Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Yeah. The United States government indicted me on a dozen or so felonies in Washington, DC because I was a legal observer during a protest of Trump's inauguration, and I was facing 70 to 80 years in prison.
[00:00:18] Speaker B: That was a clip from today's guest, Chris Caraway. Chris is first someone that I just really like. Really, really cool person. We've spent some time touring together, our two bands. He was playing in a band called Fox and just a very inspirational professional, both in his previous role and in his current role. This is someone that I think, really, for me, is a great example of. You come up in a culture like punk and hardcore, you got a lot of beliefs and a lot of ideas. Someone who's actually willing to go out and make things happen rather than just sit on the sidelines and have opinions. It's a great conversation. I think there's something for everyone in that. But before we get to it, please rate, review, and subscribe to the podcast. My name is Aram Arslanian, and this is one step beyond.
Chris, welcome to the show.
[00:01:27] Speaker A: Thanks. Thanks for having me. Happy to be here.
[00:01:31] Speaker B: Yeah. And also, dude, it's just good to see you. It's been a while.
[00:01:34] Speaker A: Yeah, it's been two years, three years.
[00:01:39] Speaker B: Yeah, it was when Monica and I were in town for that totally wild jawbreaker descendants. Sam, I am face to face show.
[00:01:45] Speaker A: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, it's been. I feel like a lot has happened.
[00:01:48] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, totally. So, for the uninitiated, for those who don't know, who are you and what do you do?
[00:01:55] Speaker A: Oh, yeah. So, my name is Chris Caraway, and I am an attorney whose job is to keep animals and people out of cages.
[00:02:05] Speaker B: Okay.
Two things that I am super passionate about. So tell us about the organization you work for and exactly what it does.
[00:02:15] Speaker A: Yeah. So I work at a project called the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project.
It is a clinic at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where, in short, we defend primarily animal rights activists in criminal and civil cases all across the country. So one week, we could be in Wisconsin defending three activists who entered into a beagle breeding and research facility charged with theft and burglary. And the other week, we could be in Miami, Florida, defending an activist who was being sued for a speech by posting drone footage over essentially budget strip mall aquariums.
[00:03:04] Speaker B: How do clients find you? How do people come to access your services?
[00:03:09] Speaker A: Well, we're relatively new project we started about slightly over a year ago, and the whole impetus behind our project forming is first, recognizing as a fundamental premise that a lot of social change moves because of the movement of people. Grassroots activists, certainly there's been some instances of things being Astroturf, like the Tea Party as a conservative example. But generally successful social justice movements really rely on people coming together and making things happen. And, you know, predominantly, especially in the animal rights community, we have seen this chronic problem of grassroots activists having problems getting access to justice, access to attorneys. And, I mean, that was my experience when I started out as an animal rights activist in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Didn't know who to call if we got in trouble.
And, you know, 20 years later, it's still an issue. And the effect of that of having activists going into courtrooms can be pretty disastrous for a movement. You know, it can cause a lot of stress. It can take people out of organizing, whether that be just focusing on a court case or literally in jail, and it can cause people to quit. So the main reason this project started was to try to fill that gap, to try to support and give a healthy foundation to sort of the grassroots animal rights movement. So in terms of how clients find us, it's a combination. Fortunately, we've been able to have some pretty significant early successes and get involved in some important cases involving the right to rescue. So that has raised our profile where clients can contact us. It's our connections in the movement. And sometimes we are reaching out, trying to find cases, trying to find people to help. And, you know, it's our. It's our intention to grow to a point where anyone gets in trouble, they know where to go, and we either directly help them or find someone that can.
[00:05:17] Speaker B: Your story to becoming a lawyer is a. Is a pretty interesting one and is deeply connected to what you're doing now. So, first of all, where did you grow up?
[00:05:26] Speaker A: No, I grew up in Raleigh, North Carolina. You know, lived there basically through college, you know, and, you know, in Raleigh, but very much in the middle class suburbs of Raleigh.
[00:05:37] Speaker B: And how. What was your first introduction into animal welfare, animal rights, and even the interest of these things, rather than even the activism, but even the entryway into learning about those types of things, it was punk.
[00:05:53] Speaker A: I think my path to becoming vegetarian and shortly thereafter vegan, started with just being exposed to it through people tabling at punk shows. You know, when I got into punk, you know, I was of the belief that, like, punk had to be political. And I still believe that, you know, the first show I ever booked when I was, like, 14 or 15 was a food not bombs benefit. And I did it because, you know, I thought food not bombs was really cool. But I was also like, I'm doing a show of local bands. Of course it should be a benefit.
So I sort of came into sort of my mid teens, like, with this mindset, this politicized mindset. So I think it was pretty easy for me to sort of accept and look at sort of the critique of eating animals and eating animal products. That being said, you know, it still took me some time to actually, you know, go vegan or become vegetarian. You know, I feel like I had known for, like, a good year, like, this is wrong. This is not a thing I should do. But, you know, I had all sort of the general excuses, but, you know, I made that jump when I was in 1920.
And, you know, I often refer to it as my gateway movement. You know, it wasn't the first thing of political activism I did, but it was certainly the one that grabbed me the most and fed into sort of my identity and really taught me a lot about just organizing and protests in general.
[00:07:19] Speaker B: And what was. What was it? Did you say it was 1920?
[00:07:24] Speaker A: 1920. Did I say 1920?
[00:07:26] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:07:27] Speaker A: Oh, no, no. When I was, like, 19 or 20.
[00:07:31] Speaker B: Or 20, I was like, what is that?
[00:07:34] Speaker A: Yeah, not that old.
[00:07:35] Speaker B: Okay, when you were 19 or 20, what was the reaction?
And I don't just mean, like, from a family member or a friend that may be like, oh, going vegetarian this or that, like, not from a health risk perspective. But when you started getting to actual activism, what was the reaction to the people around you who cared about you but weren't. Weren't part of the activist community?
[00:07:57] Speaker A: Well, you know, in Raleigh's a small town, and, you know, it's the capital city, North Carolina, but it's very much a college town. You know, I went to North Carolina State University, which, you know, is an engineering school, but also an agricultural school.
And, you know, I found a good community of punks, people that were punk adjacent in this diy spirit. And, you know, when you have incredibly small towns, sort of, like, building a community, sort of, everyone sort of shows up. You have, like, the metalheads coming to the punk shows and things like that. And I think that's true of the activist community in Raleigh. You know, you would have, you know, people that would show up to food nut bombs that were not vegan or vegetarian but sort of understood, you know, the welcoming aspect. And, you know, we had a bicycle co op in the backyard of one of our houses and things like that. So, you know, in many respects, you know, it really wasn't that much of a culture change, I think a lot of people just were like, yeah, he went vegan. No surprises.
Because certainly, you know, it was. There were a lot of people already sort of in my friend, group or scene that were vegetarian or vegan.
You know, I grew up in Raleigh at the same time as I'm dying.
So, you know, it really wasn't that much of a shift. My family didn't really care. You know, they didn't really adapt to it. It was like, okay, it's a weird thing, but, yeah, people kind of just shrugged their shoulders and said, yeah. And admittedly, I was an annoying vegan. When I first became vegan, you know, I sucked. I was not good at sort of spreading the movement. I was judgmental, I was shitty.
And I think a lot of people probably extended me a lot of grace, but I was also, like, 19 or 20.
[00:09:49] Speaker B: But what about the activist side of it? Did you ever have anyone be like, hey, man, what you're doing now is crossing from one thing to another, and that's dangerous. Did anyone ever try and talk you off that activist path?
[00:10:02] Speaker A: No. Especially because, um, you know, in Raleigh, all the activism that we were doing, animal rights related, um, you know, was tabling, organizing events, having speakers come out and organizing really small scale protests against, you know, places that were selling foie gras or fur.
