The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report: Breaking News Edition. As we always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. Now to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today, we will achieve that goal by reporting on a disturbing story that has been growing more and more alarming as it unfolds. I’m talking about the current ordeal of cop watcher Long Island Audit.

As you already know, Long Island Audit, also known as SeanPaul Reyes, has been covering police misconduct for roughly five years. His provocative videos and creative tactics have garnered him millions of subscribers and a huge audience, but it has also attracted the attention of law enforcement, according to SeanPaul. And some of that attention could have significant consequences for him and his family.

This comes on top of a broad demonetization of cop watching and auditing videos. So to unpack what’s happening and the consequences for SeanPaul, we will be speaking to him shortly.

But first, I want to turn to my reporting partner about the importance of the First Amendment and the pushback he encountered from law enforcement during his reporting. Stephen Janis, thank you so much for joining me.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

Well, unfortunately, I dragged you inside to talk about something a little disturbing.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, very, very disturbing. And when I was reading what Sean had sent us about what’s happening to him, I was thinking about some of my own situations. Just recently we were reporting on the firing of the first Black police chief of Pokemoke City, which is a small town on the Eastern Shore. We were investigated as part of a grand jury investigation into an interview we tried to do with one of the witnesses in the case, and they made our lives miserable. But I think the point behind it was that they wanted to prevent us from reporting on this story. The witness had lied, the prosecutors were basically covering up and they didn’t want us to know about it. And the way they intimidated us was impaneling a grand jury and starting to investigate us and lawyers telling me they’re going to show up at your work, they might show up at your house, but they’re going to show up.

And fortunately, the judge in the case though it was absolutely invalid and it never went forward. But we were very much on the verge of it, very least being called in front of a grand jury, which has all sorts of fraud implications. So I really, really have problems with the idea of law enforcement criminalizing speech or dissent. And I think that’s why we need to unpack this in detail and understand what’s really going on here and the implications that go beyond just SeanPaul’s work and his career, but the implications for all people who use the First Amendment as a tool for their reporting or their dissent or anything.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. I think everyone out there needs to care about the First Amendment. You have to exercise your rights or you’re going to miss them when you lose them.

All right, so let’s bring in our guest, Long Island Audit. SeanPaul, thank you so much for joining us.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Thank you so much for having me. It’s always a pleasure to be on with you guys.

Taya Graham:

So first I have to ask you, how are you doing?

SeanPaul Reyes:

I wouldn’t say I’m paranoid, but I’m definitely cautious. I’m definitely vigilant of my surroundings now. My life has definitely changed. My family’s life has definitely changed from this information that has been revealed and just being cautious and obeying the law like normal, just hoping that evil people don’t do evil things.

Taya Graham:

So SeanPaul, you’ve received some pretty disturbing messages. I’m going to put one on the screen and read a little, but I’m just going to say something first. While we can discuss the nature of the threats, we cannot name or disclose any information that would point to a particular person or even hint at a particular agency. And the reason for this is clear. At this point, we cannot confirm this information. And for all we know, it could simply be a way to scare or intimidate you, but we feel that it is noteworthy because of the far-reaching implications if it’s true. However, we also have to abide by our journalistic ethics and not disclose something about a specific person or entity that is so far unproven or that we have not ourselves confirmed. So we’re just going to keep that in mind as we discuss this.

So I’m going to put up the first threat and Cam, if you could put up Long Island Audit JPEG one and then two as I read.

I hope this email finds you well. If I didn’t write this email and something happened to you, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. At the same time, I’m not a supporter of yours or agree with the tactics you choose to expose police, politicians and the like. I also don’t like or agree with violence. With that said, let me get to the point of my email. SeanPaul, you are in grave danger. Your home is about to be raided sometime soon during the month of September. From what I understand, a search warrant will be approved to search for some investigative paperwork that you illegally got or received. The warrant will be also used to search for communications between you and other cop watchers.

I believe this warrant will be served by [redacted]. You are being investigated for being the leader of an anti-police government terrorist group. You’re probably wondering how I know this. OK, Sean, just even reading that just made my stomach knot up. How did you feel when you received this message? And since you’ve received it, have you learned anything else about what might happen?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, this was the second message in a line of messages that I received as far as warnings go. When I read this one, what stood out to me the most was the fact that they’re not even a supporter, allegedly. Again, I don’t know. I can’t confirm who these people are. I can’t confirm that they are who they say they are, rather. The people that they claim to be do exist, but I can’t confirm who they are. I’m working on that now. But these people are terrified and they don’t agree with what’s happening to me. They don’t agree with my tactics, as you heard, but they don’t agree with violence, and they believe that the government is going to be using violence in order to chill my free speech and intimidate me and stop me from asking questions. And that’s always concerning to me, especially because I live with my wife and my two young children who are three and four years old, and it’s definitely something that they didn’t sign up for and it’s not something that should be acceptable under our Constitution, under our First Amendment.

This should not be happening, this kind of threats.

Stephen Janis:

You know, Sean, journalists come into possession of all sorts of documents. What is the nexus of this warrant? What exactly could they be trying to do or trying to get from you or what could they use as fodder to get a judge to approve this? It sounds pretty farfetched to me, but I was just wondering if you had any idea of what they might be trying to do here.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, Stephen, it is farfetched, and I have no idea. I’ve racked my brain for hours trying to figure out what exactly is this evidence that I illegally obtained, allegedly. I have no idea. Everything that I’ve ever obtained has been legally and through the FOIA process, either through the federal FOIA process or New York State FOIA commissions. It’s always been legally obtained through open records requests. So I have no idea. Again, it’s just concerning to me that this would happen.

And the circumstantial evidence that comes along with it, these emails are that the Suffolk County District Attorney Ray’s Attorney’s office he did in fact subpoena 14 months of my financial records from various social media accounts that have been confirmed to me, Facebook, TikTok, Google. There could be others. They do not have to let you know. The reason why I know that they requested 14 months from those particular social media agencies companies is because the social media companies themselves advised me that they were going to be handing over this information, but there could be bank accounts. My lawyer tells me there could be a myriad of other options of them trying to get financial. And on a violation trespass, which doesn’t even amount to a crime, it’s a violation of law no different than a parking ticket or a speeding ticket, for them to request such substantial information, financial information from me leads me to believe that there’s more going on here than a trespass violation And it’s financial records, RICO, go hand in hand. So it’s definitely something that’s concerning to me and my attorneys and I are watching out for.

Stephen Janis:

Well, just to make a finer point here, I would come into possession of all sorts of documents as a reporter, like homicide records, stuff that wasn’t public, but it was never illegal. You can’t prosecute someone if someone… You could prosecute a person who leaked it possibly, but of course these are state records, so they’re not classified to begin with. But you can’t prosecute someone if someone came to your doorstep and dropped off a bunch of internal records from, say, any police department, that’s not illegal, right? I mean, that’s like First Amendment journalism. I mean, it sounds kind of sketchy.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, it definitely is sketchy. Again, I’ve only ever obtained documents legally. I haven’t even obtained anything sensitive or anything where the general public wouldn’t have access to them anyway. And like you said, Stephen, if somebody came and dropped something off at my house that was confidential information, not subject to FOIA, as long as it’s not top secret classified, we’re talking about state documents here, I don’t see where the crime would be. But again, that hasn’t even risen to that level. Everything I’ve ever received has been in the course of investigations through open records requests.

