Prairieland and Antifa Terrorism

number of federal defendants to nine. Originally, this federal case had way more defendants, but last year seven of them pleaded guilty to providing material support terrorists, four of whom were later called to testify for the prosecution during the trial.

facility last summer. On the night of July fourth, after protesters through fireworks and vandalized property, DJs personnel called a local police for assistance. One officer arrived, drew his handgun and yelled stop at a person in all black clothes who was running away. One of the defendants, b Song, then yelled get to the rifles before firing toward the officer with an Air fifteen, hitting him in the neck. Song fired eleven times. The officer returned fire three times.

Song then fled the scene. Most of the defendants were arrested in the days after the attacks, some that night near the facility, though Song camped out hiding in the woods overnight and evaded capture for eleven days with the help of others. Many of those who assisted Song ab aide capture after the shooting pled guilty to providing material support to terrorists. On the first day of this trial, the judge declared a mistrial because one of the defense

attorneys wore a shirt featuring civil rights leaders. A week into the trial, US District Court Judge Mark Pittman ruled that defense attorneys could not argue that the defendants, including the accused shooter, were acting in self defense or the defense of others against unlawful force just because the officer

had already drawn his handgun before Song fired. The prosecutors compared this to Waco, and Judge Pittman ruled that the officer drawing and pointing his handgun at a fleeing suspect does not qualify as quote excessive as a matter of law because the officer did not actually use deadly force or shoot first.

writing also known as zines. There is like a kernel of truth to these statements, but they're designed to serve primarily as clickbait rather than useful information. So let's take a closer look at these claims. Sure, but let's start by getting into the action planning. This action was originally planned on the encrypted messaging app Signal, primarily in a

group chat called Fourth of July Party Okay. The plan was also discussed an in person meeting the day before the action, referred to during the trial as a gear check preticipense in the planning chat agreed to where black block and bring armor and rifles. Song advertised the action in a larger group chat of dozens of quote unquote trusted individuals. The event was characterized in this chat as

a low risk noise demonstration involving fireworks. A flyer was sent to this larger chat, reading share with trusted folks only, do not post mask up be loud quote. According to cooperating witness Susan Kent, in the fourth of July Party Signal chat, when asked about bringing guns, Song stated, I'm not going back to prison. I'm not going to jail. I'm bringing guns unquote.

discussed the support committee rights that. Kent also testified that the group quote discussed stealing U hauls to move free detainees, but this did not have popular support. Defendant Autumn Hill asked do we bring our guns? Song replied yes, I'm not getting arrested.

please delete signal chats. Chats still on phone even if removed from groups unquote Yeah. According to Support committee notes, some signal messages were recovered from phones using Apple's internal notification system, though even though signal had been removed YEA, incoming messages were preserved in the internal memory on the phone. Outgoing messages were not preserved because there's no notification system

for outgoing messages. You can set your settings on signal to not display the message in notifications, and it seems like that was not the case for these messages that were taken from defendants phones.

Prairie Line attack looked to Song as a leader. Song acquired firearms that were distributed to co defendants and recruited members that gun ranges and combat sessions they conducted unquote yep.

Like very rarely do self defense shootings involve suppressing fire. I I just you have to be very very careful. Yeah, And this is like a judgment thing, Like if you hear people talking about guns who are going to be bringing firearms to a protest or another event, and they are talking in a way that sounds as if they are like planning or eager to shoot it out with the police or right wing count with anyone. That's a

thing to be very wary of. That's a real warning sign. Yeah, that's a real red flag.

But if this had not been, if this had been like, you know, a right wing counter protester or something, the fact that you're saying that you were like shooting to try not to hit them is something that can get you in trouble. That's an extremely dangerous thing from a legal standpoint to talk about.

of law unquote. So basically they view ANTIFA as left wing anti authoritarians, right, That's how we can kind of collapse the use of this term down into like a single sentence, it's left wing anti authoritarianism. Though the defendants never actually organized altogether under the Antifa name, the prosecution argued that they were lanked through a triple ven diagram of the Socialist Rifle Association, the John Brown Gun Club, and the Emma Goldman book Club, and this all converged

on quote unquote direct militant action. I'm assuming people are familiar with the SRA or the John Brown Gun Club in some way. The Emma Goldman Book Club was a local Zene distributor and publisher that also put on community events from a radical, anti capitalist, usually anarchist friendly perspective and mc goldwyn obviously being an anarchist yep.