And, you know, those were sort of quite successful, but it never really blossomed into anything big. And this was sort of in the shadow of, you know, what we call the green scare, where a lot of animal rights and environmentalists in the United States went to prison for what we generally think of as pretty vanilla organizing and activism. And it was a time where animal rights and environmentalists were deemed the number one domestic terror threat. But really, we didn't have a lot of pushback onto that because I think the activist community in Raleigh sort of generally understood, and it was small, you know, so I don't think there was the liberty to have a lot of divisiveness, you know, and also, you know, we had experienced sort of firsthand, you know, kind of state repression with respect to the anti war movement and the Bush years, which was kind of one of the first politicizing events of my life. You know, I remember distinctly you. You know, there was a punk show that turned into a black block that marched down the street in small town Raleigh, North Carolina, and tried to torch the republican headquarters in Raleigh. And the next day, you know, JTTF agents were knocking on people's doors, especially, you know, a house I was living at. So we all sort of kind of had this awakening and a sort of a militancy about it that, yeah, no one was ever like, you're crossing the line. And, you know, frankly, the animal rights activism I was doing wasn't that shocking. I wasn't a very good animal rights activist. I was put it that way.
[00:12:10] Speaker B: So how did you make the shift, though, from. Into what you do professionally? Because so you're doing this. You're part of this movement. And, you know, you just said I wasn't a very good activist.
Just as a sidebar, before we get to your story, what is a good activist then? What would have been better?
[00:12:28] Speaker A: You know, I just wasn't very effective, you know, in terms of, you know, developing a campaign, sticking with it, you know, having goals that were easily obtainable, that can sort of build a movement.
And, you know, I was working with sort of small town, you know, people. We had, like, groups, like four or five people, and that was sort of the sense of the scale.
So, you know, there was. There was no growing any sort of movement. And, you know, and then I found myself spread across, graduating college, traveling, things like that.
So what I mean by that is, you know, I look at other activists that have truly, like, threatened power with their activism and their commitment, and that just. That just wasn't me. They were much. They're much better at it than I am. So, you know, but ultimately, you know, my path towards becoming a lawyer is very much born in the context of the repression of the animal rights and environmentalist movement, because a lot of the work that I was doing involved prisoner support.
You know, there are people getting really unheard of prison sentence sentences for nonviolent conduct. And so, you know, it felt like every other show I was booking was a benefit show for someone's legal defense fund or prison commissary. You know, I specifically remember, you know, one of the individuals who was part of this group called the Shack Seven. His name is Andy. He was placed in a prison in North Carolina, and we would do benefit shows for him. And sometimes I'd even try to get on the radio at my college to play music for him because he could pick up the college radio station.
So, you know, a lot of the activism was focused on people that were going through the court system. I remember at one point just being like, fuck this. I'm just going to go to law school. Like, I'm, you know, just like, I keep raising all this money, which, you know, I was a college student. So, like, $200 from a benefit show felt like a lot of money, but I was like, I was doing all this work. I like arguing. I feel like I'd probably make an okay lawyer. So, like, I'm just going to go on a path towards law school, really inspired by the activists I saw pushing the envelope, threatening power, and finding themselves facing repression. Like, I wanted to be there for them. So that was what sort of planted the seed of me ultimately becoming a lawyer.
[00:14:59] Speaker B: So I've met a lot of people who have entered into professions with one reasoning and much more of an altruistic reasoning, and then found themselves, over a course of time, kind of switching. Like they're in that profession, but then they're just doing it more in a different space. For example, laws, like, someone could come in and be doing rights that are based on social justice or work based on social justice, but over time just going into some whatever different kind of law. So when you were in law school and in your early career, what kept you focused on the more social justice aspect of your professional career?
[00:15:39] Speaker A: Well, I think, you know, there are really three things that helped land me where I'm at now is one is, you know, you know, I'm a white cis dude, I carry a lot of, like, incredible privilege, and there's a lot of stuff I just don't have to deal with.
And I think that sort of allowed me a lot of flexibility that I can't even fathom other barriers. And I think somewhat related to that is I was fortunate enough to get into a really good law school that has a great loan repayment assistance program, and I actually just submitted my loan forgiveness. So the 200 plus thousand dollars of debt I took on in law school is about to be forgiven. I didn't pay a single cent of it.
So, you know, I, you know, I really sort of credit those two things, you know, as being super instrumental on all the stuff I've been able to do. Especially, you know, the latter meant I didn't have to leave law school and worry about getting the highest paying job to pay off this crippling amount of debt. I could go and be a public defender, which is another interest of mine, which is another thing I was, I am really passionate about and permitted me to sort of do what I wanted to do. And that really is the third thing is I left law school and kind of went on sort of a traditional career path. Like, I didn't go directly into doing activist defense as sort of my own standalone attorney. No, I became a public defender, especially through law school.
I saw the role that public defenders can take in terms of, you know, fighting for people that society, our courts, our government just doesn't care about. And I thought that was really liberatory and important work to do. And it was also at a time where I was, quite frankly, a little burnt out and jaded and cynical on the activist community. I had this really stark memory of going, while I was studying for the bar, going to an earth first rendezvous in the middle of the woods in North Carolina, and to do a know your rights training, and just, I think there were a lot of people there at the rendezvous, but I think maybe five people came to the know your rights training, and, you know, I was just like, what? You know, I could be doing better work for, you know, poor people that don't have anyone to come help them when, you know, a lot of people don't really even care. And, you know, I know from experience that, you know, a lot of times, people really screw themselves over because they don't know their rights. You know, they don't know to shut up and they run their mouth and talk to the cops and make their cases really difficult to defend. So, you know, I think it was sort of a confluence that sort of, like, had that shift to be a public defender. A lot of it was practical, but a lot of it was more sort of, like, philosophical. And, you know, I did that for ten years, and I loved it, you know, and honestly, I'd probably still be doing it if this opportunity hadn't come up. And if this opportunity ever ends, I might just still go back to being a public defender, because I really love the work in the community of my fellow public defenders and the clients that we serve. But that enabled me to sort of have a good leeway of learning to be an attorney and a decent living.
Certainly public defenders make a lot less than most other attorneys, but I was a punk that was a bike messenger and a bike mechanic. Before I went to law school. The most money I'd ever made in a year was, like, $10,000, and half of that was medical studies that I would go do. So I think it sort of set me up to kind of to live a little bit leaner, I guess.
[00:19:23] Speaker B: That's awesome. Great, great response, man.
So let's go with that. Let's go back to that cynicism, you know, talking about being involved in a political idea, some of the things that you think are really important, a movement, and just getting fucking burnt on it, totally cynical about it, talk about that a little bit, and then how you moved through that to be able to focus on what you're doing now.
[00:19:49] Speaker A: I mean, you know, I think coming into a movement and then immediately saying a lot of people get really harsh prison sentences, you know, had an effect. It had an effect not just on me, but, like, on a movement whit large, you know, where people were afraid to sort of come out and, you know, the work isn't actually fun or glamorous. You know, it's actually really hard work.
And, you know, it involves, like, a lot of, like, interesting, like, social relationships, especially, like, when you're in a small town and, you know, you don't. It's not like you're in Philadelphia where there's a ton of vegans on the east coast or, like, Portland, Oregon, you know, or, like, you know, doing activism like a small, especially southern town, you know, in the bush years, you know, was a very isolating and sort of, like, lonely experience.
But, you know, it was also sort of that time in my life, you know, where, you know, you start challenging kind of, like, your youthful optimism and ideas and trying to figure out, like, what am I going to do with my life? Like, maybe. Maybe my friends aren't going to save the world now. What?
So, you know, I think it was just sort of a combination of all those things, you know, maybe even with sort of the, well, I finished college. What do I do with my life now that, you know, put sort of a more cynical or negative view on the world? And, you know, I'm constantly fighting that. You know, I'm constantly fighting cynicism. You know, especially my career as a public defender did not make me less cynical, you know, or more optimistic.
Certainly there are moments, but, you know, I often sort of find myself sort of fighting this, like, nihilistic cynicism versus, you know, optimism. And I think you just have to sort of, like, look for it. Like, look for the opportunities and understand, like, the world is not designed to make you feel optimistic about social progress.
And if you want to feel optimistic, you have to seek it out or make it happen.
And I think that's an incredibly cynical worldview as it is. But that's sort of like, how it's worked for me.
[00:22:14] Speaker B: Yeah.
Do you mind if I give you kind of a personal take on that? Yeah.