And at the end of the day, they know that. I mean, they have to know that. I don’t know what type of case they’re trying to build. I’m not a criminal. I do not engage in RICO, don’t have some criminal enterprise. I’m a law-abiding citizen with a company incorporated in New York state. I pay my taxes. Everything is legitimate about me. So I’m not really worried about the strength of a case that they can bring against me, but you can indict a ham sandwich is that old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich and on a RICO case, that would be hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees. And as I always say on my channel, the process is the punishment. So I wouldn’t put it past them to just do it. We’ve seen it with this federal government already in different instances and the weaponization of the justice system. But to use it, that’s what makes it even more concerning for me is that we’ve seen it happen before. So now I’m not on the list of the friendly people to the administration for my views on ICE, for law enforcement with Lucivillo and my criticism of Suffolk County Police Union. So there’s a lot going on and I know that I’m innocent. I haven’t committed any crimes, but it’s definitely concerning, especially for my wife and my family, my mother, my children. It’s concerning information, especially the violence part of it.

Stephen Janis:

It’s totally understandable. And it’s very scary that they’re going after your financial records, which seem to me completely irrelevant to anything that they’re going to, whatever they’re pursuing. Go ahead, Taya, sorry.

Taya Graham:

No, I was just thinking if you’re guilty, you need one lawyer. If you’re innocent, you need two. Honestly, this is incredibly disturbing.

Now, you did mention that you might have some lawyers. It sounds to me like you might need a team of them. And if you don’t have lawyers, how are you prepared to defend yourself if worst comes to worst and you’re actually are raided?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, I do have a New York state attorney already. His name is Jacob Uriel. He is always on retainer for my company and for myself personally for any sort of criminal charges or civil things that are happening, but I would need more than just him. I would hire a team. There’s one thing that I would never do is be facing down the barrel of fraudulent, made-up RICO charges and take that lightly. So I would have to do what I have to do. Again, the process is the punishment. If I got to take out loans and I have to do what I need to do, a home equity line of credit to be able to pay for this legal defense, whatever needs to be done is going to get done. And that’s why I made the video that I did where I spoke about this because at the end of the day, if they have a valid search warrant, I’m not going to stop them.

I’m not violent. They can search my property. Whatever the warrant says they need to search, they can search. I have nothing to hide. I’ve not moved anything from my house since learning this. Nothing has changed about my routines because there’s nothing to change. But the only thing that concerned me was the allegations of using some sort of SWAT team in order to enter my house. And again, more process is the punishment to intimidate me, intimidate my family. And I think that’s a very dangerous, volatile escalation that doesn’t need to happen even if they are investigating some sort of RICO case. And I wanted to make that clear to the public that I’m not a threat to law enforcement. Law enforcement knows that. I’m not engaging in any criminal activity, but I will comply with any court order for a search warrant or anything like that and we can handle it in court.

But to terrify my family with flash bangs and entering in at 3:00 in the morning is just not necessary.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean, I’ve watched a ton of your videos. I’ve never seen you engage in violence or even threats. Have you ever, as a cop watcher, threatened to do something violent or acted in any violent way during a cop watch? I mean, is there anything that you’ve ever done? And I’m just asking for the record here to make sure it’s on the record, depending on what happens. Have you ever?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. So in my entire career, I’ve never made any threats of violence or engaged in any acts of violence or even used profanity against law enforcement officers, which is my First Amendment right. I don’t believe that that serves the purpose of what I’m trying to accomplish. And I think the results of my activism and my journalism speak for themselves when police departments till this day continue to invite me to do trainings with them, ride alongs, district attorney’s offices, police departments, all facets of law enforcement want to come together with me and show that they are transparent, that they’re willing to learn, to hear a different perspective, not because I’m some sort of law or legal expert, but because I’m a real life person who has garnered a lot of supporters and I’ve dealt with a lot of police interactions from across the country, from New York to California and everywhere in between.

So I think they value that insight. Until this day, I receive requests to do trainings with law enforcement officers. So if law enforcement agencies though I was some sort of threat or had any sort of violent intent, they wouldn’t be wanting to work with me. So no, my videos speak for themselves, Stephen. I’ve never even cursed. I’ve never even raised my voice. I can defend myself and I can have my little quick witty remarks, I would call them witty remarks. But as far as violence, no, I’ve never engaged in violence and I abhor violence and I always want people to be peaceful because it distracts away from the message of accountability and transparency.

Stephen Janis:

And it’s funny, Sean, we know a lot of cop watchers who curse, but I noticed that you don’t even curse. You keep it pretty friendly. I mean, even in the —

Taya Graham:

Keep it professional.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

SeanPaul Reyes:

There was one time I was doing a cop watch in Connecticut and somebody, an officer, a state trooper had somebody pulled over on the side of the road. This was just recently, a couple weeks ago. And I told him, well, thanks for not spitting in my face. Because of course, Brian Fahey, the former sergeant spit in my face. And he looked confused and he said, well, why would I do that? You’re one of the most polite auditors I’ve ever seen in my life. He was like, you’re a very nice guy. And I’m like, well, there you go. There’s one of them. But again, and there’s a lot of law enforcement officers out there that support me behind the scenes. This is how I get a lot of this information. And again, because they know I’m not anti-law enforcement. I’m anti the apparatus of the police unions, the administration in protecting misconduct by officers, by not having accountability or transparency in these investigations.

Taya Graham:

I’m really glad we put that on the record, but let me just read the next communication you received, once again, with all the identifying information redacted. Quote, “They’ve been doing a lot of digging into your past and your family’s past. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but undercover officers are following you. But that’s not the most alarming thing that they’re doing. They’re currently in talks with the Department of Justice trying to figure out possible federal crimes they can prosecute you with. They’ve come up with a plan to arrest you and prosecute you on a RICO case. When I heard this, I couldn’t believe it. I even said, ‘Do you really believe you can indict him on RICO?’ They laughed and said, ‘Absolutely.’ The goal isn’t even to have you found guilty. They want to make you spend all your money defending yourself and at the same time, make you the national poster child for YouTube domestic terrorists. I know this email may shock you, but I’m telling you, they’re coming after you hard. You have no idea the reach these people have. I hope this email helps you protect yourself against these people.”

OK. Again, let me just get your reaction when you received it and did you think it was legitimate?

SeanPaul Reyes:

So I received that email first before the second one, but my reaction was the same. I receive a lot of shocking emails. I’ve received many death threats. I don’t speak about them all the time because it’s unfortunately a part of society. There are some sick individuals out there who will threaten your children, who will threaten your family members, your own life, and engage in some sort of hateful just vengeance against you. I don’t know what it is, but it’s sick. And I don’t talk about that all the time, but when I’m getting these sorts of emails and they all seem to have common threads: RICO cases, federal cases, poster boy for YouTube domestic terrorism, and they’re coming from separate people, separate email addresses, email addresses that have been created years and years ago. Again, I’ve looked into this a little bit, and we do not know for a fact if these are actually legit or they could be coming from the people just trying to scare me, but it’s definitely intimidating to me and concerning because my family’s at stake here, that I can defend myself and I can hire lawyers and the people have my back, but I would just hate it.

