to build the capacity. And this is, you know, the biggest green space in Atlanta, I believe it is a pretty important place to people. It's cherished by the community, and it's, you know, valued as bringing nature and beauty into the city of Atlanta. And so not only is the city itself, this cop city training facility, maybe not something people want. Also, we don't really feel like we need to lose a whole beautiful forest to get it, you know, and so people of Atlanta have an understandably been resisting the progress of this for some time. Now. I'm actually not sure how long ago it was proposed. But that's that's my take.
Yeah, no, I'll get into a little more of the discrete history of it in just a moment here. But I yeah, you're absolutely right, Sophie and pointing out that there's kind of those two prongs of the movement, that, you know, it is at one point against the expansion of police resources and this sort of like exemplar of an over bloated police budgets that is being used to increase their sort of militarization in an urban space like Atlanta, as well as the deforestation of green space south of the community. So, Calvin, what do you know at this point about stop cop city?
Yeah, I mean, I guess to add to it, so if you said I would just comment on kind of the more hegemonic pro police expansion side of this, which is that the rationale for this has tied into a lot of recent debates in the media about the so called defund the police movement and this kind of harsh, reactionary right wing turn against it, which is really focused during the pandemic on, you know, purported dramatic increases in crime, this kind of right wing paranoia around urban space, and kind of, I guess, I would say, reclassifying poverty and housing insecurity as social contagions that need to be squelched. Right. And so, one of the things that jumped out at me as I was researching more around this movement, and how the movement has been perceived, is that this really feels like part of a national trend. That collapses, issues of poverty and insecurity and lack of food security, housing, security, access to health care, collapses, those with dissent, and organizing, and everything like that. And so there's a lot of editorials in in Atlanta newspapers, like ProComp, newspapers, collapsing all of these things, and pointing out that police morale has been so bad, since the 2020 protests that they really need these facilities to kind of just go in and have pep talks and, and then and, you know, work on on their mental self care together. But that, you know, there's no space in the budget for actually taking care of people as a way to reduce crime. And so a lot of those kinds of debates, I think, are wrapped up in this particularly on the side of like, propping up or justifying cops city. And so the idea becomes, this is so inherently justified, because police morale is down. And because we have all these social contagions that we need police to deal with, it must be criminal to oppose this. Right. And then you get some of these indictments.
Yeah, I like the idea there that yeah, the police morale is low. So we need to build a place for them to have, you know, assemblies, pep rallies of various, you know, a cheerleading squad to come out. And, you know, sis, boom, bah. And,
Well, I've seen the Dark Knight so of course, I know.
and also, and also that, yeah, we need to, you know, colonize in, you know, forest space, then and really, like build a fake city for the cops instead of investing in the city for the people real city where the fear in the real city that's right there that needs more housing, and like more social services, which might actually reduce crime.
Like racketeering
That's exactly right. And I'm so glad Calvin, that you're bringing up specifically this issue of the sort of this sort of creep of criminalization of various sort of like, things that are otherwise classified as like, you know, structural problems with a society, the fact that people are going without housing without food, and other things of that nature being turned into criminal activity or being described in criminal terms. That is really one of the big essences of I think, what we're going to get into reading through some of the most recent criminal charges that have been leveled against protesters. Before we get into that, I just want to read a little bit of just a sort of truncated history of COP city just to kind of give our listeners a sense of what this issue is all about how it started, where it's come from, and where, where it stands right now. So the original proposal for the construction of the so called Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, aka cop city, and it's more colloquial, I. That's what the Wikipedia article calls it. They lit the Wikipedia says cop city, not Atlanta, public safety training center. So the so called the Public Safety Training Center, aka cop city, but its city was a term coined by protesters. Yes, that's correct. Yep. And it's a great, great term for a very Yes, yeah, it's not only you know, kind of alliterative, but it's nice and short and concise. It does a good job of describing kind of what this is, was presented to the city of Atlanta in 2021 by the Atlanta Police Foundation, which is essentially the nonprofit fundraising arm of the Atlanta police department. In case you're curious. The ATF reported a revenue of $28.1 million in 2021, the year after George Floyd was murdered. The highest of all similar Police Foundations with major donations coming from corporate entities like Delta Airlines Waffle House, the Home Depot, Georgia, Pacific, Accenture, Equifax, Wells Fargo and ups. So an incredibly well funded nonprofit quote, unquote, fundraising arm for the Atlanta police department that is not officially affiliated with the APD as a government structure. So that year, the site was chosen for construction in the South River Forest area of DeKalb County, which is south east of Atlanta. This land had been inhabited by indigenous Muskogee peoples until the 1830s, when they were forcibly removed via the Trail of Tears. The site was later turned into a prison work camp, which operated from 1920 until 1995. So already we're getting a sense that sort of like the history of this land is already rife with controversy over, you know, what went on there, you know, what its relationship with the community is, and I just I thought that those were kind of some fascinating pieces of its history. generally where they are intending to build. This police training facility already itself has an a kind of historical kind of terrible legacy of colonialization and imprisonment. So the project in 2021 was endorsed by then Mayor Keisha Lance bottoms with the site clearing to begin construction in May 2022. From the very outset of COP City's announcement, the site has been occupied by various degrees of protests and public gatherings, designed to disrupt and generate public outcry about the facilities construction. The protesters organizers with groups like defend the Atlanta forest have decried as Sophie mentioned the environmental impact of deforesting an area adjacent to neighborhoods populated predominantly with black and brown residents. In a similar vein protest organizers were concerned with what cop city represented and would materially enact an expansion of an already bloated police budget and resources in a climate of continually escalating violence against people of color perpetrated by law enforcement between December 2022 and march 2023. Getting a little further towards the present. 28 protesters were arrested and charged with domestic terrorism in association with their occupation and protests of the cop city cite a particular flashpoint in the movement came when 26 year old force protector who went by the name towards Weah was shot and killed by police as they were emerging from their tent. As protests escalated. Over the next several months, the number of protesters arrested and charged with domestic terrorism climbed to above 40, causing the organization Human Rights Watch to decry Atlanta prosecutors actions as quote, an attempt to smear protesters as national security threats. Currently, activists and organizers are attempting to force a referendum in the city of Atlanta on cop city, which could potentially cancel the city's lease to the EPF in September of this year, so very recently, a petition with 116,000 voter signatures well above the 70,000 required to force a referendum was submitted to the Atlanta city council who refused to count them on the grounds that organizers had quote, missed a deadline to submit signatures interesting. The matter is currently being litigated in the 11th circuit court of appeals as of the time of this recording, but particularly prudent for this episode. Also, as of this month, 61 activists, some of those who have already been charged with domestic terrorism were indicted on state level Rico charges. So I just want to ask you guys now what do you what do you know about about Rico charges? This may be a term that some of our listeners have heard before. Do you know what this means for somebody to be given a RICO charge?
Yeah, it is about racketeer. It's about like, like mob like basically criminal organizations if you indict at least, this is my memory of how Maggie Gyllenhaal explains it in the dark night.
We're getting that clip.
Yeah, we'll get that clip
Rico. They pooled their money, we can charge them all in one criminal conspiracy charge. In a RICO case, if you can charge one of the conspirators with a felony, you can charge all of them.