[00:22:19] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:22:20] Speaker B: I came up in punk and hardcore just like you did, like, found, like, animal rights activism and those types of things. Same way. You know, for me, it was youth of today, the earth crisis.
And then also I was, like, heavily into, like, ebullition records stuff as well in the nineties, like, really, really inspired by that and still, like, really inspired by a lot of those, like, early ebullition releases. Shout out, Kent, you know, you were a game changer in your own way.
But I remember getting super involved in politics when I was young, early college years. And that's where cynicism started to really kick in for me because a lot of the same, I found people, myself included, wasting a ton of time arguing about stupid shit that didn't make a difference and weird social politics where it's like, it seems like you're doing something, but you're just really going at all your peers and that the group that, you know, you're going at the other group of punks in town or you're beefing about these things. And I just was like, well, this is stupid. This is, like, a total waste of time. This is all I'm doing right now. This is our version of a bar fight that my kids, my same age are now doing at bars. Like, it's the exact same thing, but we're wrapped in politics. I got really, really burnt out on it. And I was still, like, into all of the ideas, into all the politics, but I got really, like, I don't want to talk about politics with punks anymore. Like, I'm totally done with this. But I went in professionally. I went in to start working as a therapist, and I was doing a lot of, like, street level work with, like, street and trench youth and all that. Totally was like, this is where my politics. This is how I do my politics. And then I noticed something.
It's the same. It was the same thing. The same, like, kind of infighting one agency fighting another agency. We're all fighting for funding, you know, this person's full of shit. No, you're full of shit. And I was like, oh, this is just exactly like the two punk houses that are three blocks away fighting with each other. This fucking sucks. I hate this. And again, I got, like, really burnt, super, super burnt out on it. And I never got burnt out on, um, doing addiction and mental health work. I loved the work with clients, but I hated dealing with the system. Couldn't stand it. I just got fed up. And that's what really got me interested in, like, leadership, concepts of leadership, like, all those things. And something that I really, really stuck with is that people are going to people, and people are going to people be people in, like, shitty endeavors, but also, like, super cool endeavors. People just act like people in all sorts of situations. And it is really about having the right kind of mindset, like, seeking out optimism, like finding the right people to work with, creating the right working conditions, that's how you can keep that optimistic space. And maybe also I'm just like a cynical person myself, but, like, I could be in any situation and feel like people are going to create a weird, pyro, dynamic, bullshit thing unless I keep you myself in check. They keep themselves in check. And we intentionally create the right kinds of working conditions to do good things.
[00:25:16] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, because, you know, the task at hand on a lot of these projects are monumental that people have been struggling to achieve for decades, centuries, lifetimes, and, you know, I think I sort of take on the mindset of, well, if you expect things are going to go bad, when they go, well, it's going to be twice as nice, and. But, you know, you know, I sort of just kind of found my lane in terms of, like, here's how I can help a cause I really care about, and I'm just going to focus on that and, you know, trust the organizers, trust the activists. But, like, this is the role that, like, I want to do. This is the skill that I can sort of provide to something that I care about.
And that might not be sufficient, but it's where I'm at right now. It's better than me going to do, like, contract law for some corporation or something like that.
And so I sort of feel like this is how I can contribute in the best way possible.
[00:26:24] Speaker B: So tell us about your time as a public defender. How did you find that work, and what are some of the things that you think are important for people to understand about that?
[00:26:35] Speaker A: Well, you know, I was originally kind of drawn to it just inherently, you know, thinking of public defenders. Job is to go battle authority every day. Like, that really wasn't aligned with my personality in politics, so it really just felt like a good fit. But, you know, it was my first year in law school where I read the new Jim Crow, which really, you know, talks about how, you know, racism really has perpetuated itself through the criminal justice system, which was like a concept like I already knew about, but it just really laid it out in a really digestible way in terms of, here are all the ways the criminal justice system does that. And, you know, I went into wanting to be a public defender with this naive, idealistic view that, like, I am going to fight against the new Jim Crow and cause, you know, all this sort of change. And really that's not the case. Being a PD, sometimes you can do things that make huge systemic changes, but really what you end up doing is you're just helping individual people. And it was that first experience, my first summer as an intern at a public defender's office in Denver that allowed me to sort of have that shift is, you know, this isn't about being, like, the one person that takes down this, like, terrible system.
No. The role is there's someone who needs your help, who's perhaps experiencing one of the worst times of their lives, and you're there to help them and there's no one else there. And that just felt really powerful to me to be able to sort of sort of insert myself in that situation or be inserted into that situation, because obviously, like, you know, you don't get to pick your public defender and actually, like, help someone's life. And that could be, you know, obviously getting them an acquittal in the case, but that could simply just be standing up next to them and being like, no, this is a good person, you know, and what he or she has been accused of doing does not reflect who they are as a person.
And, you know, trying to seek out those sort of individual relationships. And it really taught me a lot about people.
[00:28:51] Speaker B: So someone who's been, like, who is and has been an insider in, like, the legal system, you know, I think most people, especially people in North America, can say, like, hey, there is something wrong with the, with the system of justice in this country, in these. I'm in Canada, you're in the US. In these countries, there's something that is terribly wrong around the prison industrial complex. But what are some of the things that you, as being an insider that you could see to really point out, like, hey, here's some of the real stuff that's going on that the average person might not know.
[00:29:21] Speaker A: You know, it's honestly, this, the scale of our mass incarceration system prevents nuance.
So there were countless times where I would have a client, you know, who has a real problem that caused them to be in the criminal justice system. And you were like, this person doesn't need jail. This person needs, like, a dual diagnosis program to address a mental health issue as well as a substance abuse issue. In Colorado, there was really only one, and it was like a two year long backlog or, you know, hey, this is an assault case against two brothers, and it was right after their family member died. We don't need to put this person in jail for 30 days. Why don't we do restorative justice and let them talk it out? I think that's going to be better for everyone. It's going to be better for certainly the community.
And often the response I would get is just kind of a shrug and be like, that seems too complicated. That seems like too much special work. Because of the scale of the system of mass incarceration, we kind of have to do a one size fits all. And it's because especially in the United States, you know, we have this over incarceration mentality. There are too many people in the criminal justice system. There are too many people in jail. There are too many people on probation, honestly, that the people that could really benefit from nuance simply don't get it. And we have a really inefficient system where problems aren't solved, they're actually made worse. So I think it's an issue of size and quite frankly, indifference. I often would tell younger public defenders who are starting out in misdemeanor court, and I would say, listen, the worst thing that a DA is going to do to your client is not cheat and hide evidence. They do that.
But the thing that is going to impact your clients the most is they do not give a shit. You know, they are just triaging people. They are just cranking people through the system, resolving, dealing with the cases. And the overwhelming amount of people just sort of dulls a lot of participants in it. And I think we need to sort of recognize that and really scale that down. Because I think once you scale down or get rid of a lot of the bullshit that we see in a criminal courtroom, you can actually start addressing the really tough questions and the really underlying policy issues. But if everyone's so overwhelmed and is trying to survive, you never have the time to do that. And I think that's obviously the biggest failures of the criminal justice system. But I also think that's intentional. You know, I think there's a lot of.
There's a lot of people making a lot of money with the system of mass incarceration as it is and don't want to see it changed.
[00:32:16] Speaker B: So around that, like, scaling it down, making it more addressing the individual, like, I loved what you said was like, where it's like, oh, well, I don't love it, but you said it well, where it was like the response would be like, well, no, that seems too complex. Like, that seems too special for this person. That to me is like, that's like crazy thinking. That's exactly what you should be thinking. But the way you also described it, where it's like, because it's on such large scale, nobody wants to slow down to do that thing because there's this big scale. So I know we're not here to solve the world's problems today, but, like, realistically, what could be done to create that space, to really be more tailored to what's going on for the individual, to create more of a sense of, like, real justice and real opportunity to help people through that, through that legal system?
[00:33:07] Speaker A: Well, you know, I think you can sort of start out by, you know, obviously expanding diversion programs, you know, people on, like, first time offenses for minor stuff, especially property crimes, you know, shouldn't go through the criminal justice system in the way that they go through now, where oftentimes the common plea is you have to do supervised probation and things like that. You know, I think we should be looking at diverting more people from just even entering the system with programs. I think, second is we need to really look and examine why we put people in jail. And to be very clear, most of the people in jails and prisons are not there for drug crimes.