It would be something that I couldn’t even comprehend if my three and four-year-old boys, who actually look up to the police at this point and they see them as heroes, and I don’t want to disillusion them from that at three and four years old and traumatize them. Or even my wife who’s dealt with her own tyranny back in her home country that she fled to come here. She was a patriot in her country. She loved freedom and to see this. I’ve had mass law enforcement officers from Nassau County come to my house before and try and run me off the road. And these are things that have been happening to me, these intimidation tactics, trying to pick you up on a Friday night so you have to spend the weekend in jail, holding you for eight hours on a desk appearance ticket, which should only take like an hour.

These are the kinds of intimidation tactics, scare tactics that I’ve seen that law enforcement will unfortunately engage in to get you to stop talking about what they don’t want you to talk about. They hate the First Amendment. These individuals particularly hate the First Amendment. They don’t like what I do. They don’t like that I make money while doing it and they want to stop that at all costs. I’m going to keep fighting. I’m going to keep speaking truth to power because if I give up, all these people, millions of people have given me a voice, a strong voice, a platform, and if I give up, I feel like I would be letting them down. So I’m going to keep fighting, but I’m going to remain vigilant, and I’m going to continue speaking truth to power, but I have to be careful for my family because that’s where my loyalty lies first.

Stephen Janis:

I mean, this is a horrible thing to contemplate, but have you talked to your family? Have you prepared them at all? Have you told them about these messages, and have you told them what to prepare for? I mean, it’s a horrible question. I hate to ask it, but I know there are real consequences of just even these threats themselves are sort of you having to shoulder the burden. Have you talked to them about it?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. It’s unfortunate that I had to explain to my wife, my sister, my mother, my brother, all of these different things on secure lines, because I don’t know if they’re even listening to my phone at this point, but I had to let them know, and they’re obviously very concerned. And I think the saddest part and the most unfortunate that broke my heart is I had to prepare my children because I didn’t want them… My main job is to protect them from any sort of trauma or any set of issues. And I’m friends with law enforcement officers, so there’s been law enforcement officers that come over my house with their guns and their badges that my children have seen that they’re friendly with. And I told them, Daddy’s friends with the police. You know this, right? Yeah, you work with the police. Well, daddy’s friends with the police and if the police ever come here, it’s because they just want to work with daddy.

Don’t be scared of the police. They’re our friends. Don’t be scared. You’ll be fine. So in case some sort of raid happened or anything like that, I didn’t want my kids to… And that was a hard conversation. I got to tell you, Stephen, it was a hard conversation to have with a three- and four-year-old trying to get them to understand police are good, they’re our friends, and don’t be scared of them that maybe they want to talk to us or come visit how my lawyer visits. Because I have a bunch of friends that are lawyers, police officers, et cetera, and they come and visit and we have a good time and they play with the kids and they bring their kids over and some menace to society I am, apparently. It’s ridiculous what’s going on. Nobody should have to feel this way. And the difference is that when I believe that these law enforcement officers do receive death threats and things like that, because it’s just on both sides, the internet and people are just unhinged and they have a lot of anger, pent up anger built up on both sides.

And I call that out and I make sure in my videos, I say, please be peaceful. Do not engage in this kind of violent rhetoric and threatening rhetoric with law enforcement officers. It’s not productive and it’s going to get you in trouble. It’s going to hurt the movement. They’re going to label us domestic terrorists. They’re already doing that on the federal side. We’ve seen people film the police and DHS agents will say now, hey, congratulations, you’re now on a domestic terrorist list.

So me being the poster boy for domestic terrorism in the United States, according to the federal or state government or whoever, I feel like they could have found somebody better because I work with the police and that will come out once they try and label me that.

But I think what really happens is what’s really going on here, Stephen and Taya, is that they understand that I’m more of a threat to their sort of system than somebody who’s filming outside of a restaurant or whatever the case may be because I’m looking into their finances, $15 million for the PBA. I’m asking the questions about these hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements. I’m speaking at the public meetings, and they see that as a threat. And it’s not a violent threat, it’s just me exercising my rights peacefully. That’s all I’m doing and they don’t like it.

Taya Graham:

I know Stephen has had direct experience with taking a look at the financials of police officers and having the hammer come down on him through his editor.

Stephen Janis:

We were the first publication that published the overtime earnings of the Baltimore City Police Department back in —

Taya Graham:

And they were not pleased.

Stephen Janis:

That was like 2007. We got death threats. They called our office and threatened us and it was scary.

Taya Graham:

Tried to get Stephen fired.

Stephen Janis:

And then the next day they arrested my editor on bogus charges and threw him in jail. So when you touch the money… I’m not saying touch the money.

Taya Graham:

That’s the third rail.

Stephen Janis:

But when you start to expose spending, how much police make and how well they do as per taxpayers, yeah, that’s when things get dicey. Yes.

Taya Graham:

Yes. Yeah. When you start showing the salaries, when you start showing the overtime —

Stephen Janis:

I totally forgot about that.

Taya Graham:

When you start showing take-home cars, that’s when things get really bad. And for the record, his editor was arrested for holding a gun inside of his own home. So that’s a whole other story [crosstalk], maybe sometime we’ll share.

Stephen Janis:

It’s a long story. The charges were eventually dropped. But the point wasn’t, as you point out, not to throw him in jail and convict him of a crime that was not a crime. The point was to scare him and to scare us.

SeanPaul Reyes:

That’s what they do. They’ve done it. They’ve used tactics similar when I rented… The reason why I owned a 14-foot LED billboard truck in the first place is because when I used to rent them for protests, the district attorney’s offices would send subpoenas for felonies for documentation to these billboard truck companies.

Taya Graham:

Oh, wow.

Stephen Janis:

Really?

Taya Graham:

It was done not because they were investigating some sort of felony, not because they cared about the contract or anything like that. It’s because it was used as a tool to intimidate these companies to say, hey, if you rent the billboard truck to Mr. Reyes, you’re going to keep getting subpoenas. We’re going to look into your financials. We’re going to make sure you’re on the up and up. And that’s the whole reason why I bought my own billboard truck so they couldn’t intimidate people. But now they’re just working to intimidate me. They hate the billboard truck, and I get it. Nobody wants a billboard truck in front of their residence, in front of their city hall, in front of their police department. But guess what? It’s my First Amendment right. It’s the only tool that I have for accountability, for transparency, and I’m going to use it to the fullest extent because it’s my right.

You know what? Let me take a look at the RICO statute. I’m going to have —

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, let’s take a look because this RICO thing is very strange.

Taya Graham:

Yeah. And to me, this is very scary. I know this has previously been weaponized against folks in Cop City in Georgia.

Stephen Janis:

Yes, that’s a good point.

Taya Graham:

I also saw it was possibly going to be weaponized against some cop watchers in Texas. I think HBO Matt was part of that crew. So I know the RICO statute can be kind of scary. So we’re going to have Cam put JPEG 4 on the screen. Now, this law is pretty complicated, but the gist of it is, and the most important aspect of it is, is that the idea of a predicate crime, and that’s basically sort of a core component of the law. So I’m just going to go through and read what it means.