a pre trial motion as opposed to an objection. During the trial, prosecutors also cited Trump's Antifa Executive Order, despite disorder being signed months after the Prairie Land incident, and the prosecutors also claimed that the International Antifa Defense Fund contributed over five thousand dollars to the Prairie Land defendants

give Send Go crowd funding page. So much of this case was spent arguing over whether the defendants were in fact Antifa and what that even means, like what does it mean to be Antifa and if that's actually relevant to the charges that they were facing. And by the end of the trial it became more clear that the defendants weren't exactly being prosecuted for being members of Antifa. Rather, the government asserted that their proximity to this idea of

Antifa provided evidence to their motive and preferred tactics. Quoting the Support Committee courtroom notes, quote, the government's strategy was to display zines, stickers, pamphlets, flags, and other political materials anarchist, anti fascist, anti ice, animal liberation, and argued that this

shared ideology proves conspiracy and motive. FBI case agent Casey Bennett testified that the materials quote show a group of people sharing an ideology and that this quote might lead us to intent behind the attack and shows a conspiracy unquote. Towards the end of the trial, Judge Pittman asked the prosecution, quote,

is it necessary to prove this stuff about Antifa? The Support Committee courtroom notes say that the prosecution responded by saying that Antifa ideology, particularly black block, was how the group operated. The judge pressed, quote, whether it's Antifa or the Methodist Women's Auxiliary, why does it matter?

quote unquote resist fascism flag. Now, all this does raise the question about whether this prosecution is against the defendant's political ideology or the specific criminal acts of throwing fireworks or shooting at a police officer, rather than being convicted of being members of Antifa, the terrorist group, something that

still doesn't really have legal precedent. The prosecutors argued that the Antifa ideology, left wing anti authoritarianism played a role in in spe firing the defendants formed the basis of political affinity that brought this collection of individuals together and relate to a collection of security practices, subcultural practices, and associated tactics which were employed before, during, and after the criminal acts related to the noise demo quote unquote opsec

practices like you know, Black Block are using signal were used as evidence, Yeah, that there was some sort of conspiracy at foot.

antifa anarchist ideology and organized cells or affinity groups. Co conspirators began planning direct action at prairieland co conspirators agreed to address in black bloc to provide cover for each other to commit crimes, including concealing the escape of those who committed destruction of government property unquote. So this is how it relates to like the actual legal definition of terrorism, right, which is certain criminal acts intending to change or influence

government policy by intimidation or coercion. Right. That's how the government uses the term terrorism. And this this section of the plea written by the government shows how the government is self asserting the terrorists and that happened at Prairie Land.

that make me a Nazi? If I own the Capital, does that make me a Marxist? Unquote?

it were read or listened to in court. The most detailed account of the call segments played in court come from notes taken by the prairieland Defense Support Committee. The actual evidence exhibit is not yet available to be purchased on PACER. Not sure if it will be or if that'll just be after sentencing. But I tried to actually get the transcript of the call, and it was not available. Des told his wife that he already talked with her mom,

who she had previously called the day before. Rida talked about fed's confiscating property. FBI Special Agent Whitworth said in his opinion, Raeda was concerned about the evidence. Rieda then voiced concern for her car parked at the twenty four hundred block of fifty sixth Street, which had her phone stored inside. This was the staging site before she went to the action. She then instructed Dez to quote unquote toe it. My phone is in the back. Do what

you got to do. Just toe it unquote. The Support Committee wrote that quote. Prosecution replayed this section, characterizing it as Rida trying to get rid of evidence. Rada says to quote unquote retrieve her items from the vehicle, does not refer to her items using the word evidence, and does not say hide, destroy, or conceal. Des never actually got to this car or the phone. He explained that the vehicle would be repoed, But Royta also said in this call, quote move whatever you need to move in