You know, and, you know, oftentimes, you know, I think the war on drugs has been awful. It's been racist. It's been classist. It has made, has not made our society safer. It stigmatized people that use drugs and actually cause a lot more harm.
But even if you were to take all those people out of incarceration, we would still have mass incarceration.
And we really need to examine just sort of the loss of human dignity and the impact on communities when you are taking people and putting them in a cage when they truly don't need to be there just because of retribution, just because that's what we do.
And, you know, so I think, you know, first things first, we need to divert more people from the criminal justice system. I think the second thing is, you know, not every client I had, you know, found themselves charged with a crime because they didn't have the right resources or right social situation, but a lot of them did. And if we provide it for their basic needs, a lot of my clients probably would not find themselves in the criminal justice system. And then, like I said before, we could focus on, you know, the trickier solutions, the solutions that really do require a lot more thought, you know, like violent crimes and things like that. You know, things that aren't so definitively linked to. This person has a mental health diagnosis and they weren't getting treatment, or this person has a substance abuse issue or they weren't getting treated, or this person broke into a house because they wanted a place to sleep. And if we were able to provide for those people's resources, a lot of people wouldn't be entering the criminal justice system, and it would allow us to try to find solutions for the harder problems. So I think those two right there would make things a lot easier. I think the last aspect is we need to make more out of the rehabilitative component.
Right now we see prisons not really solving many problems. And to be perfectly honest, I don't actually believe that prison, that putting someone in a cage solves complex social problems. But I can certainly acknowledge that other countries like Scandinavia, they certainly have better results and how they treat incarcerated people than the United States.
And, you know, that's certainly progress.
And, you know, I'm sure there's an easier way of tackling really difficult problems when you're not dealing with, frankly, bullshit crimes that don't need to be in a courtroom, that don't need to see people going to jail for.
[00:36:37] Speaker B: Following up on that. So, like, from awareness raising standpoint, the average person would have some kind of general understanding of everything you just talked about, would probably have an opinion whether it's like, oh, yeah, I more in agreement with you or more disagreement with you, but for people to get much more invested in the like, well now, how do we actually make this a better system?
How do we get people in the conversation and to go a little bit deeper before I toss it back over to you, like, you're in a standpoint where you've, you've been doing this professionally for a long time, and also you kind of had early life education via punk, so you're already interested in that topic. A lot of people are just like, overwhelmed with life. And I like when you use the term overwhelmed before, because right now it just feels like life. Like, we're in a very intense time in life. And life can be ultra overwhelming, whether it be fear of, like, the election coming up. And even in Canada, we've got fear of that electric coming up, like fear of the election coming up, global politics and war and really, really horrific stuff happening all over the globe, whether it's the economy, whether people having fear about what's going on with their local community. This is a wild ass time right now. And to have people pay attention to what you're talking about seems like people would maybe either at best agree with you. Like, oh, yeah, you're right, we should address that. But just kind of be like, yeah, that should be addressed. Or at worst just be like, oh, you're like a communist. Like, fuck you, you know, like, how do we get people actually involved in this kind of conversation because it's, what you're describing is so, so horrific. How do we get people there?
[00:38:27] Speaker A: And I think that's especially important question because there's such a backlash against criminal justice reform. You know, everyone's like, you know, crime is, crime is rampant because bail statutes have been changing to allow more people to be released pretrial.
You know, because, you know, a lot in the United States, you have to buy your freedom before you're convicted of a crime. Rich people can pay a bond whenever poor people just end up stuck in jail and are faced with the decision, do I take a plea just to get out? And there's been, you know, a lot of effort to sort of push back on that, and there's a huge backlash because people have this perceived increase in crime. Although if you actually look at the crime rates, we're a lot safer now than we've been before.
And that's just really about the sort of narrative that people have been reading. So I think the first thing is to sort of, you know, talk to people and just say, well, listen, you know, all these draconian policies don't actually make you safer. If you're so concerned about the increase in crime. Well, you know, recognize that the way we've been doing it doesn't actually reduce. That doesn't make things any safer.
And, you know, sort of bring people to mass incarceration and crime rates, especially related to social conditions or policy decisions.
You know, we could easily, you know, divert a substantial percentage of the people in the criminal justice system if we had the political and financial will to fund those resources. And it is a conscious decision not to. And a lot of it has to do with class, but a lot of it has to do with the segregation of the effects of crime. You know, you know, oftentimes people say, well, you know, defunding the police, that's just what suburbs look like.
It's because people live in their communities where rich people live out in the suburbs or far away, and so they're not feeling the effects. They're essentially shipping out. They're exporting the consequences of their intentional policy decisions. So I think the more we can sort of demonstrate to people, well, this is an actual solution or, you know, what you're proposing, you know, repealing all the bail statutes and have someone not be able to buy their freedom before they're convicted of a crime when they, like, stole the car, that doesn't actually make you safer. Like, what makes communities safer is actually addressing these problems. And, you know, one thing I always tell people is just go watch one day of court. Just go watch, like, the regular old docket in your county court where they just handing misdemeanors, and most people are going to come back from that and look absolutely horrified or get on a jury. I mean, one of the most frustrating and furying things, questions I get as an attorney from my punk radical friends is, how do I get out of jury duty? You should never want to get at jury duty, because, like, that is, like, the one opportunity you have to actually be a voice in the system of mass incarceration. You know, this concept called jury nullification, where even if the state proves that someone is guilty, you have the right as a juror to simply vote not guilty, not guilty as an act of conscience.
And that sort of developed, you know, back in the days of the fugitive Slave act, to where northern jurors were not convicting people who otherwise would have been guilty because they're against slavery.
So I think it's just people's connection to the system. And I think as this web of the criminal justice system grows, people are going to have more experiences. The amount of clients whose family members have had their worlds completely shattered by just watching their brother, their father, their husband, their sister go through a criminal case, it's fairly common. So I think just having that sort of, like, firsthand experience with it is sort of radicalizing in and of itself about, like, this isn't right. Like, this doesn't work.
[00:42:48] Speaker B: I feel like we're in such a crazy time right now, and there's nothing I would like more than to do just to hang out with Monica and our kids and my family and, like, not talk to anyone about anything complex or difficult, because I don't want to get into an argument with anyone. And I also don't want. I don't want anyone telling me something that I find objectionable. Like, I don't want to have this big, crazy conversation, but, like, stakes are super high, and not just right now. I just feel like the rate that society's moving at and, like, the wildness of the situations we're finding ourselves in, like, what you're explaining right now, like, the more you're talking about it, I'm just like.
Because I could see myself say to you, like, Chris, how do I get out of jury duty? Like, I'm so busy, you know?
[00:43:31] Speaker A: But, like, you shouldn't, right?
[00:43:33] Speaker B: But, so, like, we got all these things. It's like, I understand the deep, deep desire to not talk to people with views that you feel are objectionable or ill informed. But things are really dire right now.
Any thoughts on talking to people with differing, differing opinions, whether they be slightly, like, degrees of opinion? Like, I don't want to do jury duty versus talking to someone who's like, maybe got a complete 180 from you politically. Let's say someone who's like, oh, this bail reform is plunging our country into chaos. And that's the worst thing.
What's our duty? To take on difficult conversations with people?
[00:44:13] Speaker A: Well, I'll start this off by actually sort of pivoting to my current work defending animal rights activists, because I think we've had opportunities to speak with jurors after cases, and I think that this will exemplify sort of what that's actually like. So, you know, about this time last year, we represented two women who hook sick and dying chickens off the back of a transport truck outside of slaughterhouse. Video of it. They posted it online.
Still to this day, kind of feels like a smash and grab to me.
But, you know, this was an act of rescue. And, you know, a jury quitted them in the county or in Merced, California, which is a rural county where foster farms, this slaughterhouse, this corporation, is a main employer.
And, you know, we had the opportunity to speak with the jurors, and none of the jurors were vegetarian or were vegan.