Rico you can charge one. So if you charge one, like member of the organization, anyone else you can associate with the organization at least becomes much easier to charge. So it's a way to charge a ton of people at once based on fairly loose association and this like body of prosecutorial law, like came out of indicting like mafia, as far as I know, is that right?
That is correct. Yeah. The Federal Rico Act, which stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations was built as you said Calvin and out of the prosecuting of basically yeah, the mafia more or less this was intended,
And, of course, most recently was used to charge Trump and Giuliani and like, you know, their whole you know, their whole mob Yes. Of of, you know, characters like rejected Scorsese characters. For sure, trying to steal the election.
I feel like Joe Pesci actually could do a pretty convincing Giuliani if we if we if we if that that movie ever gets made, you know, pece be on the lookout.
Please God let that happen.
Yes, absolutely. So yes, Calvin, you are exactly right. These charges state level Rico charges, so not federal criminal indictments. The Georgia Rico act is in fact based on the federal Rico act, but the Georgia act is written to be much broader. This is according to the Wikipedia site that has some references on its while the federal act requires an extended pattern of crime by multiple individuals through a criminal enterprise. Under the Georgia act, only one individual may constitute a criminal enterprise. Additionally, the enterprise as a whole must committed only two interrelated crimes toward a common goal, the Georgia Act also has a wider range of underlying crimes than the federal act. So basically, it's easier to charge somebody on and get make the charges stick on a RICO indictment in Georgia than it would even be at the federal level.
So if if like, Alex, if you get charged with something Sophia and I can go down, yeah, part of the same enterprise here,
As long as they can prove that we had zoom calls together that we, you know, have, I mean, we don't actually have any monetary Association, I think between any of us, so that might be a little harder to make stick except for, you know, our long lost t shirt funds. Those are, those are the buttons, the buttons and magnets. Several years back, those of you that have been lucky enough to either attend Carnegie Mellon University with us or meet us at a conference where we've been giving these things out, we'll know. You might also be involved in this as well. Yeah. So you know, be sure to not post any pictures of you with reverb stickers in the background. Otherwise, you could get roped in. So as you said to Calvin, yeah, Trump and his cohorts were essentially indicted on the exact same style of charges. That was the same prosecutorial body that actually brought those charges against both Donald Trump and the defend the Atlanta forest protesters.
We have this like, handy example counter example of Trump and his cronies who are obviously, where it seems obvious to me that they're doing something that they stand to benefit from, and and they're, you know, the RICO charges, I think are targeting their actions trying to profit from their positions of power. I don't quite see and for trying to draw an analogy if if both of these cases are able to be slapped with Rico charges. I'm not really sure what the protesters are trying to how they're trying to profit, or, I mean, it seems like they're trying to stop something from happening. It doesn't seem like there's any money at stake. Does, you know if this green space isn't worth anything, and we can just raise it because it doesn't matter. It's a little hard to follow the logic of how this could be conceived of as a any kind of a criminal enterprise or racketeering, because where's the profits? Where the where's the money that they you know, what I mean, like I, my charges is that it targets people who are profiting off of bad behavior. And I just don't see that in the stock cup city movement.
Yeah, it doesn't seem like a great career builder, like, like a, like a, like a smart, like a super savvy financial decision to join this protest movement. And that's, I mean, to me, that's, that's a compliment to the protest movement, right? But like, I'm not ragging on them, like I'm saying, yeah, like, I agree with you, Sophie, like, Who benefits cui bono, or however you say that. But I think like, we can also ask cui bono in regards to like, these kinds of charges, like why would they do this? Well, I think as we get into the text of it, that'll become clear, like this sends a really strong message, don't get organized, or like will come after you.
Yeah, almost like the act of organizing itself is the crimes. And how dare you? Yes, handy that the police are the ones that, you know, like, it's very convenient to be able to call anything criminal if interposes you which is as far as I can tell what's happening,
Right there is that kind of ethos of I am the law. And if you oppose me, therefore, you must be criminal. Exactly. Even though you know, you are a government body whose powers can be limited by the people that you are represented in you're, you know, the least as far as I'm concerned, as far as I know, whose tax dollars fund the police force. That's been getting charges. So bingo, you know
Yeah, one really quick thing I wanted to add, just because I don't know, I don't know if we're gonna come back to it. At since we're talking at this level, about Rico, I have a personal pet peeve about anything, and any kind of rhetoric or discourse that equivocates between things that Donald Trump and like his cronies do, and things that the left has done or is doing. And this just seems like the latest, most like mind numbing example of that, where you could use the same statute to charge Trump for like things that are legitimately really really bad like that, I think he should face consequences for and his like organization, like is is truly a criminal organization. Do you know if that term has any meaning outside of ideology, but to to apply that same kind of rhetoric to an organization that's really like doing something that just kind of makes a lot of sense and is pretty like nationally recognized as like a legitimate like justified like social cause from a lot of different angles, environmental and criminal justice reform. So yeah, that's like a pet peeve. And it's just like, yeah, like I said, the latest awful example of this equivocation across both sides of the political spectrum.
No, I think you're absolutely right. Calvin, the way that this is being framed as a kind of like both sides, both sides do it, you know, both sides have these kinds of like, anti government or anti establishment tendencies as if community organizing and conspiring to overturn the results of a presidential election in a state are even close to the same thing in terms of, you know, what Sophie was talking about earlier, the material stakes here of what you intend to personally gain off the backs of other people that you are exploiting? Totally does not. It's a I mean, it's a completely false equivocation. I think you're absolutely right with that. And I think it's going to be interesting, because I want to actually now dive into some of the actual text of this indictment. I went ahead and read through the 109 page documents so that you listeners don't have to. I've pulled out some of the what I think are some of the juiciest bits in what is truly I think, I mean, I've read a few of these court documents in my time, you know, not that I've ever been indicted on Rico charges, at least, you know, allegedly, as far as everyone on here knows, this is probably one of the most astoundingly sloppily written indictment documents that I have ever seen handed down by a prosecutor. And I genuinely think that this is this is dangerous, like I, I have to go out on a limb like being fooled the sincere This is one of the I think scariest pieces of rhetoric that I have read in a very long time, just in the threat that it poses to social movements, more broadly, movements that are concerned primarily with equity and justice at their heart, but also just the overreach of the policing apparatus of the state into genuine first amendment rights to speech and dissociation. This, this, to me, is a huge, huge overstep that you could actually classify as I would go as far as classifying it as authoritarian, which I do not use that word lightly. But I want to get into this a little bit because it's also just like, there are some just like astonishing pieces of like goofy rhetoric in here that I think are really worth touching on with you all. So reading here, this is beginning in the early part of the document, where the prosecutors are outlining a definition of what defend the Atlanta forest is the purpose of defend the Atlanta forest is to occupy of parts this is all I'm reading this verbatim from the document is to occupy of parts or all of 381 forested acres in DeKalb County, Georgia that is owned by the Atlanta Police Foundation and leased by the city of Atlanta for the purpose of preventing the construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. Each individual charged in this indictment knowing joined the conspiracy again, that is a that's really in their knowing joined the conspiracy in an attempt to prevent the training center from being built. That conspiracy contained the common purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity in Fulton County, Georgia, elsewhere in the state of Georgia and in other states. Defend the Atlanta forest is a self identified coalition and enterprise of militant anarchists, eco activists, and community organizers. based in Atlanta, this anarchist anti police and environmental activism organization coordinates advertises and conducts quote unquote, direct action designed to prevent the construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center and shadow box studios previously known as Black Hole studios and promote anarchist ideas. So what do you guys think of this definition of defend the Atlanta forest as an organization so far?