So “predicate acts, unlawful predicate acts that can form the basis of a RICO charge include state felony crimes involving acts or threats of murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, obscenity, or dealing in a controlled substance. Predicate acts also include over 100 federal crimes, among them bribery, various forms of fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and trafficking in persons.”

OK, so there’s a lot to unpack here, but I don’t see “using a camera to film public officials” on this list. I mean, how can they turn what you do into any of these crimes?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, the way I see it is I’ve seen them turn a traffic sign into notice of a no trespassing sign. I’ve seen them do magic in the criminal justice system. I’ve seen them twist things and come to different conclusions that a rational, logical person wouldn’t do. So I don’t put it past them. I was talking to my lawyer the other day, and this is not… They’re the most evil people ever, these people that are trying to do this, so it’s not like I’m giving them any tips or anything, but they would say, well, he gave me an example. Well, you need a criminal enterprise. They’re going to say that it’s Long Island Audit Inc. that’s generating you this money and your actions, you, by exercising your First Amendment right, you are intimidating elected officials to stop them from carrying out their duties. And it could be as simple as that, money coming in for “intimidation,” what they’re alleging is some sort of intimidation, which is really just First Amendment protected speech, criticizing your government, protesting your government.

And they’ll try and twist that somehow and try and find a crime. And again, you can indict a ham sandwich. So they’re going to be able to do this if they really want to. The question is how long will it take me to get justice and to be able to fight back against this? And that’s their whole game, in my opinion, is the process is the punishment. They didn’t arrest your editor to try and get him to go to prison. They did it to scare him. They did it to make him hire an attorney, make him waste his money. These are why they do these things. And that’s why people that speak truth to power are so important. I’m so grateful and honored to have so many people who have come to my back to support me and help me because this is what they’ll try and do, but the people have my back and I’m going to keep moving forward.

Stephen Janis:

OK. I just want to put a finer point on this. Now, there was something I was thinking about with this whole thing and this whole idea that you’re terrorizing people. If the union president doesn’t come out of that office building, there’s no story. If Brian Fahey doesn’t come out of his house when you knock on the door, just ignores you, none of that ever happens. That’s two that I can think of where if they had just ignored you, it’s all over. There’s no video. There’s no nothing. They participated in this. You weren’t able to, let’s say, walk into someone’s home or office. You knocked on a door in both cases, said, I want to speak to someone, and then they decide to come out and confront you, but they could have just stayed inside their house. It wasn’t like you did anything other than knock.

I’ve watched these videos in great detail. You just knock and ask to speak to someone. That’s not intimidation. That’s not any form of trying to harass or impede or obstruct. It’s asking to speak to someone. That’s a basic First Amendment right. But if they don’t come out and confront you, then there’s nothing that happened. They could easily have neutralized you by simply ignoring you. What do you say to that?

SeanPaul Reyes:

I mean, that’s what happens time and time again. That’s the whole reason that this channel is what it is. The Long Island audit is what it is. It’s the overreaction and the lack of control of their emotions from people in power because they’ve been getting away with it for so long, and then they run into somebody like me with millions of people who support me and millions of people who are going to watch the videos and see it, and they’re going to look bad and their ego gets the best of them in the moment. Even Brian Fahey admitted to the law enforcement officer on the scene that he didn’t handle it right. He knew that after the fact, but at the end of the day, I am just knocking or I’m going somewhere and I’m asking questions and their ego, their lack of control to control their emotions, it just escalates this situation to something criminal.

And then they want to play the victim. And that’s the worst part is that they blame me for their own actions. If I knock on your door and you pull a gun, you spit in my face, somehow I’m the one that was convicted of a crime in that whole scenario. It doesn’t make any sense. The gaslighting is unreal because all I did was knock on the door and then halfway back, making my way back to the public street, a man comes out with a gun, spits in my face. He has no criminal record and I get convicted of a misdemeanor over a private road, dead end, no trespassing sign that apparently means — Dead end no turnaround sign, excuse me.

Stephen Janis:

Think about how those videos would be if they hadn’t come out. It would be just you knocking the door, I guess they’re not here, going out, getting back in your truck and driving off, or police union headquarters, getting back in your truck and driving away. So take those components as they are. There’s nothing illegal or terroristic or anything about knocking on a door and asking to speak to someone.

SeanPaul Reyes:

It’s also not trespassing to walk away from the police union headquarters, but I was charged with it anyway. They will do whatever. HBO Matt, Taya, you brought him up. He was charged with organized crime. These things are ridiculous, but law enforcement agencies, the system itself will try and protect it. And we’ve had law enforcement agents that I’ve spoken to that have told me IA and all these different accountability apparatuses, they’re not for accountability. They’re meant to protect the badge. They’re meant to protect the image of the police officers and let them get away with as much as they possibly can. And it’s unfortunate, and that’s what they do, though.

Taya Graham:

Something I was thinking of when Stephen said if the police officers were just able to deescalate, to handle their emotions, then there wouldn’t be any video. But unfortunately, there are a lot of officers that don’t seem to, let’s say, understand people’s First Amendment rights, which is why there’s so many cop watching and auditor channels. Have you heard anything more about the demonetization of cop watchers and auditors? Have you heard any more about how widespread it is, and have you been able to appeal, and just how are you adapting? Because I believe your channel was demonetized, is that correct?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. So my channel was demonetized on the same day as everyone else. And the police union president Lucavila was actively talking about getting YouTubers demonetized on radio programs. So as far as how widespread it is, it seems to be as widespread as it is because it’s a lot of people. I haven’t talked to every single one of them. I’m very busy. I’m very worried about my life and there’s a lot going on right now, but seems like it’s caught a lot of people in the First Amendment auditing community and including myself. And I have filed an appeal, and the person who responded to my appeal said something very interesting and I actually conferred with other auditors and other YouTube channels who have sent appeals that if they got something similar back, but they’re saying that they’re looking, in short, they’re saying he said that we’re going to look into this. We understand that you’re frustrated. I hope you and your family are safe, SeanPaul.

Stephen Janis:

What?

SeanPaul Reyes:

So I though that was a little strange.

Stephen Janis:

That’s what YouTube said to you?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. YouTube representative when they put in my appeal said, SeanPaul, I hope you and your family are safe.

Taya Graham:

Wow.

Stephen Janis:

Woah.

Taya Graham:

That’s very odd.

SeanPaul Reyes:

So I though that was interesting. And no other YouTube channel received some sort of hope you and your family are safe kind of deal. The rest of it was pretty much generic we’re going to look into it, but it was definitely interesting.

Stephen Janis:

So wait, and you talked to other auditors and they didn’t receive that message?

Taya Graham:

They did not receive a similar message of, I hope you and your family are safe.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. Nobody got the hope you and your family are safe except for me out of the people I’ve talked to. So I thought that was definitely interesting given what’s going on. And again, I don’t want people to think people are like, oh, he’s connecting this with this, with this, with this and trying to sell us this. I’m not trying to sell you anything. This is my life. This is my theory based on all of the circumstantial evidence, based on these sources. I’m just trying to put two and two together the best I can. If I have a smoking gun, you guys will be the first to know, but it’s just definitely strange. And I’ve been navigating it. The people have been supporting me over on Patreon and it’s been very successful there. And I’ve been doing a lot of behind the scenes stuff. I’m uploading a video today.