And they all sort of, like, knew. Like, yeah, like, I know what happens to animals in there, but it was slowing down. And of course, you know, they were jurors. They were sort of a captive audience, but slowing down. Hearing the defendants talk, hearing the attorneys for the defendants talk about why they did what they did, you know, caused this opportunity for them to really evaluate someone with a viewpoint radically different from theirs. And, you know, I can say at least three or four people from across two juries that we've spoken to for similar cases have stopped eating meat or stopped eating chicken and really experiences personal change.
And that speaking of finding optimism in otherwise cynical places, that has really stuck with me, which is we can go into a courtroom and say, yeah, these people took animals that do not belong to them and argue that they should not be guilty of a crime.
And juries agree, is, I think, fundamental is significant. But the fact that a lot of these jurors just don't shut it off, they really listen, they really take it seriously, and they change their viewpoint, or at least they understand other people's viewpoints, I think that is really significant.
And it's hard. You know, a lot of times, you know, I might just want to if, you know, especially on the Internet, which I think is not really a place where people can frankly have, like, conversations anymore, but it's hard because sometimes, like, the impulse is there just to be like, fuck you, you terrible person.
So, you know, I think it requires, like, a lot of patience. And I think the more we see society kind of break down, the more we're going to be forced in these situations where we do need to have difficult conversations or we need to work with people that we otherwise wouldn't work with. And I also think that's important because I also think the more we find ourselves only interacting on the Internet, the less capable we become in terms of just being a well adjusted person with other people.
[00:47:29] Speaker B: One of like, you know, it's like, I don't want to waggle my finger at people because, like, I don't know, everyone's got different life experiences.
I will say, like I said earlier, do I want to go and have some difficult conversation with someone, like day to day, like in my, just my personal life?
[00:47:43] Speaker A: No.
[00:47:44] Speaker B: Someone's like, if someone's gotten a point of view that I'm like, not just a degree off of, but I'm majorly off of, I'm much more likely to be like, I'm not going to fuck it. I don't even want to get into this with this person. So I'm not encouraging anyone, including myself, to go on, like, you know, go and have hard conversations. But I also, it's like, I do think it's like, very cynical to only stick to our own mindset, our own little echo chamber, and then attack anyone who's like a degree off or totally 180 off. There's got to be some space where we're coming together and we can tussle with ideas and we can have those moments to convince each other or open up our thinking. Because I know my thinking has been opened up by a lot of things. Some of them were like, terrible life events that happened, and some of them were just someone giving me an offhand comment that I took hard. But then I thought about afterwards and I was like, oh, actually that was really good feedback and that value of just not going out and feeling. You have to have every single tough conversation all the time, and especially not on the Internet, which I think is just the worst place to talk about anything, but just maintaining that willingness to have the right conversations at the right time with the right people as they come up. I think it's a super important thing because I just feel like there's so many things where the potential, if we ignore it and we just stay in our camps, it's going to spiral off into something like, I think of things like housing, like the housing crisis and all that. Unless people have conversations, that's just going to get manifestly worse very, very quickly.
Housing, the mental health and addiction services, anything like justice reform, any of the, any of these types of things unless we do something about it. And that doing something about it has to incorporate some kind of conversation with people who have views that we think are objectionable. So I don't want to waggle my finger at anyone and be like, well, you're not doing it right. But at the same time, it's like, we can't just hide in our corners because that seems so cynical and so, like, in an odd way, it's kind of like giving up.
[00:49:43] Speaker A: Yeah. You know, I personally benefited from, you know, like, friends who have been like, well, let me challenge you on that, that view and those conversations. So it's always, you know, about, you know, where your battery is. And, you know, sometimes people are conflict avoidant, you know? But I think an important thing is sometimes people are just, like, thrust into having the think and deal about these things, you know, because it's happening, you know? So, for instance, you know, I didn't grow up in a neighborhood that was overly policed. I didn't ever have to, like, think I could. I could just completely ignore, like, the terrible things in the criminal justice system. But a lot of people grow up without, without that sort of privilege of being able to do that. And, you know, they have to talk about it because it is their reality.
But, you know, so I think it's. It's always sort of personal because, you know, some.
Sometimes I'm in a mood and I'm just like, no, what you said is bullshit. Let's talk about it.
Sometimes I'm just like, okay, cool.
And, you know, I think it's always good to sort of check in with yourself, you know? Like, I have spent, like, a lot of time, especially in the last year, like, thinking about, like, how I approach conflicts because, you know, my job is conflict. Right. You know, like, I am, like, a trial attorney.
It is conflict with often high stakes. So I find myself a lot coming home and just wanting to shut down and, like, try to, like, decrease the stress. And, you know, that's also not healthy. Right? So, like, I've spent, like, a lot of time in therapy, sort of, like, trying to be, like, well, how do I not be so affected by the conflict of my job? To the point where I can not necessarily have conflict, but, like, stand up from my own viewpoints and, like, personal relationships and things like that. And it's hard. It's, you know, it's always, you know, like, a back and forth where I'm never really sure, like, am I being an asshole or am I. Am I. Am I being.
Making someone think I honestly don't know the answer.
[00:52:01] Speaker B: I don't think it's an answer thing, because the nature of your job is conflict, both in your current role and your last role, and also, you grew up playing in punk bands and all that.
I don't have an answer. You don't have an answer? I don't think anyone does. But I do think that there is a lot of value in discussing, at least keeping in the conversation the importance of, like, of being willing to at least talk with people who have different ideas. And, like, I really 100% believe if I'm only hanging out with people and speaking with people who believe the same things that I. That I believe, I'm doing a disservice to the things that I believe because I'm just, like, kind of hiding in my little. In my little pocket. I'm also not an activist at this point in my life. Like, I'm like, you know, I run a business. I do a podcast. I have a family. But I really think if I take my ideas seriously, like, and I'm interested in other people adopting them, then there's got to be some degree of conversation with other people where everyone just doesn't agree because everyone just agrees, and we could, you know, let's just watch a soccer game and not talk about ideas. Like, there's no point, right?
[00:53:06] Speaker A: Yeah. And, you know, listen, life's hard. You know, these conversations are hard. And, you know, I think we're allowed to give ourselves some break from it. But that doesn't mean, like, full application, especially, you know, when, you know, we see someone that, like, we are close with doing something we think is in, like, opposition to our values or. Or things like that, I think, like, we have an obligation because we are the people that, you know, is supposed to have that, like, serious conversation and sort of challenge each other even within our own social group. But, I mean, I think just beyond that, it's just, you know, we live in a world like, we don't live in, like, our Twitter. Twitter bubble. Like, that's not actually real life.
So, like, we need to, like, actually have skills on how to communicate with. With folks if. Especially if we're going to achieve some sort of, like, liberatory strategy. It's not just going to be because the might of position political ideology X on Twitter is so strong that this is what happens. Like, no, it actually requires, like, transforming, like, maybe like, people's core fundamental beliefs and outlooks and relationships. Like, you know, to achieve, you know, a better society for animals. Like, we do have to challenge, like, people's upbringings of, like, how they grew up and their relationships with animals. And, you know, I think recently a report came out that says, you know, factory farming has exposed loaded in. The United States has gotten bigger and bigger every year. And I think that's an overall indictment on the failures of the animal rights movement.
That should be really startling, which is not only have we not stopped it, but it's become worse.
So I think we need to recognize we actually want the values that we believe in to transform society. We have to go beyond our bubbles and we have to put ourselves in uncomfortable decision positions and, you know, also open ourselves up to be changed as well. It's not like a one way street. I've certainly had really strong opinions on things, and it's been like, well, actually, like, you know, maybe I'm wrong.
And I think people need to sort of accept the humility that maybe they're wrong about some things.