First of all, it needs copy edited.
Yeah. Seriously, this is a professional writers nightmare.
Yeah, but I love this, like it promote anarchist ideas. Like they just toss that in there, like and they're anarchists to like, oh, okay, like, it does seem like they're banking on not a lot of people actually reading this itself and more being like, wow, it's long, which I think is, I mean, I'm not a law professional. But that just seems like part of it. It's like, it's just long. It just it's like it's, you know, obviously it's interesting, like, whoever gets to decide what the crime is the person in power. So is the crime that this force is being torn down for this ridiculous reason, or is the crime that people don't want it? I don't know. It just is it's interesting how, you know, obviously, obviously, people do have the right to protest in this country and that's written into their minds to the Constitution, but it just sounds like there this is this document is written as if that is not the case that people don't have a right to protest.
Yeah, point of information. What is ShadowBox studios again, did we discussed that earlier?
No, we did not. So in case you are interested shadow box studios, as far as I've been able to tell him, the kind of nascent research that I've done, does not really appear to have much to do with the actual police itself. For those of you that may not know Atlanta and just the state of Georgia in general is a very popular location for filming movies and TV shows. Just because the state in general has, I think, done a pretty decent job. How you however you define decent of incentivizing film and television producers to come in and film in their state by providing you know, cheap overhead and other kinds of tax breaks or other incentives for studios to set up shop there. So if you ever see like the Georgia peach at the in the end credits of your favorite TV show, you'll know that that is part of that incentive structure. shadowbox Studios is an American film and television production studio located southeast of Atlanta in DeKalb. County, Georgia, the studio house productions of many films and TV programs and has worked with Hollywood studios, including Disney universal, Sony, Warner Bros, and HBO. They've produced films such as Godzilla King of monsters, Jumanji, the next level. Venom they've got some MCU IP in there as well. Doctor sleep, they've also produced TV shows like Lovecraft country and Ms. Marvel. So that is what shadowbox studio is.
Okay, and so it's it's expanding into the same space or that's the plan. Yeah, okay. Well, that I mean, that is fascinating. Like just, you know, slightly separate from the the indictment itself. Like, I didn't know about that. That was part of this development as well. Oh, yeah. The fact the fact that some of the content that shadowbox produces is also extremely militaristic, like Godzilla King of monsters. I think Godzilla King of monsters, Alex was one of the films that was produced with military cooperation. I believe that's correct. Yes. There, Roger stole examined in his documentary. I know that some of the recent Godzilla movies have been have were like, on Rogers list. So the fact that they're indicting DTF not only for this, like act of like, daring to prevent construction of this police training center, but also like, you know, shutting down these great movies that we all love is interesting. But yeah, no, I mean, it's terribly written. And of course, like they're throwing in, I mean, the fact that they would say this anarchist, anti police and environmental activism organization, as a way to define DTF, I think, is extremely problematic, like, anarchist, you know, is arguably an objective term of political philosophy. But anti police is extremely ideologically charged. And environmental is also fairly objective or fairly neutral. But to just kind of toss in these, like, ideological terms, alongside just classifications, I think is really problematic.
Yeah, there's a lot of sort of definitional conflation that yes, slippage and conflation that goes along in this document. And I'm, I'm glad that you brought up the definitions of anarchism or anarchy. Because as we know, those of us who have studied rhetoric, go back and listen to our episode on stasis theory, you'll know that in a legalistic rhetoric definition is the second stasis level at which you need to define the terms of your arguments such that your later evaluations and actions can be justified on the basis of those definitions. How we define anarchy, or anarchism, and its associated ideological principles here becomes very, very important. And that is exactly what our prosecutors are going to do in this document next, so a couple of definitions here and then I want to get your reactions to the definitions of four key concepts are I guess five, anarchy, collectivism, mutual aid, social solidarity, and violence? Here we go. Anarchy is a philosophy that is opposed to forms of authority or hierarchy. Beginning of anarchist ideals date back centuries, though, the usage of the term anarchy did not exist until the 1800s. Somebody in there must have had access to an Oxford English Dictionary Good job doing doing your research. Over time various philosophical forms of anarchy have emerged. Numerous anarchist philosophies exist, though anarchists are not required to subscribe to one particular belief of anarchy, rather than sorry, go for it.
I love this like just like, you know, they're not required. You are not required to subscribe to receive benefits from anarchism.
Oh, but that actually becomes very important. Let's put a footnote or put a bookmark on that notion of you don't have to subscribe to one form of anarchy. So rather the the notion of anarchy being grounded in an anti authority mindset primarily targets government because it views government as unnecessarily oppressive. Instead of relying on a modicum of government structure, anarchy relies on human Association instead of government to fulfill all human needs. Some of the major ideas that anarchists promote include collectivism, mutualism, slash mutual aid, and social solidarity and these same ideas are frequently seen in the defend the Atlanta forest movement. collectivism is the idea that individual needs are subordinate to the good of the whole society. That is, decisions are made based upon what is best for the group and not necessarily what is best for individuals. In embracing collectivism, individuals are expected to sacrifice personal income, personal liberty or personal property if it benefits society as a whole. The decision of whether an individual should sacrifice their own individual needs is not made by the individual rather in a true collectivist society, the society as a whole decides whether the individual must forfeit their own needs or property if it is deemed to benefit the society. Nevertheless, in an ideal collectivist society, individuals already make the decision to donate to the collective without prompting from others. donate, donate now. Like and Subscribe to collectivism. I just
Yeah, reverb reverb is begging for your donations to collectivism Yeah, please yes, please donate a button click the button in the episode description to donate to the concept of collectivism.
We would love to collect your donations. It's I mean, come on, like the sacrifice of personal income personal liberty or personal property if it benefits society like this feels like it was written by like an anarcho capitalist from the mod the von Mises group like it
Probably was, but but here's the thing. Like what jumped out at me about that to me was you're expected to sacrifice personal income, personal liberty or personal property if it benefits society as a whole. Well, that has never happened to me under capitalism. I don't know it either. Either of you. Clearly individualism prevents you from ever having to sacrifice personal income, personal liberty or personal property because those things those things are totally off limits under capitalism.
Yeah. It makes me think that the IRS is the next organization they're going to come after for recurring charges because of a Gordon a coordinated conspiracy to to collectively promote the the good of a whole society rather than one individual person's profits. Or how about the city government in Atlanta, you know, which which is is obviously like, not at all sacrificing people's personal income for the police for this exact project that they're in dining table for opposing Yeah, or maybe the the, the Atlanta Police Foundation and the way that they actually solicit donations from people if any of you have watched the new Max series telemarketers, you will particularly know that this is a pernicious donation scheme at the heart of a lot of police unions, so called and police foundations that you know, promote promote your local police department. That's the collectivism that we believe in here. So I want to go on to these other two terms because these get really truly wild here. Mutual Aid is a term popularized by anarchists to describe individuals who exchange goods and services to assist other individuals in society without government intervention, closely related to collectivism, mutual aid is not a new term, nor is it limited to anarchy. However, the major factor in anarchist mutual aid is the absence of government and the absence of hierarchy. Indeed, an anarchist belief relies on the notion that once government is abolished, individuals will rely on mutual aid to exist in doing so anarchists believe that individuals will work together and voluntarily contribute their own resources to ensure that each individual has its own needs met.