the house. The Support Committee wrote that quote. Prosecution argued this meant moving evidence. Defense noted she was talking about pets at the time. Quote on the call, Des mentioned that he had already been at the house and replied, quote unquote, were good in reference to moving stuff from

the house. The defense questioned how they could have conspired out of order right because the government claims there was a conspiracy to concealed documents, but Des here said that he moved things before he actually got on this phone call with his wife. The FBI answered that Des just had already acquired the necessary information to act, just not

directly from his wife. Now, des was found guilty of quote corruptly concealing a document or record by transporting a box containing numerous ANTIFA materials such as insurrection planning, anti law enforcement, anti government, and anti immigration enforcement documents and propaganda, intending to conceal the box's contents and impair its availability for use in a federal grand jury and federal criminal

proceedings unquote. That's from the DOJ. He and his wife, Rita were found guilty of conspiracy to conceal documents and other objects that would implicate Rada in the riot and shooting at the Prairie Land Facility. Also, according to the Department of justice. So basically this was an evidence tampering

charge of concealing evidence charge. The actual presence of the zines was not the crime, but the government argued that the zines themselves were evidence, or that des suspected they could be evidence, and that's why he moved them from his wife's house to this other location. We're gonna go and rumber break and then return to discuss two more charges. Okay, we're back nine of the counts, count one, two, four, and five through ten cited Pinkerton versus United States, nineteen forty six.

charged with conspiracy. It is not required that the conspiracy agrees to commit or facilitate each and every part of a substantive offense that is, in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant must merely reach an agreement with the specific intent that the underlying criminal objective be achieved by the

conspiracy unquote. Early in the trial, prosecution argued that song firing on the officers was quote unquote reasonably foreseeable based on the planning of the action and previous statements made by Song, But this Pickerton liability also applied to the other charges, including riot material sport terrorism, and the explosive charge.

The jury found all defendants that were charged guilty of counts one, two, three, and four that's riot material support and to explosive charges, but did not find the other defendants besides Song, guilty of attempted murder or discharging a firearm using the Pinkerton co conspirator liability. The prosecution wanted the other individuals at the protest to be found guilty of the charge of attempted murder using the liability, and

the jury did not do that. Let's talk about two of the charges that now carry some worrying potential to be used against protesters in the future based on the precedent that this case sets. First, the conspiracy to use and carry in explosive and using n carry an explosive during a riot. The only quote nquote explosives at this noise demonstration protest were fireworks, and the judge even confirmed that it was established that the fireworks caused no damage

to the ice facility. Yet Steven Brennemann Atis Explosives Special Agent testified that fireworks meet the statutory definition of explosives under eighteen USC. Section eight four four IJ because the fireworks contain gunpowder as defined in the statute. This could have some pretty wide reaching implications. A lot of protests u fireworks. This was a protest on fourth of July,

a day full of the use of fireworks. Robert and I have been to a protest, covered a protest in twenty twenty outside of a federal government building that also had a lot of fireworks and fireworks shot towards the building. Yep, if that happened, now, it's possible that people at this protest could be charged with this conspiracy to use and carry an explosive.

used quite often. But you know, like I had so many of those fucking things blow up in my face and then every day, like, these are not bombs, These are not pipe bombs. Like it's not fun to have them blow up right next to you, but it's these are not like deadly explosives.

this statute has two sections. Section B refers to knowingly attempting to, conspiring to, or actually providing material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. This is not how the government used this statute, right, They're not considering Antifa a foreign terrorist organization for the purposes of this case.

That's the how are using this. The defendants were charge receection a alleging that they provided and attempted to provide material support and resources and did conceal and disguise the nature of their material support and resources including property, services, training, communications equipment, weapons, explosives, personnel including themselves, and transportation, knowing and intending that they were to be used in preparation for, and in carrying out an offense identified as a federal

crime of terrorism, or carrying out the concealment of an escape from an offense identified as a federal crime of terrorism. That's a lot. Yeah, that's a long sentence. This is certainly a very confusing charge.