[00:55:35] Speaker B: That's tough, man, especially today's age. I want to hit on something you said, though, just like, when I think about people staying in their bubbles, the thing that always freaks me out about that idea is the other bubble is probably populated with people who've got the power to make change. And they might actually have a totally different opinion than me, but they're surrounded by only people that will encourage them to stay the same. And there's nobody with a counter opinion around them. And it's like, you know, again, I really don't want to come across as someone waggling their finger at everyone, like, you know, go out, talk to your racist uncle, like, you know, people got to do what they want to do in their lives. But I just feel like there's so many people who've got the ability to make things happen, who have so much power, so much influence. Like, they control budgets, they control policies, they control these things, and they are surrounded by their own bubble of people, like minded people. And I feel like if you want, so if you want to affect change on a small level or a big level, you've got to be in the conversation with people. You've got to at least been the person who said something that sticks in the mind of someone who's a decision maker, who has power, because I don't have any ability to change how someone, let's say, interacts with animal welfare outside of just myself day to day and my family, unless I'm out there talking about things like I'm writing songs, I'm talking to people. I'm doing a podcast like this. You got to put yourself in the conversation and put yourself in the conversation where someone, someone who's got an opposing view is at least willing to consider what you're saying. They might think you're full of shit, but they're at least willing to hear it. And that's what my fear of the bubbles is, is that we're not getting to the people who have power and influence.
[00:57:16] Speaker A: Yeah, you know, I think sort of the pushback on that is, is, you know, I think people have power and influence.
And, you know, I think there's been a reliance on, like, well, this politician is going to be sort of the person, but I think, you know, especially, like, through the lens of law, you know, it's really the social conditions that give cover for things that happen. So, like, I was speaking about this the other week with, you know, the Supreme Court case that, you know, overturned the ban on gay marriage that never would have happened 1015 years before even if it were the same exact legal arguments. The only reason it happened is because there was, like, a movement and that sort of pushed society's position on that to where power was responding to that. You know, you know, it's kind of like, you know, power is not altruistic, is not inherently altruistic or progressive. You know, the, you know, the mark, the arc of history bends towards morality because we make it bent. Right?
So, you know, I, you know, I often think there's, like, an over reliance on, you know, I think obviously, like, people in public power can affect change and help things like that.
But I think what has made substantial strides is first building that sort of like, mass movement, which obviously requires to bring people outside of your bubble into that movement.
And then oftentimes you see people in power kind of coming behind, sometimes kicking and screaming and, you know, sometimes we just simply can't wait because, you know, quite frankly, power, you know, is corruptible. As cliche as it sounds, you know, you've got people that are in power and they're, they're stuck with, well, I want to keep this power, and whether that's for bad reasons or whether that's for, well, I think if I make x compromise, I can stay in power and. And have better overall positive effects.
So I don't try to put power on a pedestal. And our project, we write legislation, too.
We have students, we talk with politicians to get legislation done. I think that's important, and that can have some impact, but it's always secondary to building movements on the bottom level.
[00:59:58] Speaker B: Dude, hell, yeah. I love what you just said, and that's a great. That's a great pushback.
Yeah, I agree with everything you just said there. And you definitely, you added a different dimension to what I was trying to say, and you said it way better. And we're saying slightly different things. But I totally agree with what you're saying. And I do agree that, like, that kind of building a movement can bring power to heal, because even if someone's trying to keep their power and they're feeling it's threatened, they might just be like, well, I'll just go with the people where you could see a lot of movements, movements creating change through people feeling their powers threatened, and they're just trying to preserve it by going with what the new norm is.
[01:00:37] Speaker A: You know, oftentimes, you know, it's, as I get older, I always am like, am I becoming a liberal and, you know, or am I getting, like, wisdom with age and things like that? I'm always, like, questioning because, you know, especially, like, when I find myself in those spaces where I am, like, you know, wanting to wag my, you know, finger at, like, other activists. Be like, you children are doing things, and, you know, am I just like that? People would say that to me, like, you know, you shouldn't be so confrontational. And, you know, I'm always just like, am I. Is it wisdom or is it.
Or is it just a withering away of. Of sort of, like, the radical ideals that I had? And am I okay with that? Like, is there logic or is there, or is it just like, I have a comfortable life and, you know, I have a career and a job, and that's always, like, a constant, like, internal battle. Like, you know, like, am I. Am I still cool with the kids, or am I some, like, boring ivory tower liberals who's like, you should do it this way, and, you know, that's always, like, a, like, an internal struggle. But, you know, like, one thing that always, like, snaps me out of it is like, well, my generation didn't stop the second war in Iraq. You know, my generation allowed climate change to get a lot worse. My generation, you know, didn't solve anything. Right? You know, it had some micro solutions, but like, we were still marching off the cliff in my cynical worldview.
And, you know, so I really think, you know, this, you know, social change activism is. Is more art than science. You know, like, rules for radicals has been out for how many decades?
All it has done is create a bunch of, like, ineffective nonprofits and people, you know, getting, like, middle class incomes, well educated people getting into class incomes. So, you know, I think a lot of it has to be like, this is like a play, like, you know, like a playground, like, experiment. Prepare to be wrong. Prepare to do it wrong and learn from, you know, avoid sort of the trap. Like, this is the only right way to do it. And, you know, I always, like, have to remind myself when I want.
I want to have to a strong it do opinion, like, you shouldn't be doing this, or conversely, yeah, do whatever, because I certainly didn't get it right.
[01:03:17] Speaker B: All right, let's go to your current role. You touched on something early on that I think would be kind of a good gateway into this. You mentioned the green scare. You want to explain that a little bit more?
[01:03:27] Speaker A: Yeah. So particularly in the nineties, in the early aughts, there was an increase in militant animal rights and environmental activism, and that often took shape of the form of, you know, animal liberations, rescuing animals from labs, fur farms, things like that, to even arson in some instances.
Notably, not a single person has ever or animal has ever been hurt in any of these sort of militant actions in the United States.
At the same time, there was also a pretty significant campaign to shut down an animal testing lab called Huntington Life Sciences, which was originally United Kingdom, but moved to the United States. And a group of activists started the campaign in the United States, really focusing not only on the lab itself, but any business that associated with the label. And that often took the form of minor civil disobedience, whether it be going into the office and disrupting them, sending what we call black faxes, which is you essentially send a black sheet of paper to someone's fax machine over and over, kills their toner, sending a lot of emails, making a lot of calls. And also, other people would do things that are illegal, such as property destruction or, you know, destruction at CEO's homes.
Notably, the organizers of that campaign didn't participate in any of that stuff. They just simply provided information on who. Who are we protesting and posting news? So the combination of both those things really threatened, you know, the animal exploitation industry, as well as other industries that destroy the earth when people were generally complacent. Just keep in mind you know, this was when people were even more skeptical of climate change, things like that. But it was causing a really significant financial pain for them. So you would have legislative hearings about the animal rights terrorists and things like that. And then when 911 happened, there was this huge shift in the culture.
I teach at the University of Denver Law School as well. And when I talk about this time period, you know, the students are a little younger, and I have to, like, remind myself, like, you need to, like, go back and examine, like, that post 911 world was completely topsy turvy. Like, people had truly lost their minds.
You know, I talk about the Dixie chicks and things like that, and a lot of younger students are just like, that seems really crazy that people could sort of lose control, but it was a reality. And a few things that resulted from it is, one, tons of money towards anti terrorism. That was the focus. And two, you could call something terrorism and get a lot of support behind it. There was a lot of weight to it. So it was the effectiveness or the effectiveness combined with the threat of militant animal rights activism and environmental activism combined with all this funding and all this danger, by calling something terrorist, that allowed sort of, I think, industry to really put a focus, a target on the back of animal rights and environmentalists. So you saw, you know, a lot more effort, a lot more money going after people that were involved, and more activism. You saw higher prison sentences. You saw terrorism enhancement charges for people that, you know, may have, like, torched the building, you know, which I don't think, you know, constitutes terrorism. I mean, I think to say burning down a single building because someone deals in the torture and exploitation of animals is not akin to, you know, 911 or even more stochastic terrorism that we see, you know, such as the burning of, like, black churches. I mean, like, you know, that's, you know, more kingdom of terrorism. This is property destruction, right, in which. Which no one gets hurt.
But you saw this huge focus. Meanwhile, at the same time, what's interesting is, you know, what is not being focused on is what has been a problem more recently is these, like, right wing militias and people doing, like, right wing terrorism. Those things were growing at the same time, but a lot of money and resources were being spent. And it really sort of culminated with the prosecution of the shadow. You know, as I mentioned, the shack seven were people that basically ran a website saying, here's who we're protesting, and send us your reports. Here's what you're doing.