It's just interesting how on the right, I feel like we hear a lot of the times like oh, the left wants big government, but also they're anarchists. And they don't want any government at all like, which is it? Because it seems like not wanting a lot of government intervention telling us what to do and how to spend our money and how to live our lives is sort of I've heard that from people on the right is like, that's what we should be moving towards, but not if it's anarchy, which is a different way of they're not being government and what like, but I don't know, it just seems like a very convenient way of framing it like it's bad when they do it. But if you were to ask this in a slightly different way, you might get a different or you don't I mean, it just it feels like absolutely, very selective about when it's good or bad to not want government dictating what goes on. It's so conceptually confused. I mean, even just this line, closely related to collectivism, mutual aid, blah, blah, blah, like that. That connecting phrase seems totally unsupported because a lot of what they were describing
As collectivism is impossible under this definition of mutual aid I also just have to point out like they did the copy editing gets even worse in this pair I mean not only are they not making nouns and articles agree but ensure is spelled
yell at the person who wrote it is so incensed by these concepts that they can't even think straight because it's so
yes I exactly I love imagining that so he's just somebody who's just like spitting mad reading like just absolutely just nude and read writing this writing this indictment
reported I gotta go back and even proofread it because they don't want to think about it twice because it's so offensive to them to imagine a world
of you've ever seen that gif of the cat just banging on the keyboard. That's Yes, that's that's who this guy who wrote this? Yeah,
that's right. That's right. Oh my god. Okay, a couple more definitions here. Social Solidarity. These are also like, Don't threaten me with a good time kind of definition. Social Solidarity is another term that is embraced by anarchists that is tied closely to mutual aid and collectivism. Social Solidarity is the idea that individuals can live together without government and can provide for each other. The notion of social solidarity relies heavily on the idea of human altruism. That is individuals will voluntarily offer goods, services and resources without anything compelling it. Anarchists often shorten the term social solidarity simply into the term solidarity, and it is frequently woven into speeches, statements and writings of anarchists. In addition to the term solidarity and other anarchist terms, anarchists often weave the term mutual aid and collective into their jargon and writings.
Love this rhetorical analysis here, baby, let's go. Really, let's remove
some just just wait until they get into where they start reading blog posts from anarchists websites. That is, yeah, truly, truly astonishing stuff here.
I love the idea. Like they weave these into their jargon and writings. What is the legal? I really don't want to swear too much
for weaving something into jargon. Yeah.
Like, like, why are you doing this like freshman comp, ask rhetorical analysis in this legal document? What is going on in this thing?
I mean, we can see a very subtle nod. I mean, you're you're right in pointing out that their word choices here are sort of like they're weaving it in. It's very sneaky and subterfuge, the way that they're doing this.
Assuming that all these definitions are supposed to be evidence of how bad it is, like, oh, they think people are good, and that they'll help each other. Yeah. They'll do it without anybody telling him to like, like, assumption being that like, we know people are bad, and they won't do that, like, yeah, oh,
my God. You know, and this is something we've talked about on the show many, many times before this, this idea that rhetoric is inherently suspect. If you're using rhetoric, you're using rhetorical techniques that you must have something to hide or you must have bad intentions. So can you believe it? They shorten the term social solidarity to solidarity for the sake of cohesion, we wouldn't know what they're talking about. And they weave it into speeches, they weave it into those damn speeches, and you just don't know what you're doing. And the next thing you know, you're helping your fellow human being. Yeah,
yeah, very idea.
And again, just to just to kind of like do a reality check for those of our listeners who may have forgotten. This is a prosecutorial indictment that is being presented against 61 People charges that could carry up to 20 years in prison and fines in the hundreds of 1000s of dollars. Just to remind you,
in reading this, I kind of started to think this was like a student's essay. Yes, yeah, it feels like some very high stakes legal document that was presented in a real actual public real life way.
This is like Traci Beatty. Write me a five paragraph essay about these key terms?
Yeah, no, it's it's genuinely astonishing violence as part of the anarchism in some anarchists beliefs, viewing their own violent acts as political violence, violent anarchist God, they need to put violence in here a few more times. Political Violence, violent anarchists attempt to frame the government as violent oppression is thereby justifying the anarchists own violence. Okay, so that was 12345 uses of the term violence in that last sentence. Indeed, the belief is that the government is engaging in a form of violence by denying basic individuals basic needs. Through capitalism, government action and law enforcement by police. Anarchists often point to law enforcement as one of the chief violent actors, and they accused the government of using law enforcement to oppress societal change, and they view the structure of government as inherently oppressive and violence. As a result, violent anarchists often engage in violent activity towards law enforcement and it is justified because of the anarchist belief If that ends justify the anarchist to be oh my
god what is what is this? Yeah yeah no yeah it really does feel like that's that's the idea Sophie is like violence violence violence violent like kind of like that that scene and in Being John Malkovich when everyone like all of them our privileges are just saying Malkovich Yes, yes. That's what they're doing. There's another clip we can pull take a note on that Alex.
Wait a minute, it is justified because of the anarchists belief that the ends justify the anarchist, me. And so they also start doing it. They also start bebop, and in scatting, with anarchist here at the end of the period, yes. Where we're inserting anarchist strategically, to like just to amplify things to make them worse, like antihistamines are worse than normal means.
No, I mean, I think what you're pointing to here is the the the essence of this paragraph is to is to definition initially and associational. The link, I mean, this is Perlman and overexcite Teca. for you right here, the argument of association here is to create an inextricable link between anarchism and violence, even just by like repeating the terms over and over again, using this kind of like, very, almost childish, like parallel structure. In all of these sentences, you know, violent anarchist, anarchist violence, all all wrapped into one big package. This actually, I mean, it's interesting, though,
that in this page, where like, this paragraph is meant to sort of define violence as a term that we can understand within the context of this indictment. And they've said the word a whole lot, but haven't defined it any actual examples of the said violent behavior, because as far as I know, it's been people like squatting in a forest, collecting signatures, like it's not clear to me that any of the activity that is being called into question is violent. I was kind of expect, maybe foolishly, I was expecting this paragraph to do the work of telling me like, how is it violent within the context of what we're talking about, but hasn't even really named any examples? It just is the most violent?
Sometimes they're violent. They're really violent and violent, they're violent with the way in which they're violent is violent,
these violent anarchist are very violent in their anarchy.