And if I become funded by the people, directly by the people, I think I can accomplish a lot more. So I’m not deterred. I’m not distracted. I think if I’m completely people-funded by the people who want to see what I do, it takes away all of the fighting for the algorithm, trying to chase the algorithm, making sure a video is not too long, not too short, has the right moments, whatever. It just frees me up. So I’m excited for the new chapter of my life while I will be on probation during this new chapter. So that’s been a lot to get to, to get used to.

Stephen Janis:

On probation?

SeanPaul Reyes:

On probation for one year.

Stephen Janis:

Probation from what?

Taya Graham:

I think this is for the bench trial for allegedly trespassing on the [crosstalk] property.

Stephen Janis:

Why don’t you go to that question because he already answered my question. Yeah, go ahead.

Taya Graham:

I was going to do that.

Stephen Janis:

OK. No.

Taya Graham:

OK. Let me start over then. So actually I’m glad you mentioned the officer, you knocked on the door and the officer came out of the house, held a gun, spit in your face. That, I believe, was your interaction with Connecticut State Trooper Brian Fahey. Now, I believe you were convicted after that bench trial for trespassing, and I think you’ve hired an appellate lawyer. Can you tell me kind of what your next steps are to fight this case?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Sure. Yeah. So I hired one of the best appellate attorneys in the state of Connecticut, John Shorn, and he’s argued hundreds of times in the Connecticut Appellate Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court. He knows what he’s doing. I have full confidence in him. He believes this verdict to be, I guess, I don’t want to say what he actually said. He definitely disagrees with this verdict wholeheartedly, and he’s very opposed to the judge’s logic regarding the private road, dead end, no turnaround sign and how that under the law is somehow sufficient notice and not a vehicle sign. So he’s very passionate about it. I’m grateful to have him on my side. And we’re actually currently right now at this moment trying to get my probation stayed. I was sentenced to 90 days in jail, suspended with one year of probation. And that probation’s being carried out here in Suffolk County where Lou Savillo, the president of the police union, is very influential here in this county.

And I do not want to be on probation here in Suffolk County, but it is what it is. I am. And it’s already affected my life and it’s affecting my job and my journalism. I can’t travel when I want to. I have to ask permission, and I’ve already been told no for a preplanned trip that I had.

Stephen Janis:

Where were you going to go? What happened?

SeanPaul Reyes:

I was actually going to Washington, DC. I was going to go with my attorney and we were going to go over there and just document what’s happening in DC. Haven’t been in DC in a while. He wanted to go to a couple museums. It was more like a personal/business trip, and it was just too short notice for my probation officer and they told me no. So that was unfortunate.

Stephen Janis:

They said, no, you can’t go to Washington DC?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah.

Stephen Janis:

Really?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. They said, no, you can’t go to Washington, DC.

Stephen Janis:

And what was their reasoning for that?

SeanPaul Reyes:

They said that it didn’t give them enough notice to make some sort of pass or something like that because obviously I didn’t know I was going to be on probation, so I planned this trip and I’ve planned other trips well in advance. And now that I’m on probation, I need some sort of permission from these individuals to be able to do anything about my job. So my attorney, John Shorhorn is actively right now, he filed the notice of appeal today and notice for a stay of probation because his argument is going to be, well, this is going to affect not only him, but his employees, his journalism, his company in a very significant way when we can just put a pause on it. And if we somehow lose, he can always serve the probation later. It doesn’t affect anything. He’s no public safety threat or anything like that.

So we’re trying to get it stayed for now so I can continue to work and do what I need to do.

Stephen Janis:

Well, what’s preventing them from saying no every time? I mean, is there any process for this or they just can just say no for whatever reason they want?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, they can say no for whatever reason they want, I guess. I spoke to my attorney. There is a process where I can go to the court and ask them, but that’s going to cost me money for have my attorney argue that and then time and then you get the judicial approval because the judge is the ultimate arbiter of what I can do on probation. But just on a day to day, it’s going to be the probation officer here in Suffolk County. So it’s definitely interesting. They can come into my home. They don’t even need a search warrant anymore. They can come into my home whenever they want with whoever they want. They can search your

Taya Graham:

Car anytime, right?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah. They can search my car anytime they want. They don’t need any warrant or probable cause or anything right now. So I was told in those same emails that you read, I was told that the Lucivillo and these individuals were communicating with the state’s attorney. Again, I don’t know. I don’t have proof of that. I’ve put in FOIA requests. I’m waiting on everything, but I doubt even if I’ll even get anything, if there is anything. But I heard that they were communicating, which my lawyer says wouldn’t be that. If I’m facing a case here in New Suffolk County and I was facing a case, they would communicate and everything like that. Just the though of Brian Fahey and Lucavillo talking on the phone terrifies me. I mean, it is not a good lie. I don’t know what they would want to talk about, but it can’t be good.

I can’t imagine.

Stephen Janis:

What pretext do they need to search your car or go into your house? Is it none? There’s none. None?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, there’s nothing. Because I am on probation right now for a trespass crime, one of the lowest crimes in the state of Connecticut or anywhere really, nonviolent property crime that again, the circumstances I argue I didn’t commit it, but we’ll see what the appeal does. But even just for that, I have a year, a year. If I didn’t have a family or anything, I might have just chosen to do the 90 days and been done with it then because it’s kind of ridiculous that they’re going to have control over my entire freedom for one year. They can go in my car whenever they want. They can walk up to my door and come inside my house whenever they want. They don’t need warrants and no judicial checks and that’s for a whole year. So it’s going to really affect my work, but I guess I just have to work more from home and focus on the Suffolk County government.

I’m sure they’ll love that. What

Stephen Janis:

Does your appellate lawyer think about the implied consent and the Supreme Court precedent in terms of knock and talks and things like that? Does he think that applies in this case?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, that’s a great question, Steven. He thinks that it is ridiculous. Again, my lawyer is very grandiose and he speaks a little differently than I do, but he thinks it’s ridiculous that the judge would equate some sort of animosity as evidence of lacking a knowledge for license or privilege. Because the way my attorney sees it, and it’s the same way I see it, is animosity and unfriendliness is something separate from a license or privilege to do something. You could have animosity with anybody, a family member, you could have a bitter fight with a family member. The

Stephen Janis:

Family member comes to

SeanPaul Reyes:

Your door to apologize and they knock on your door to apologize and say, “Hey, I’m sorry, but you’ve never once told that family member they can’t come to your house. Are they trespassing because you had this sort of history of animosity?” To us, to me and my attorney, it doesn’t make really any sense, the license or privilege part, how they connect it with animosity part. And that’s to put to the side with a sign. But yeah, Florida v. Jardines doesn’t mention any animosity, just mentions a customary

Stephen Janis:

License. What you point out is a highly subjective judgment. And to me, that was a very weak piece of legal reasoning. And I’m not a lawyer, but I thought tying those two together in some sort of sequential if then was extremely weak and almost amateurish in the interpretation of the law because what he’s opened up is all sorts of traps within the law itself because it would be very easy to construe, let’s say, a hostile relationship with almost anybody. You could say, “I don’t like my postman. I don’t like Democrats or whatever. I don’t like Republicans, so they shouldn’t have known they shouldn’t come in my house because I had a Trump sign out there.” I mean, the implications of that ruling – That’s

SeanPaul Reyes:

A great point. According to this judge, if you had a Trump sign and you were a Democrat and you were a Democrat looking to knock on that person’s door, you would be committing the crime of criminal trespass. There’s no difference between my case and my case.