And, you know, they would, without censorship, be like, yeah, someone broke the window of a CEO's home and, you know, filled it, put a hose inside. You know, this is what happens when you do business with Huntington life sciences. And the United States government prosecuted them. Chris Christie was the prosecutor. And, you know, they were convicted of conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection act, and they went to prison between one, six years.
And, you know, one of them, the person, Andy, who I spoke of earlier, actually was moved to a facility called a communications management unit, which is where they put essentially terror suspects that don't go to get out. I mean, it was referred to in house as little Gitmo. And keep in mind, this was someone whose only accusation of what he actually did was go into an office of a company and throw around flyers and yell. That was sort of the worst thing he was accused of actually doing during the trial. And he's put in this maximum security thing.
And the effect of it really did harm the animal rights movement. And it put this specter that the FBI was always there watching. And it wasn't a specter. It was a thing that was actually happening. I mean, there were reports of FBI infiltrating vegan potlucks, going to really minor things. And the point was to scare people out of effective activism. And regrettably, it did have a huge impact.
[01:09:38] Speaker B: It seemed like in the nineties, animal activism was in the news constantly. It was a thing that was happening all the time. You knew people. There was people flowering at shows, but not even at shows. Like, there was just, like, a lot of conversation about that in popular culture. And then we got into two thousands, and it was just like, as if the movement stopped, although the movement continued in the background.
[01:10:02] Speaker A: Yeah, it shifted. I mean, it shifted towards, you know, different forms of activism, focusing a lot of money into alternative meets and stuff like that. That and, you know, people were afraid to do, like, grassroots activism because even, like, people that weren't doing anything controversial or getting scrutiny from the government.
And, you know, I mean, like, when you see people like the shack, folks go to prison for, like, years, federal prison, and they didn't commit any property destruction. I mean, like, you know, like that since certainly a chilling effect and it's being used across, you know. You know, our project is also assisting in the defense of someone in the Atlanta forest hop city case.
And, you know, we all the attorneys were talking about it and, like, research and challenges and, like, this is the Shaq case. You know, in Atlanta. You know, 60 plus people have all been roped into a criminal enterprise for protesting and wanting a police training facility not to be built. And the only force inside of Atlanta and some of the acts that the state is alleging are like posting things on the Internet, wiring, writing your name, Acab, when you get like a, you know, arrested for some minor stuff. And, you know, this is the shack campaign just applied to a different movement. You know, this is, you know, the forms of repression all kind of stay the same. And, you know, when the state is allowed to do something, they never, they never give back that power. So it's sort of the interrelatedness of repression that really, I don't think is interesting to me. I think it's terrible and horrible, but I think that is sort of like one thing that I particularly like focused on and noted it. And that's why it was super important for our animal project to become involved in something like the cop city defense.
[01:12:02] Speaker B: Yeah.
The totally insane way that the legal system can be used to create a chilling effect and basically be like, oh, yeah, you can protest, you can do all these things. And by the way, we can just hold you for a long time and create this whole thing where you go to jail or even maybe you can't make bail and you're incarcerated for long periods of time.
You've had your own experience with something like this yourself, right?
[01:12:32] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. The United States government indicted me on a dozen or so felonies in Washington, DC because I was a legal observer during a protest of Trump's inauguration.
And I was facing 70 to 80 years in prison.
[01:12:52] Speaker B: Was that actually ever, like, a serious threat? Like, in terms of, like, you actually could have done that or was that just a scare tactic?
[01:13:00] Speaker A: No, I mean, like, I felt quite confident if I was convicted, I would have got probation.
But, you know, but, you know, it's just, it could have. And, you know, certainly people in the criminal justice system do get consecutive sentences, and it just really exemplifies the scale. Scale, you know, of what they wanted to do to protesters, but they didn't have to allege conspirator liability for every potential crime under the sun, but they chose to.
And they wanted it to scare people. They wanted people who did nothing wrong to feel the weight of a potential 70 year sentence that they might not know they get. You know, when I tell my clients, especially like my activist clients now on their first case, I'm like, I'm telling you, here's the potential sins of the charge. And I have to be like, I'm going to underline the word potential. And I tell them, you could get up to twelve years. And I was like, up to, you know, the last thing I want them to know, like, here's the maximum penalty. But I also don't want that to be the only thing they hear because it's just like, you're not going to get twelve years, you know, but you could, but, you know, you're not. But no, it was a scare tactic. It was a scare tactic that, like, failed horribly for the United States government.
[01:14:29] Speaker B: So now the work that you're doing with its focus on animal rights activism, are we seeing a uptick, uh, if, like, the government and the legal systems involvement in trying to, like, shut down any kind of animal rights activism? Or is it about just the same as it was since the green scare?
[01:14:52] Speaker A: Uh, it's not. I mean, we're not seeing the same focus as we did in the green scare. But, you know, I think, you know, the animal rights movement is not in the same place it was in terms of when the green scare happened for, for good. You know, I think there are good reasons, there are bad reasons to dissect, but, you know, I certainly think, you know, we have represented defendants in state court that, you know, certainly could have been charged with animal enterprise terrorism for rescuing animals. But I think sort of the political climate is a little different. But, you know, I often worry, you know, if we are repeatedly successful, the state is going to respond. And, you know, actually, I'm not actually, this is not like a fear of something that might happen. It's something that's actually happened. So, you know, I'll point out a case that we didn't, we weren't involved in because it was before our project, but two activists were doing an investigation into a Smithfield factory farm for pigs, and they found two piglets that were dying. You know, they were going to die and they would have been thrown in a dumpster. They meant nothing to Smithfield, so they rescued them, they brought them to an animal sanctuary, spent thousands of dollars rehabilitating them, and they published what they found.
And in response, the FBI essentially raided the animal sanctuary to get DNA samples from these pigs which involve cutting their ear, which, you know, someone who has been a defense attorney who has focused on forensic evidence, I know you can get DNA a lot easier ways than cutting an animal's ear.
It was so horrific that they couldn't do the second one.
And instead of a local prostitution, the actual state attorney general decided to prosecute the case, and the defendants won. They were acquitted by a jury in southern Utah. And part of their defense was that these animals were in such bad shape due to the neglect of Smith Mill. They had no market value. You know, they obviously have intrinsic value as living beings, but in terms of dollars and cents, yeah, the market says they meant nothing. And if they have no market value, it's not theft because you have to steal something of value. And if it's not theft, it's not burglary because they didn't intend to enter the building or they didn't enter the building with the intent to commit the crime. So they were acquitted. So what did the state do? Well, the state, the attorney general that actually lost the case went to the legislature, said, we changed the law that prevents this defense from ever happening. They didn't go to Smithfield and be like, you know what? These activists found a lot of really distressing stuff because the prosecutors certainly thought that evidence was distressing because they fought like hell to keep the jury from learning about it. And they said explicitly, this is really prejudicial stuff. They weren't bothered by that. They were bothered by the fact that a jury found them not guilty.
So in many ways, it's the state adapting. You know, I often worry that, you know, the state, you know, will start, you know, coming after them if there are more successes. So in many ways, we're not seeing a repeat of the green scare in the animal rights community, but we are seeing similar tactics in cop City. You know, as I mentioned before, this is the shack case. They are branding these folks as domestic terrorists.
You know, they're saying these outsiders are coming. You know, they have done scare tactics saying they have cost millions of dollars in damages.
And you've got people, elected officials like the governor posting, we got this anti thaw terrorist.
It's the same tactics. And that's why I think it's super important for even if you don't politically care about police militarization, you should care about how the repressions come in the same way that maybe you don't care about animals, but you should care about cases like the shack prosecution, because that will come and haunt you. And, you know, the one thing I worry about is if the cop city prosecution is successful, where they can essentially allege a RICO prosecution, a criminal enterprise, then what's the stop of state like Texas from going after people that provide support for those that are getting abortion services and them getting RICO? And, you know, I care about cop City because I care about the militarization of police, but I also care about it because of the way the repression is going. I have seen, and I'm afraid we will see just the proliferation of those tactics.
And, you know, I think that's ultimately, like, what drives us to be a stick in the mud against a state in all these cases.