They are. I mean, the thing that I have to point out here as well, is that there's this line, they accused the government of using law enforcement to oppress societal change, which I don't understand what that means. Like, there's like, there's also just basic, logical problems in the pros, where not only are they not defining violence and doing this incredibly sneaky thing of just saying violence was around the word anarchy, like, you know, to create an argument of association, but like, what, what does that mean, to accuse the government of a pressing societal change? I don't, how do you go press societal change. I want
to give some context here because I did. There was an actual point in this document where they did go through and provide a self described anarchist, as they say, supporting the stop cops city movement, recently wrote as such, now there's no citation here, so I'm not exactly sure where they're pulling this from. They just give a block quote from a supposedly self identified anarchist. This is kind of an interesting quote to bring in. And this is the this is the local anarchist that they are quoting here. Local anarchist says violence good. The movements militant, direct action, land, occupation and sabotage of construction machinery have not only kept the struggle alive, but shifted the Overton window when it comes to how even nonprofits are willing to engage the struggle. When asked about the sabotage of construction and police machinery. The referendum campaign, notably headed by nonprofits and electoral organizers, has continuously reiterated its support for a diversity of tactics. In stark departure from many nonprofits more risk averse approach to political action. Through a combination of tactics. The stop cop city has built a unified front against cop city that is willing to fight by any means necessary,
just as with violence is against machines. And yes, yes,
very important. Very important. Yep. Just just as tactics that directly engage the system, much of the militant direct action has also heightened contradictions and exposed hypocrisy, thrusting fundamental questions into public consciousness. Are we more concerned about the violence of destroying construction machinery and police property or about the violence of capitalist exploitation, environmental devastation and police murder? What do we do when it's Liberal Democrats rather than Republicans who are leading the efforts to destroy an urban forest suppress residents right to vote and expand the police state? Do we truly believe You've that cop City is a matter of life and death. And if we do, what are we willing to do to stop it? As noted by the anarchist above switching back into the voice of the prosecutor, the militant anarchists engage in violence to bring attention to their own political goals and their perceived government violence. But political violence is not simply a philosophy defend the Atlanta force has put the philosophy into action. Indeed, in one example, a known defend the Atlanta force, arsonists was recorded complaining that there were not enough violent members in protests against the training center.
Alright, so couple problems there. That recorded activist is not being directly quoted there. So we don't know if they were actually advocating violence. But also something else I want to point out about this extended block, quote that they're using from an activist is that within the block, quote, they're very careful to put scare quotes around violence when they're describing their own organizing tactics and activism tactics. But then we get out of the blockquote. The indictment implies that that activist is overtly like admitting to violence, and the activist never admits that their own acts are violence.
Yeah, that's exactly right. Yeah. And in fact, they are saying, I think that, you know, given a charitable reading of this, of this blockquote, they are actually questioning what we actually mean by violence, or at least which forms of violence should be considered morally reprehensible violence to objects and property, or violence to real living breathing human beings and forests, right, and non living things is being
quoted as saying, like, do we really care about the violence of destroying machinery? Is that important? And then they go like the author's like, so again, about this violence against the machine.
It's really bad. And they're admitting to it look, he admitted, oh, my
God. Look, he admitted,
yeah, exactly self admitted it.
So again, there are the examples that they give are a little thin here, jumping down a little bit. This is where we actually get into some of the how these definitions are being applied to the actual charges that are being brought. So they go on for an extended period of talking about the ways that anarchy has spread their ideas around, they actually have a whole entire paragraph that I didn't include in this document on ziens, which I thought was hilarious, because they don't trust the mainstream media,
just interestingly, like not trusting the mainstream media, which is very suspicious behavior among the anarchists, but very well accepted as like, on the right, of course, we don't trust the mainstream media, like we acknowledge that mainstream media is not to be trusted, but not the ziens. No,
like, also like any Yeah, anytime an editorial like dares to be published calling for police reform. Yeah, that's that's bad media. But also having any criticism of the media makes you a violent anarcho so bad.
That's right. That's right. Just being mistrustful in general or being skeptical. That's a little sauce. When they Yeah, so when activists do it. In addition to handing out documents, individuals who joined defend the Atlanta forest are offered financial, personal and emotional support to remain loyal to the movement. Again, very interesting rhetorical tack that's going on here. Indeed, the quote forest defenders are provided with monetary, emotional and personal support during their occupation of the forest during their incarceration and after their incarceration. The discussions of support often referred to providing quote, mutual aid and quote, solidarity. In addition to providing monetary and emotional support, there is preparation for arrest. Most quote, forest defenders are aware that they are preparing to break the law. And this is demonstrated by premeditation of attacks. Preparation efforts include efforts to avoid detection plans to disguise their identity and preparation in case of arrest despite efforts to avoid captcha, then they go on to define like dressing and all black and all these other scary tactics they use, they actually have a section in here about using VPNs as being criminally suspicious behavior, which is I mean, you know, no comments on the broader significance of that claim. But I mean, just using a VPN is not illegal, like specious, specious at best. I mean, I just
think yeah, none of it's illegal. providing emotional support, I'll tell ya
that like, which, I mean, again, it's like, you know, it's so silly, and we're poking fun at it, but like, this is like really laying bare a lot of the like, necessary assumptions that are required in order for the police state to maintain power. Like, yes, people aren't gonna be good to each other unless they're told you or they shouldn't hope to help each other and there's no reason that they should, like, just just this idea that like, you know, put like, why do we need this big train facility? Well, police need more training. Why? Because police are necessary because without them, everything falls apart. And it's just anarchistic violence all the
To make this like this, they're really trying to paint these people as like, almost sort of like the very reason why we need a cop cities to like to guard against these violent individuals. But then when they point to like the violence and nefarious behavior, it's like, helping each other.
Yes, exactly. Sophie, this is why I said earlier this is like the Don't threaten me with a good time section, right? It's like, what oh, man, if we if we didn't have, like they're protesting against cops city under the assumption that if we didn't have the coercive threat of violence against law breaking, that arguably perpetuates more violence in society, then we might actually get to a point where we are actually relying on one another for support both financial personal and emotional again, what a terrible world What a terrible, that would be, not just the thing that you know, police, abolitionists and prison abolitionists have been calling for for decades. So anyway, this is continuing on with this because again, this is doing the work of conflating supporting one another with being an actor in a criminal enterprise. After arrest emotional and personal support is offered through letter writing campaigns, God forbid, letter writing campaigns and encouragement of, quote, solidarity. In doing so this offers emotional support and maintains the loyalty of the accused with the defend the Atlanta forest movement. On the other hand, an accused that demonstrates potential disloyalty to defend the Atlanta forest risk losing all financial, personal and emotional support that is offered one example included a threat to refuse to post bail for an incarcerated defend the Atlanta forest arrestee unless he complied with the defend the Atlanta forest demands, again, citation needed directly in the text for that, but this is Calvin, what you were referring to earlier with the you know, like and subscribe and donate or whatever, like you have to, you don't have to describe to a certain anarchist philosophy except for when you do in order to receive emotional, personal and financial support.
Yeah, I mean, this is just like, first of all, that like threat to refuse to post bail for an incarcerated defendant, Atlanta florist arrestee, as you said, they tation needed. Like, we need to know much more about that example, to hold up this claim because I think that's a really important pivot where they're saying and accused that's disloyal, to this group risks losing it all. Like, that's really important to establish this as like an organization with teeth that will kind of like, hold people accountable to it, and to inflate them into this villain, because everything else is just kind of like being part of a bingo club. You know, that meets once a week. Like there's literally no difference. Emotional solidarity, support, preparation, you got to know how bingo works.