Stephen Janis:

And the whole point of the law is to think of consequences of making certain sort of assumptions and in a component of a law. And that what he did is a very, very weak because he didn’t think about these things. There’s so many ways that could be applied in a completely anti-First Amendment or I would say unconstitutional way. Yeah, I

SeanPaul Reyes:

Agree.

Stephen Janis:

I think your appeal is extremely important actually to precedent and

SeanPaul Reyes:

Case law. So does my attorney. He says that the law can’t be interpreted this way. That’s why he’s very passionate about it. He says, “This is not the way the law should have been interpreted and this sets a bad precedent, so we’re going to fix this.” And I have full confidence in him. He is one of the best. He knows what he’s doing. He knows what he’s talking about. And I’m confident that the conviction will be reversed and be issued a judgment of acquittal and that’ll be a great day for me because that would mean I’m no longer on probation.

Taya Graham:

Just to ask, you mentioned what a great lawyer you have. And as far as I know, really good lawyers are pretty expensive. So I’m just curious, you said the phrase, and I think this is so true, the process is the punishment. Well, my question is how expensive is this process and how many steps are there in the state appellate process? Because I’m not familiar with all the steps of it.

SeanPaul Reyes:

So to answer your second question first, you get an automatic appeal right to the appellate court, to a lower appellate court in Connecticut. And then you have the right to ask for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, but you don’t have a right. They can deny you. It would depend. But right now we’re working on the first appeal that I have a right to. He’s argued before them hundreds of times. He just got somebody new trial in August. Again, he came highly recommended. I looked into his cases and he is somebody that normally would get between 30 and $50,000 on this sort of appeal on a regular case, depending on how serious it is. He is actually offered, and I told him I was going to be transparent with him with this number and I’ve been transparent with my Patreons over there and he charged me 15,000 for the appeal.

So while that’s a lot of money – He cut

Taya Graham:

It in half.He cut it

SeanPaul Reyes:

In half for you though. A lot of money. Right. Because he finds this case very interesting and he wants to do it himself. So when one of the best wants to do something like this, and I would’ve figured out a way to pay him whatever he asked for that day, but he’s at 15,000 and I was very appreciative for that. And again, because you write the process, the process is the punishment. They don’t have to spend money on these appellate attorneys. They’re already getting paid by the taxpayers to do this. The amount of money this trial costs, everything altogether. Another thing that he said was ridiculous is the four protective orders for a hundred years, criminal protective orders against the entire Fahey family for a hundred years. It’s a property crime, a nonviolent property crime. I never even had any dealings with Sergeant Fahey’s daughter or his son.

They’re adults, but I’ve never met them. I didn’t even know they existed till recently. So for them to have a hundred year order of protection against me is ridiculous, as my lawyer would say. It’s ridiculous.

Taya Graham:

That’s amazing. I’ve never even heard of a 100 year protective order. I have seen body camera video of women literally getting knocked unconscious by men and they can barely get a restraining order. That’s the sad part. And yet you knock on a door and now there’s a hundred year protective order against people that you’ve never actually interacted with. That is just astonishing to me.

Stephen Janis:

Let’s hope there’ll be a headline. Protection order expires for oldest living cop watcher 100 years later.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Yeah, hopefully I can make it that long. You’ll be

Stephen Janis:

A 103-year-old man. I’m

SeanPaul Reyes:

Guessing around 30. It is sad. It is sad that there are people, victims of domestic violence, whether they’re male or female. Correct, male or female. And it’s impossible, almost impossible, very difficult for them to get a criminal protective order, a permanent one for longer than a year. But yet I got 104, 100-year ones. And even police officers, police officers get shot, beat up by individuals and they don’t get protective orders against the people they arrest. That just doesn’t happen that way. But yet I knocked on a door of a police officer and him and his entire family get a hundred-year protective order. We’re fighting against that too. Not that I care because I don’t plan on ever going back to knock on his door, but I know that I no longer have the license or privilege now, not then, but it’s just more abuse of the process.

It’s the system protecting itself, the judge protecting the cops, the state’s attorney protecting the cops. Anybody else would’ve been arrested for felony threatening felony crimes that day for what Brian Fahey did. And he was charged with a very light disorderly conduct charge that was erased from the system. So I’m just going to keep fighting for accountability. We’re going to have depositions are coming up next in the Fahey case for the civil lawsuit and just going to keep moving forward.

Stephen Janis:

So before we go, I have one more question. And I always want to ask you this question because whenever we post a video about you, the passion is unbelievable. You have passionate supporters and very passionate critics. And I just want to give you the opportunity to answer your critics who say, “Well, all he does is harass people for clicks and views and there’s no real substantive part of this work.” What do you say to them and why are they wrong?

SeanPaul Reyes:

Well, again, I would say to them first and foremost, because I know how passionate they can be.

Don’t be so passionate about me. I’m just some guy on the internet. I’m nobody to you, or at least I should be nobody to you. The people’s opinion, your opinion doesn’t really mean much because my opinion, I care about my friends and family’s opinion of me. And I do read the comments and most of them are supportive. But to answer their question about what I’ve accomplished, what have I accomplished? I’ve worked with the police departments. I’ve helped First Amendment auditor, whatever you want to call me. You call me whatever you want. You can’t say that I haven’t worked with the police on a serious level across our country, district attorney’s offices to help bridge that divide. I’ve exposed mayors for engaging in fraudulent misconduct where they’re voting on bills that they’re receiving the money to. I broke that story myself. The FBI is looking into it.

I’ve spoken to the FBI in Florida about that story. It’s a crazy story. I’ve had mayors rip down signs from city halls. There is so much that I… And the most important thing is when I’m out on the street, I never run into these other passionate people, thank God. But I do run into a lot of people as I travel the United States, whether it’s at an airport, a rest stop, wherever it may be. I always tell me, “Well, thank you. Thank you so much. I’ve learned so much from you. I’ve learned how to control my emotions. I’ve learned that I need to step out of a vehicle. I’ve learned that there’s certain things that I have to comply with, other things I don’t.” And that, to me, that has happened dozens of times at this point. And if that only happened once, it would’ve been worth it for me, my five-year career, because if I could teach somebody how to exercise their rights, there’s nothing more important in our country than our constitution and our rights.

So it’s something that, especially now, especially when it’s being tested by the federal state governments, it doesn’t matter. Again, I always tell people this, it’s not left or right, it’s up and down. And the quicker that we, the people, really understand that, the quicker we can come together and stop fighting each other and start really trying to demand accountability and transparency and that laws are passed to benefit the people, not the corporations, not the elites. We’re too busy fighting each other. So I would hope that they would hear me out, come on my side. I would love to debate them. If they want to debate, it would be my honor to do so. I want to bring people together. I don’t want to tear people apart. And if you think I just do it for clicks and views, I’m not even getting paid on YouTube anymore, so I can’t say that.