[01:20:02] Speaker B: Chris, this has been an amazing conversation. As we're heading towards the end, I'm going to go with the crucial three, where I'm going to ask you three scaling more difficult questions. But before we get to that, like, we'll put links to all the stuff that you sent over to us. But before that, is there anything you want to share, anything you want to bring a shine a light on? Anything you want to discuss before we head towards the end here?
[01:20:25] Speaker A: Well, you know, you can always check out the work we're doing at the animal activist legal defense program project by going over to aaldp.com dot.
You know, second, there is a genocide happening in Palestine being perpetrated by Israel. And the United States government is complicit in that. And, you know, I think it is well past time for people to get out of their complacency and, you know, recognize that, you know, what is happening to the people of Palestine is beyond the pale. And, you know, I think of, you know, the individual named Aaron that immolated himself the other day, you know, and truly, a moment that has shook me like nothing has in such a long time.
And I think one of his last social media posts sort of echoed a common thing I've seen, which is, you know, you ask yourself what you would do in the 1940s. You ask yourself what you would do in the civil rights movement. Well, the answer to that is what you're doing now. And, you know, I can't understate, you know, the genocide that is happening in Palestine. And I think a lot of people want to shy away from it, and I think the time has passed from shying away from it. And I think it's the important for us to use our voice, especially because not only is the US government complicit, but, like, we enable it. Like, without us support, the scale of the atrocities would be substantial. So, you know, free Palestine.
[01:22:05] Speaker B: Anything else you want to add in?
[01:22:08] Speaker A: No?
[01:22:09] Speaker B: Okay.
All right, let's. Let's hit the crucial three. And it feels almost trite to do this now after, like, everything you just shared.
[01:22:17] Speaker A: We need some levity. Levity. Levity is important.
[01:22:20] Speaker B: Okay, well, these aren't levity questions because, like, everything we're talking about is. Well, I'll end with a levity question. How do you want me to start with a levity question or end with a levity question?
[01:22:31] Speaker A: Let's end with the levity question.
[01:22:34] Speaker B: Okay, we'll end with a levity question. I like that.
Here's a philosophical question for you. I'm very interested. From your perspective, are people good, bad, or neutral inherently?
[01:22:50] Speaker A: I think they're good.
I'm surprised to actually say that, yeah. But I think they're good because I think most people's basic instincts are compassionate. You know, it's that part of you, when you see someone hurting that wants you to do something.
And, you know, I think people are good, but our world is. Is not currently.
And that's what, you know, complicates that goodness.
But, you know, you know, I've been thinking a lot about a trial we're doing where some folks went in to rescue some beagles, or they went in to investigate, and they found beagles inside of a facility, and they decided they simply couldn't leave them there.
And, you know, that seems like a really radical thing. Like, you're investigating, you're documenting, and then you see, like, an animal in pain, and you do something that the state is called felony burglary and felony theft.
And if you go talk to someone, you're like, well, what do you think about this? They're like, that seems really extreme. But, you know, as I think about it and as I watch the videos and footage from inside, if I were there face to face, I don't think I could. I could walk out of there empty handed, because there's just not just because of, like, my own political beliefs. It's like something core inside of me that I think is inside of a lot of people that would prevent. Even if you're not vegan, if you hate vegans, I think it would be hard to see a beagle dog, like, suffering going in circles showing that they're psychotic because of the conditions and to not want to save them. And I think that's inherent inside of. Inside of most people.
So I think that's the. The optimism is, I think most people lead towards compassion. And I think that's what make them ultimately gun.
[01:24:54] Speaker B: Amazing answer. All right, question number two.
You are a person who deals with a lot of heavy subjects constantly, and you've done that professionally and also personally, like, in your life.
And you're going to have your own ups and downs personally as well. So being a person who's dealing with a lot of heavy stuff professionally, how do you take care of yourself? How do you keep yourself whole while dealing with all of this?
[01:25:21] Speaker A: I don't. That's the honest answer.
I do a very. I'm not.
I don't think I do a very good job at it.
And, you know, so I'm in therapy trying to be better at that. And so it's like, you know, therapy has been super helpful.
But I think the other thing is, like, I'm. I give myself a break sometimes, and I'm in a fortunate enough position where I can do that, but, you know, like, I allow myself to be sort of, like, selfish and, like, treat myself and, you know, like that. That is the thing I value most about being in phone is that, like, I had a real. I have a really, you know, phone. I was a PD most of the time, and I had a really heavy job, but I could also control my calendar and make my life a living hell before tour and a living hell after tour just by scheduling things. But I got to, like, go away for three weeks and sit in a van in Europe and just, like, absolutely lose myself for 20 minutes at a time. And, like, that was super helpful. Now they don't have that. I'm like, fuck am I going to do?
And I don't know the answer to that, but, yeah, I don't know. And I often, like, ask myself, like, how am I taking care of myself? You know, going to boring stuff, like going to the gym, going to see shitty movies, you know, going to get fancy vegan food.
Those are ways in which I try, but I don't think I'm very good at it, honestly. Like, compassion fatigue is a real thing that, like, I often struggle with.
[01:27:07] Speaker B: All right, you ready for the third and final one?
[01:27:10] Speaker A: The hardest one? Yeah.
[01:27:11] Speaker B: All right. What are three punk bands that you did your best to not like? You were like, I will not like that band. But eventually, over time, their sweet, sweet sounds lured you in.
[01:27:25] Speaker A: Crass is probably a big one where I was like, I don't give a shit about this, you know, and that now I really, like, actively enjoy listening to crass.
Let's see.
I didn't like, even though, like, sonic Youth is not a punk band. I grew up on grunge, but I grew up on, like, nirvana.
And so Sonic Youth always felt really weird to me, and I've come to, like, really appreciate sonic youth. Um, trying to think of the third one. There are a lot of bands that I liked that I now really hate that. That would be a much easier question.
[01:28:08] Speaker B: Yeah, but we're not going. We're not going cynical man. We're going. We're going uplifting.
[01:28:12] Speaker A: I really like that.
[01:28:15] Speaker B: Against your will, they sucked you in.
[01:28:19] Speaker A: You know, this isn't a band that I hated, but this is actually, like, a band that completely won me over, surprisingly. So. This is a little bit of a cop out. I never gave a shit about the hives.
I saw them when they toured with refuse. Had to be one of the best fucking, like, live. Maybe. Maybe they're not a punk band, but, like, one of the most entertaining fans I've ever seen. So my cop out third answer is the Hives. Because mostly, if I hate something I like, I'm pretty committed to the hate when it comes to music. I'm just like, fuck, that band sucks. Usually it's super hard to get me off that.
So I would say crass was a band that I was never really gave a shit about. I was like, this is kind of dumb.
Same with Sonic youth. I'm like, this is weird.
And then, yeah, the hives were a band I didn't care about. I don't listen to the hives. So maybe. Yeah, that is a completely cop out answer, but it's all I got for you.
[01:29:20] Speaker B: That's not a cop out. I consider them punk. Like, I mean, are they, like. Yeah, are they, like, punk punk?
[01:29:26] Speaker A: I never hated them, but I never. They're punk about them. Let me put it that way.
[01:29:32] Speaker B: I was in Denver playing a show one time, and the hives were playing a show just down the street, and I was at a used bookstore, and the singer of the hives was reading a book. Like, just, like, browsing reading a book. And I looked at him. I was like, I have never seen someone look so fucking cool browsing in a bookstore of mine. This dude just looked like. He looked like he was there for a photo shoot. It was amazing. And I wasn't a fan of that band either, but good for them. All right, dude, listen, this was awesome. You rolled, as always. Thank you. Anything to close off with.
[01:30:05] Speaker A: No, I think I said it. Aaldp.com free palace time.
Go vegan if you can.
[01:30:12] Speaker B: Awesome. Definitely. Go vegan if you can, for sure. And also check out Pham, who is a great band, great friends. Our. The dates that we put together were some of my, like, favorites. Cause, like, we're very different bands, but we had just had so much fun with you guys and punitive damage and of course, the always amazing jade dust with that. We will see you next time. This is one step beyond. I'm Miram Arslanian. See ya.
[01:30:35] Speaker A: One step.
One step what? That beyond.