Yeah, like if you look at it, they're just describing like, what it's like to be in any, as you said, like group or club and if you're not a general Association, but it's so interesting how they're saying, like, first of all, can you believe that these people are using mutual aid to support one another emotionally and financially when they're facing charges? And can you believe that they would deny that support to people who aren't agreeing with them? Like, I know terrible that they're doing it but how terrible that they're not doing it? Like
yeah, this is where it becomes so so ridiculous, you're exactly right Sophie that this is this is where they are trying to pin the coercive the SI in Rico on defend the Atlanta forest is the idea that if you are you know, you are not being provided emotional, personal and financial support, unless you are fully in line with the belief structure of this, you know, decentralized political organization. I mean, if this really does stick like that, we are in serious fucking trouble as a society, just in terms of how sorry for the language but like, it really is true. Like if you start defining these kinds of associations and providing things like emotional support to people contingent on whether or not you like, consider them your friends or allies like this is like a this the potential for abuse of this is absolutely like it knows almost no bounds well,
And it won't be limited to political organizations like of course that's our that's probably our number one concern. Absolutely. They're gonna come after your bingo club. They're gonna come after your podcasts like, like, there is no limit to this because the the terms of a coercive organization Yeah, it's just it's really any discourse, community public enclave, like any social unit. Can like, can you Yeah, but not the police force. No, because that right, because that has institutional structures that like inherently legitimated but like anything in the broader civil society that's associated? If those associations come about through, like emotional support, like practical support, that's suspect. Yeah. So so don't support people in groups. Or you could get into groups.
No, unions.
No groups, no social bonds just be an individual seeking property and profit in your own little like little bubble
They're coming for your fantasy football league.
Like for real? No, seriously, yeah, don't post anything too spicy in the chat. Because as we'll see here, they they do actually get some of that material. So anyway, we have a little bit more here that I think is kind of interesting. Regarding how illusive and association gets to be defined as a criminal enterprise. Let's see how they do it here. Defend the Atlanta forest is an unofficial Atlanta based organization that frames itself as a broad, decentralized autonomous movement that uses advocacy and direct action to stop the quote forest from being bulldozed in favor of police and sold out to Hollywood and quote, defend the Atlanta forest does not recruit from a single location, nor do all defend the Atlanta forests members have a history of working together as a group in a single location. Nevertheless, the group shares a unified opposition to the construction of the Atlanta Police Department training facility, construction companies associated with the project and companies associated with the construction properties in the around surrounding the forest. That is, again, just I have to leave these in here just so you can know how sloppily this document is written. It's really, really poor. As the group has grown and recruited, it has evolved into a broader anti government, anti police and anti corporate extremist organization. Defend the Atlanta forest is made up of three primary ideologies. The first ideology is an anti law enforcement ideology that attempts to push a narrative that all police are violent militant individuals that frequently use excessive force and violence against innocent citizens, and wonder where they got that idea from. The goal of this ideology is the elimination of police forces in their entirety. The second ideology is the protection of the environment at all costs. This ideology promotes the belief that the environment has the same rights as humans, and therefore violence is acceptable to defend the environment. The defend the Atlanta forest organization acknowledges that they embrace this extremist ideology. And then finally, the third ideology that they mentioned is an anarchist ideology. So we've been through this. As a result of all three ideologies Joining Forces, the group has been able to quickly recruit nationwide support of extremists, including out of state extremists that have traveled to Georgia. Many of these extremists embrace violence and anarchy, and they use the forest as a guise for their violent agenda
Which even though they're inherently so separate, somehow, these violent actors have woven them together to make it seem like they're related, which is tricky, because obviously, they have nothing to do with one another.
no connection.
The United States Department of Homeland Security has classified individuals as a legend domestic violent extremists. In a bulletin posting, the Department of Homeland Security concluded that quote, the alleged DV E's domestic violent extremists in Georgia have cited anarchist violent extremism, animal rights slash environmental extremism, and anti law enforcement sentiment to justify criminal activity in opposition to a planned public safety training facility in Atlanta. criminal acts have included an alleged shooting and assaults targeting law enforcement and property damage targeting the facility, construction companies and financial institutions for their perceived involvement with the planning facility.
But they are straight up using an example in which the police killed a protester and then people were mad about that as evidence of the protesters being extremist. Yeah. Not liking that one of them was killed by police, because that's they keep using similarly to or they use violence, like violence, violence, violence, because it's violent violence is so violent, seems like extremism is us being used in exactly the same way it gets this extreme. Their views are extreme and extreme to be upset that that someone was killed.
Yes. Yeah. That is essentially the contention that they're making here is that again, extremism is this kind of blanket term that we can use to describe again, I think it's prudent to point out something you mentioned earlier, Calvin, everything from Donald Trump trying to steal an election to protesters trying to occupy a forest to stop the construction of a police training facility like these are not the same thing. They're not even. You can't even you can't do the horseshoe theory, rhetoric with this like it just it's not even close to the same scale. I also just love the fact that they even acknowledge up here that they are decentralized, autonomous that they never meet they have there's no evidence they have ever recruited from a single location or have a history of working together in a single locate like how do you prove criminal conspiracy against an organization that you yourself admits is autonomously organized decentralized is only people who are gathering out of their association based on a common goal, political goal, like, how do you how do you prove that that's a criminal conspiracy? That makes no sense to me?
Yeah, it's a totally contradictory argument, established in totally embarrassingly bad prose. Because if the entire purpose of this document is to really rhetorically constitute a criminal organization, that you can then indict and indict older members, or as many, you know, with far more members than you would without a RICO indictment. You're including all of the stuff that undermines that, that's like they're decentralized. You don't actually have to hold anarchist beliefs to be an anarchist. Like there's all of these things that they include to show how loose the association is, but at the very same time, they're saying this is a really strong association and it's so strong we need to indict like 70 people you know, as being part of the same conspiracy yeah
For all of the accusations of violence, it just very casually mentions like, Yeah, we did kill that guy. Yeah, we killed the guy. But yeah, you don't I mean, like that's, that's not part of the violent like, we're yeah, that happened. That happened, but like the violence was when they didn't like it. That's the violent part.
And also, I should say, making making the completely specious allegation without framing it as such framing it as fact that the group is justifying the shooting of a Georgia State Trooper which again, not at all proven in a court of law at any point like this is the i i hope that they get this thrown out just for how fast and loose they play with facts generally in this indictment. That is, that is a really egregious oversight on whoever typed this up and like trying to remain even just basically factual and falling completely flat. We'll kind of briefly skim over some of these other parts but this part I wanted to really zone in on just because this is truly like this just to me says a lot about whoever the doofus was that wrote this thing. So they're describing a video that a certain what they call a black clad defend the Atlanta forest participant is talking about how they are defining the different actors that are involved in this. So this goes back to the previous paragraph, we have them talking about the fact that criminal acts have involved in alleged shooting assaults targeting law enforcement and property damage targeting facility construction companies and other financial institutions for their perceived involvement with the facility. The black clad defend the Atlanta forest participants describes the Atlanta Police Foundation apsf as a quote consumer in purchasing construction services from a general contractor Brasfield and Gorrie Brasfield and Gorrie is in charge of major an Atlanta Police Foundation project components such as structural engineering blueprint making and zoning and works with subcontractors to achieve these objectives. The defend the Atlanta forest strategy drawing from The Art of War by Sun Tzu is to attack the strategy and allies of your enemy in order to quote separate the subcontractors from the contractor and the contractor from the API. If so, like your first of all, just like quoting Sun Tzu in here, like no one did, there was no evidence in here that any anarchist member has read the art of war, but like, what kind of like dork do you have to be to cite that in here and say they're clearly drawing from this classic violent military strategy texts like what I'm talking about?