I mean, that’s a lot. I still post on there, so I’m not doing it for clicks and views on YouTube. But again, I think it’s such a red herring because every single news media outlet is looking for clicks and views because why wouldn’t you want somebody to hear your story?

Taya Graham:

Exactly.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. And you got to get paid for the work. And

SeanPaul Reyes:

Unfortunately, we don’t live in a utopia where everybody gets

Taya Graham:

It.

Stephen Janis:

I know. No.

Taya Graham:

You know what? I’m really going to hold onto what you said. It’s not left or right. It’s up and down. And the sooner that we figure this out, the better our country is going to be. We’re going to be able to work together. I really, I love that so much. That is just the perfect way to end this conversation.

Stephen Janis:

And true. And quite true.

Taya Graham:

It’s so true. That just rang so true with me. Thank you so much for sharing that with us, SeanPaul.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Thank you for being here. No problem. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. It’s always a pleasure and I would love to come back on. Yeah,

Taya Graham:

Please. Oh, absolutely. We are going to continue to follow your story and of course request that you keep us informed and updated as much as you can.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Will do. Promise.

Stephen Janis:

Thanks, Sean.

SeanPaul Reyes:

Thank you

Stephen Janis:

Guys.

Taya Graham:

Thank you so much. So Stephen, that was a fascinating – It was. But deeply troubling conversation. And something I just want to point out is how tricky probation can be. There are so many holds that can be put on you. Essentially, the civil rights that you’re used to living with every day are just suspended. Your car can be searched at any time. You can be pulled over for not putting on your turn signal. Next thing you know, your car is being tossed. They can come over to your house and search your house. Also on probation, it can mean urinalysis testing to see if you’ve been drinking alcohol or taking any kind of chemicals or drugs. So basically the civil rights that you’re used to having are just completely gone, let alone the fact that you have to ask permission before you travel and you can just be told no.

Stephen Janis:

They can basically lock Sean down for the duration at this point. I don’t see why they let him go anywhere at this point, given the animosity they have towards him in Suffolk County. So this is very, very concerning. And have

Taya Graham:

You ever heard of a 100-year protective order? No.

Stephen Janis:

Have you

Taya Graham:

Ever heard of

Stephen Janis:

That? No. And I’ve covered a lot of trials and a lot of different types of legal situations. And no, that has never come up in any court process that I have covered as a reporter over the past 23 years.

Taya Graham:

There are absolutely brutal cases

Stephen Janis:

Of

Taya Graham:

Domestic violence where I’ve never seen a protective order like that. And it could have saved the person’s life.

Stephen Janis:

Right. And I think that this shows that there’s a tremendous amount of concern about SeanPaul with the law enforcement that seems to be disproportionate. Although I wonder to a certain extent is the fact that he has some power himself because he has a very big audience and that audience reacts to what he does. And perhaps that’s why they’re fixated upon him, not for any specific reason of what he does, but the audience that he has, which is quite extensive. And I think that’s perhaps why they treat him that way.

Taya Graham:

And I also think when you start investigating money, when you start investigating someone’s pockets, what that overtime looks like, if they’re getting take home cars, if they’re getting any kind of perks, when you start looking at people’s money, that’s when you can get into real trouble with the government.

Stephen Janis:

Absolutely.

Taya Graham:

And just to your point about the role of people who are less than pleased with Sean, that’s actually pretty important. By reacting to him, they actually create the story. And the best way for there not to be a story about you, for there not to be a Long Island audit video about you is to just ignore him, which begs the question, why can’t they do that? Why can’t they just ignore him? I mean, I was just sort of imagining when you were talking about it earlier, what would’ve happened if Lucivillo just never exited the building and confronted SeanPaul? There would simply be nothing for him to post. I

Stephen Janis:

Mean,

Taya Graham:

Stephen, what do you think is going on here?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I was thinking about this a lot while we’re talking to Sean, because that’s really sort of the critical question. What is it about him that’s so threatening? And I think he’s exposing the sort of authoritarian impulses of law enforcement in this country and the power, the power that they actually wield. And they are used to being able to wield that power pretty much unfettered. If I get a $10 million judgment against me, I can still keep my job or I get convicted of a crime, I can still keep my job. The money and the power is extensive and it’s just unaccustomed to being challenged on that level. Most mainstream media organizations generally tend to work with police because they want the tip on the latest crime or the serial killer or something, and that’s very important. But Sean’s doing an aspect of journalism that doesn’t normally get done, which is a sort of accountability.

Even in our town, since I stopped reporting on overtime, there’s not a lot of reporting about police overtime or take home cars. People generally, mainstream media journalists don’t really pay much attention to that. And I think because Sean is challenging that underlying power structure, which starts with resources, government resources and taxpayer money, the pushback has been massive because that’s what really drives all this. I mean, the $1 billion budget or whatever he was talking about for Suffolk County police, or we talked about in the previous show, that’s a lot of power. That’s a lot of power to have that kind of influence. And the police union in Suffolk County, they all are paid by taxpayers not to be police, but to be union officials. That’s a lot of power. The overtime is a lot of power. The very generous pensions, it’s a big, big lucrative system.

And when you start looking under the hood, I think that’s when it gets dicey for reporters. I know it did for me. That’s very true. And I’m sure in some ways, I think that’s one of the reasons Sean is experienced. He is sort of getting underneath a massive source of power that really goes unexamined quite often.

Taya Graham:

And you know what? I think that’s what unfortunately can make cop watchers really annoying to police is when they start looking at budgets, when they start looking at the money, when you start looking into their pockets, that’s when things can get really dicey. And so SeanPaul is just part of our ongoing coverage of the copwatching movement across the country. And we have been reporting on this very colorful and obviously controversial group of YouTube activists for almost seven years. I mean, it’s been an interesting journey documenting this spectrum of disorganized, but potent dissent. It tests us. It provokes us. It measures the health of our First Amendment right. And what it shows is what’s possible when the average citizens pick up their phones and point them at people who are unaccustomed to being watched. Yes, it’s not always pretty. It’s not always comforting, but it is vital to our ongoing dialogue about how to hold power accountable.

And that’s really the point. We might not always like it or the form that it comes in, but that process, keeping power in check is vital. It is vital because we want a government that serves at the consent of the people, not the other way around. Now, if you are interested in Copwatchers or the idea of YouTube activism, you can watch our documentary, I Am But the Mirror, the story of American Copwatching. And we’ll also put a link in the comments where you can watch it for free. It’s free on Fossam. And also, please don’t forget to send your tips and your videos and your story ideas to par@therealnews.com. Of course, you can always reach out to me directly at TeusBaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. We want to thank you for joining us for this very special episode of the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to the edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Black Panther Party, which started in Oakland in 1966. Today, I’m honored to be joined by Billy Jennings, AKA Billy X, well-known archivist in Oakland, member of the Black Panther Party, a photographer who runs the official Black Panther Party alumni website called It’s About Time. Thank you for joining me, Billy.