For the purposes of this case, this would be damage to government property in other ways like slashing tires, graffeiti that sort of thing, right. And finally, eighteen USC one one four killing or attempting to kill an officer or

employee of the United States. That's pretty self explanatory. Yeah, So the government accused the defendants of providing material support in furtherance of committing these three crimes of terrorism, even if each individual defendant themselves did not actually commit one of these three crimes. To quote the jury instructions, quote, the government does not have to prove all of these to you for you to return a guilty verdict on this charge. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt on one is

enough unquote. So the jury does not need to find proof that all of these three terrorism offenses were committed. That the explosives charge, the destruction government property charge, or the attempt at killing charge. They just need to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that material support was provided

for one of these. Part of what makes this charge kind of dangerous is that we don't know which terroristic crime or crimes the jury found sufficient evidence for, or if they used different offenses for different defendants, Nor do we explicitly know what the jury thought qualified as material support. It could have been driving people to an action, a mere presence at an action, wearing black clothes, providing money to buy fireworks, all those could be considered material support.

But because of how the jury just writes guilty on this charge, we don't actually know what the specific justification they used to find this to be true. Because the discharges so is so broad and can contain a lot of things that qualify as material support, including just being merely present at an action like personnel can be material

support in furtherance of a federal crime of terrorism. So wearing black block at an action where no crime happens would not constitute terrorism, but wearing black clothes at a protest where someone does an ideologically motivated crime of terrorism could be seen as materially supporting that crime or concealing the escape of the person who committed that crime. I want to quote from the judge's instructions to the jury

regarding the First Amendment. Quote, Constitutionally protected speech can be properly used as evidence to prove a defend motive, intent, and knowledge to commit the offense or further the unlawful

purpose of any jointly undertaken criminal activity. Stated another way, if a defendant's speech, expression, or associations were made with the intent to knowingly provide material support or resources to be used to prepare for or carry out a violation of federal law, or to carry out the concealment of an escape from such a violation, then the First Amendment

would not provide a defense to that conduct unquote. So it is possible now, using this case as precedent, if you're present at a protest before someone commits a serious crime, and you have a tangential link to that person, you could also face similar charges. If you're in a group chat with someone and then they commit a crime, you could face similar charges. This is not the first time the government has tried to use this sort of like

conspiracy against a large different group of protesters. Notably, they tried to do this in Atlanta unsuccessfully. But I think it's worth noting they were only unsuccessful on their reco charges because of procedural error, not because of actual evidence argued in court. It's that the prosecutor in that case did not actually have justification or the legal justification to bring this charge. So we never actually saw this get argued out in front of a jury and find the

jury's verdict. But this is a part of an ongoing strategy the prosecution has done against protesters the past few years, and in this case successfully. Yeah.

the jury found constituted material support. But because we don't know these things, that means when prosecutors try to argue this charge again in the future, they kind of have to start from the ground floor all over again. It's harder to apply this exact precedent because the specific things that constituted material support and the specific crime that material support was provided for are sort of ambiguous. But the vagueness of this charge certainly leads to a lot of confusion.

And you can now look at this case and see that legal possession of firearms or firearms training and possession of political paraphernalia could bolster ideological links between you and defendants which could be used as evidence for a charge like this right yep, or for conspiracy charges, and that obviously is worrying. Now. A Song faces a minimum penalty

of twenty years a maximum of life in prison. Other defendants of Prairie Land face sentences ranging from a minimum of ten years to up to sixty The husband convicted of concealing documents faces up to forty years in prison, and those who pled guilty face the sentences of up to fifteen years in federal prison, though their cooperation may lower that. Another man faces charges for evidence tampering because he allegedly removed Prairie Land defendants from discord chats last year.

But this is a state charge which will be going to trial later in April.

zine or wearing black is terrorism. Now, that's not what was adjudicated here.

right right. But if you are part of a Nazi group chat where you're planning an action, and then a Nazi does something at the at the action, like shooting a power substation, then that Nazi and the other Nazis that he's organizing with, you know, could face terrorism charges. That That is how those sorts of like cases work, and a very similar thing is being done here. Mm hmm.

It's it's not the actual like political ideology necessarily at trial, but organized with other people in furtherance of a political ideology is what the government is trying to suppress. Yep.

probably being reckless in other areas. Just be careful, you know, folks, Be careful.