Yeah. And they're using it to make this bizarre point that they're trying to separate the Police Foundation from the company that they're contracting with, like divide and conquer, like they're using this strategy of divide and conquer by describing a basic financial relationship between, like the provider of instructional services partnership.
One other paragraph that I wanted to mention here, and this is where we get into the actual meat of the allegations that they're making about conspiracy, and racketeering, notably, according to the website for network for strong communities. So this is an organization that they identify as based in Atlanta. It is basically a sort of mutual aid network and a bail fund. So according to the website for this network for strong communities organization, the Atlanta solidarity fund is not primarily designed as a bail fund to pay the bonds for indigent inmates that cannot afford bond. Rather, the Atlanta solidarity funds primary purpose is to quote provide support for people who get arrested at protests or otherwise prosecuted for their movement involvement. A recent example includes posting a $392,000 cash bond for a defendant charged with domestic terrorism, while indigent defendants remained incarcerated as pretrial detainees. So, again, they're trying to use this like a bail Fund, which is a, as far as I know, a very aboveboard legal form of association and the use of monetary funds as evidence for criminal conspiracy to get people indicted for domestic terrorism out of jail.
And are they kind of making the argument in this paragraph as well that like they describe it as a bail fund for indigent defendants, but they're actually using it for their own activists, and it's like, but those activists maintain the bail fund. Like it's kind of like, basic support to keep the bail fund going. No, yes, absolutely. That's what I would argue it honestly, trying to frame this as like conspiracy fraud and money laundering, which they will do further down here is just like it's it's as flimsy as wet cardboard, like, it really just does not hold any weight whatsoever. And I mean, I really, again, hope that the Georgia court that's gonna hear this feels the the judge feels the same way here. I just wanted to make a note here, just kind of by way of drawing a conclusion here of the actual conspiracy charges of the actual counts that are listed in this indictment. There are a total of 225 total conspiracy counts of racketeering against 61 defendants. So it's a pretty broad set of Rico charges. There are 61 people that have been indicted here for their participation. 43 of these counts are literally I'm not joking here. I went through and counted these 43 of these 225 counts are for posting information related to the protest movement on a blog. And this is, quote, thereby knowingly using threats against construction officials with the intent to cause and induce construction officials to withhold records, documents and testimony in official proceedings. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Just as an example of what one of these blog posts looks like, this is one of the counts right here on June 25th 2021. There are three names here that are listed, I won't read them out, along with unindicted co conspirators that are unknown to the grand jury did publish a post on cines.no blogs.org. Linking to another article on it's going down.com that advocates for more property damage and encouraging further property damage, thereby knowingly using threats against construction officials with the intent to cause and induce them to withhold records documents and testimonies in official proceedings. They're basically arguing like just a distilled like TLDR on this, they're saying that posting on this anarchist blog publicly on the internet so that potentially if the construction people wanted to read them, they could see these as threats and potentially coerce them to stop building or stop their construction contracts on cop city. So post posting matters
They're talking about like the thing that they're talking about, like the, quote, violent act that's being discussed as sabotaging equipment. And that here is being stated as a threat against the construction officials, like the idea that machinery would be sabotaged. is the equivalent to threatening the human in charge of that equipment. Yeah, what I'm reading here, which
that's,
That's correct.
Yeah, those those construction workers are contiguous with their bullet bulldozers and machine psyche. Yeah, there's no distinction between them included in this, I also have to point out, it's not even like a direct post, it's a link to another post that's saying whatever it is, so be careful about any links you share, because you're responsible for all of the content in the link.
Exactly. No. And for that very, that was why I brought that example, specifically in here, because I think that's one of the most dangerous counts that's included in here. I mean, they got 43 of these things. They were just like, they were reading posts on this blog just to try and find any possible. Like, again, just like the flimsiest hint of an association between people who are posting on this website and encouragement of violent acts that could be construed as threats. It is astounding that they're trying to make this stick like this. I am not a lawyer, but like, even just as somebody who basically knows how the law works, this is completely just a it's such a spurious accusation. I cannot believe that they're actually moving. I mean, I know kind of why they're doing this. And we'll probably talk more about this. It's a cudgel, it's meant to be used as, as like a chilling effect against activists. I also just have to note here, so 82 of these of those 20 225 counts against the 61. defendants are for reimbursements of funds to defend the Atlanta force members from the network for strong communities, the aforementioned Bail Fund and fundraising organization 46 of those 82 reimbursements, so over half of them totaled less than $100. And we're for things like camping supplies.
So like if a group pools money, and then they decide how to spend that money, that's theirs. That's their being charged for like spending that money how they want to spend their own.
Yeah, like is that are the are those the money laundering charges around?
Correct? Yes.
Okay. So that's money laundering is to use a mutual aid fund for its like, obvious purpose, who knows about the
Right. to buy equipment that they are alleging is being used in the furtherance of illegal activity? So, okay, absolutely. Camping in the forest and occupying it using camping supplies purchased by this organization is evidence of a criminal conspiracy, a racketeering organization and money laundering. Okay,
So, if the whole point of money laundering is that like, okay, we're using this money, but we're actually using it for something that we said we weren't gonna use it for. We're using for that instead. Right, is, I guess, and because this is worded so badly, I'm not sure I understand. Are they saying that, like, the presence of mutual aid itself is money laundering or this mutual fund that they say it's for mutual aid, but it's actually for this other thing? That's, that's the bad part. Like I can't pin down if they think that like just the act of mutual aid, like fundraising is the crime or if there, it would be okay, if they were using it for what they said they were gonna use it for, which is not this but something else.
Herein lies the major problem, Sophie, that I think you are identifying so very well with this confusion. If you are not a you and I are not able to make sense of the vague and confusing wording in this document about whether or not mutual aid counts as money laundering, then if this does indeed stick, this could be used as perhaps precedent to prosecute any use of mutual aid funds for political activity that is deemed to suspect or that is deemed criminal in some way by law enforcement or by a prosecutorial entity. I think that that confusion is part of the point.
I think that's that's the real key thing is that like, you know, if we're before which we shouldn't, but if we're being maximally charitable to them, their problem is not mutual aid itself. It's mutual aid funds being used to fund political activity that they have decided is criminal, right. So that's mutual aid is like one of the founding like principles upon which this group is like one of the things that we're not supposed to like about the group. Oh, for sure, for sure. But I think these counts are specifically about, okay, use that mutual aid fund that you said was going to help people with their basic needs to help these people stay in the forest and like, prevent cop city from being built. And that's illegal. It's illegal to prevent cops city from being built, because we've decreed it from on high and so correct. Like, that's the really scary thing is that this is designed to make it harder and harder to fund protest. I mean, it's already hard enough. In such a massive police state, we have instruments of surveillance state we have under capitalism, where it's just hard to organize things generally, because people don't have time, and they don't have money. Like, how are you gonna be able to sustain or maintain a movement if you can't fund it? And I think this is really designed to stop that. Right.
100% Yeah, not only to staunch the funding, but again, like, the fear here is also involved in like, what level of or what degree of association counts as being involved in a criminal conspiracy, you know, whether or not it is, you know, fundraising for your organization, or just simply posting on a blog, right, like, they're, they're nailing people for posting links on the internet, because that is construed as a public threat to these construction companies. I mean, it's baffling. It's truly baffling. You don't even have to commit it. You're literally committing thought crime here. Like that's the that is what they're trying to produce. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic. Right. And trying to assert that. No, no, I don't think so.
And I mean, one one point I want to make about this, and I almost feel like we should have made this point like very early in the episode, but we're kind of having fun with this because it's so like hilariously bad. It's badly written and it's badly argued, but obviously it's incredibly serious for these people who are who are indicted and and, you know, and people who have already been harmed by the, like police state that's trying to clamp down this movement, then and I think like that gets at, like kind of the broader terror that's inflicted by this kind of rhetoric is that it doesn't need to be good. Like it can be as shitty as it wants to be because it, it's like inherently legitimated by the structures of power. And like, this is really like, a great example, you know, of part of what the banality of evil means is like, just this banal garbage, like, high school writing document, can inflict incredible harm because of its position in an institutional hierarchy. And that's like, it's it's funny at times, but it's really scary. Like it's a, it's a laugh that dies in your throat. You know
Well said. Sophie, any any final thoughts that you want to give for this by way of kind of coming to our conclusion here? I know, we should probably sober up on this a little bit. But any any final thoughts that you want to offer?
Yeah, I mean, I, I think Kevin's right, it's, you know, it's one of those things that like, this should be so ridiculous. This should be like a laugh, this should be something that we can goof on for an hour. And call it a day like this is never, but like, as Kevin has said, like, the reality is that, like, there's a good chance that this will stick that this will work. And then all the implications now that you've been discussing, you know, like, even though even the document that this is, you know, the context in which this is being done, right, like the very act of like, let's raise this forest, to build a police training like that, in itself, in my mind should be so ridiculous. Like, of course, we're not going to do that, especially when there's like widespread public outcry. You know, they're trying to keep it out of elections, because they know that if they vote on it, it won't pass because the community does not want this, and it's gone beyond the Atlantic community. Many people don't want this, it's people's tax dollars. They're saying they don't want it, this shouldn't even really be on the table. But the power dynamic being what it is, it is on the table, and not only is the thing that they want to do on the table, also, everybody else getting in trouble for not liking it is very much on the table. And it's horrifying. It's horrifying. You kind of feel like what, you know, I think we're trying to obviously lend a little insight and try to raise some visibility about the movement, because I think I know I mean, I'm very far from Atlanta, but I've been following this. And I want to know, like, what, how am i How can I support this movement? Because, you know, this thing should not happen. And I think that there's 1000 reasons why it shouldn't happen. And it's, um, yeah, as Kevin said, it's chilling to think about that something so badly executed, poorly written, flimsily, you know, reasoned that this is, in this day and age in which we're living, this is legit, like, this is a legit thing that you can come to the courts with, is absolutely horrifying.
Yeah. And I just want to say, I think that like to take it back to what we talked about on the show rhetoric and discourse and technical communication. I mean, I think this is a great example for like instructors to use in their classes, because there are so many problems that you can point out with the writing with the argument with the use of sources, evidence, like sources of evidence organization, like basic definitional claims. And so you can point those out, and you can discuss that with students. But then you can raise this broader question of like, do these mistakes matter in the same way, for a discourse community like this or or for a genre like this as they would for someone producing the same kind of writing or writing that's less institutionally legitimated. And so you can start to talk about social justice, and how, where writing and discourse is coming from has such a strong impact on its ultimate implications, and on the extent to which, like these rhetorical standards that we kind of take for granted, because we've been studying it for a long time, get applied. And so it's not enough to like, be a good writer, you also need power. And those issues of power, I think, are really important to engage with.
Absolutely, yeah. And I mean, you know, that's part of what's at stake in this fundamentally too and why I think we should be in whatever ways we can raising the alarm bells about a case like this, because a lot of that power that you know, you can take as an Indian without, you know, becoming a part of a powerful institution yourself is to collectively organize with other people, right? The freedom to associate and the freedom to you know, organize with other people to achieve a political goal is fundamental to, you know, American society to the roots of our legal system. And you know, being able to imbue your rhetoric with power necessarily involves Association like you can only do so much as a single individual with your voice, you know, your freedom of speech only goes so far, if you are alone, if you are working together with others this is the whole point is that you take power by giving your rhetoric teeth, and it's the kind of thing that I really do think is powerfully at stake in a debate like this. So I appreciate all of the notes about Yeah, pedagogy. How do we teach this to our students as a cautionary tale, as well as an instructive one in, you know, the power of what rhetoric can do at these high levels? Just as well, as you know, for those of us who are involved in activist struggles ourselves? Where do we need to be putting our solidarity right now, and I think it lies firmly within the stop cops city movement, defend the Atlanta force, they need our voices, they need our help. In other ways, we'll maybe drop some links in the bottom of the show notes for some different ways that you can support. We promise that these won't get you indicted on Rico charges get started, we'll stop making jokes about this because it's truly in it. Like at the end of the day, it is not funny what is happening here. But you know, support however you can, because this this fight is, even if it's not at your doorstep right now, if you want to be involved, it will be if you are involved in political association of any kind, outside of law enforcement, this has an a direct impact on you.
I think that's so true, right? Like, it's like, you know, this case, will have implications for every organizational sort of collective action movement that happens after, which is why even if you don't live in Atlanta, it really matters how these charges are seen by the courts, it matters, what precedent is set by how this trial plays out? This is definitely going to have implications for people all over the country. Whether or not you're in Atlanta right now.
Absolutely. Well, I want to thank all of you listeners for hanging in with us. And I especially want to thank my co hosts and CO producers for going through and providing a really incisive analysis of this document. I think this is it's important rhetorical work to do in a moment like this one to you know, to help people make sense of this document you can go out there's a lot more wild stuff in there that we didn't even get to that is worth reading. So check it out if you get the chance. But more than anything, solidarity with stop cop city with defend the Atlanta forest, keep keep fighting that good fight and we will be you know, supporting you from afar in your legal struggles as they continue to unfold. From all of us here at reverb. Thank you so much for tuning in. today. It's been a joy to share this episode with you. And we will talk to you again soon. Bye bye, everybody.
Our show today was produced by Alex Helberg Calvin Pollak, and Sophie Wodzak with editing by Alex. reverb's co-producers at large are Olivia Burnett, and Ben Williams, you can subscribe to reverb and leave us a review on Apple podcasts Stitcher, Android or wherever you listen to podcasts, check out our website at WWW dot reverb cast.com. You can also like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter where our handle is at reverb cast. That's r e v e r b underscore C A S T. If you've enjoyed our show and want to help amplify more of our public scholarship work, please consider leaving us a five star review on your podcast platform of choice and tell a friend about us. We sincerely appreciate the support of our listeners. Thanks so much for tuning in.