Billy X Jennings:

Hey, thanks for having me again. Good morning to everyone.

Mansa Musa:

And as we talked earlier, I was in different spaces and hoping I had met you while I was in Oakland. So this would more or less be like a reunion, but this is my first time meeting you. I’m really honored. I heard a lot about you. I know a lot about your work, and it’s an honor to be able to interview you about the party and some of the things and some of your experiences.

Billy X Jennings:

Okay.

Mansa Musa:

Please introduce yourself to our audience, who you are and how you came to be involved in the Black Panther Party.

Billy X Jennings:

Well, my name is Billy X. Jennings. I’m a member of the Black Panther Party. I joined in 1968 when I was 17 years old. And I came about joining the party because I’m from a historical town in Alabama in the South where most original members came from the South and migrated to California. So I came from a place called Hopson City, Alabama. And the tradition there, Hobson City have had the right to vote since 1890. And we were one of the only black municipal cities, little towns that could vote and had that right to do that. And so I came from a very strong area that had embedded that kind of thought into my mind. And when I traveled to California and I saw the Black Panther Party on TV for the first time in 1967 when they went to Sacramento, California, it blew my mind.

I was in high school at the time and I immediately changed our social… We had a social club called the Buccaneers. I changed it to the Panthers the next day. I didn’t know anything about the party with just that symbolism and how they stood up to the police and read their demands and so forth. It made a change happen in me. And it wasn’t until I graduated from high school, I decided to move to Oakland. And when I moved to Oakland, it was during the time that Huey knew the trial had just started and I was going to a college that’s two blocks away from where Huey was going on trial at the courthouse. And when the trial started, we would hear them saying Free Huey off the preg, free Huey. And I went over there one day and I was reading a book simultaneously at the same time called The Audible Malcolm X.

So what I read, I had read in the book already, but I heard Bobby Steele speak at a rally for Huey and they were saying the same thing. So it got me really interested in the party. And so I started going to the rallies to Free Huey. I met some Panthers and then they said their Panther office was going to open in my area. And when it did, I went down and joined, became a Panther in training and I’ve been working with the party ever since.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. And take us back to the party’s founding because you came in two years after its founding. And also you came in to your own observation and to what we know to be a fact, you came in at a point where they had just started to become on the radar of the feds, but more importantly, they was definitely on the radar of the Oakland police, LA police. And so talk about what was it like to be able to be in that space and ultimately find yourself in a position to be the bodyguard for Huey Newton once he got out.

Billy X Jennings:

Well, my process started at the very beginning. In 1968, there was a certain method the party employed. Before you became a Panther, you had to become a Panther in training, which requires six to eight week training. They give you a list of books that has about 35 different books, about books by Franc Fanon, Mao Saintong, Che Guevara, Pruma, and other revolutionaries to read. And you had to attend political education class on a weekly basis. Panthers at that time was required to read two hours a day. A Panther had to secure and have what we call technical equipment. Technical equipment was a firearm of some type, because at that time I joined the Black Panther Party, it was called Black Panther Party for self-defense. Later on, we dropped off the self-defense, but at that particular time, the party was engaged into patrolling

Police officers in the community, observing them and making sure they don’t beat and brutalize people. So the first six weeks is reading and studying and learning the rules of the Black Panther Party. And then you’re given a section. The city is divided into different sections. I worked in the section four in East Oakland. Section four had a section leader. They had a geographical area that they were responsible for. And so I was in section four. At that very beginning when I first started, we were theorizing about the breakfast program. It hadn’t came about, but we were still looking for geographical locations to have these breakfast programs in the future. So we did that. And every Panther is required to sell the Black Panther Party newspaper, which is the voice of the party. And at that time, the party was growing tremendously by leaps and bounds.

We had people flying into California from Kansas City, Chicago, New York, all to get this education. Before you can open up a chapter of the Black Panther Party or a branch of the Black Panther Party, you have to come to Oakland first and get educated. And you have to meet the leadership. The leadership has to eyeball you and find out your level of consciousness, what type of person you are before you can go back and represent the party. So this whole process was going on. People were flocking to the party. The party got so big that in 1969, we had put a stop on membership and we call that particular part of the party’s history the purge because the party had grown… I mean, the party was attractive. I mean, black coats, leather coats, I mean sunglasses and Afros at the same time. So this was a big thing for our culture.

At the same time, our culture level was rising even in music. James Brown had a record out in 1968 that elevated people’s social conscience, I’m Black and I’m proud. It moved people from the level of being a Negro, because that’s what the newspapers and that other people was referring us to. But in our community, we’re referring to ourselves as Black or African. And when James Brown came out with Black and I’m Proud, you could never go back to ever saying he was a Negro no more. There was different progress being made, but James Brown couldn’t sing no song like that. It wasn’t for groups like the Black Panther Party. Groups like The Shot Light Can’t Sing got to give more power to the

Mansa Musa:

People

Billy X Jennings:

Like the Black Panther Party, paving the way to educate people to lift up their consciousness. And so my role in the party, I came up as a Panther in training. I became a officer of the day, which is the person who runs the office. And from there I was transferred to central headquarters. Now, my name came about because my captain at that time was a legendary Panther called Robert Bay. Robert Bay ran the East Oakland office. Robert Bay was also an age of the central committee. And when Huey Newton got out of jail in 1970, the central committee made Robert Bay his permanent bodyguard and assistant. Now, I worked in that capacity as well after Huey got out of jail, mostly going to… I went to court with Huey on a daily basis because he was let out on appeal. He wasn’t just let out.

He had to go back to court and defend himself. And so my job became that. And also at the same time, I became to the Newton family. Mr. Newton, Mrs. Newton, I lived three or four blocks from them. I would walk over their house around the corner, mow their lawn. I’d be taken to the pharmacy, driving to doctors because they’re old people and they don’t drive so much. So that became my responsibility and me and Huey’s relationship grew behind that. So we had good personal relationship.

I worked central headquarters. Working at central headquarters was key to who I am today because I know Panthers from everywhere because every Panther had to call the central headquarters on a weekly basis or if the office gets ready or they need lawyer resources and stuff like that, I pick up the phone, write on the messages or tell them what they need to know. So I know Panthers from almost all the chapters and branches. And so I worked that group for a while. Then I was drafted into Bobby Seal’s campaign when he ran for mayor of open. I ran Bobby Seal’s campaign office in East Oakland. And it was an organizing event on the highest level the parties had ever been. I mean, the party is known for organizing, but to go into electorial politics and do what we did for a first time basis, it changed over.

Even though Bobby lost that election, it changed openly because it opened up so many doors. Part of his job was to kick down doors because we were the Vanguard. We had lead to struggle and there’s other people who follow behind us. I mean, our life was constantly in threat because we were on the front line, police department, clientele pro, all those things aimed at members of the Black Panther Party. So not only did we have the burden of dealing with the system, we had to deal with the authorities as well.

Mansa Musa:

Talk about, and you’re familiar with Eddie Conway, right? And so Eddie Conway, when he got locked up, he organized a chapter for the Black Panther Party in the prison, which I became a part of. And everything you outlined, as you was talking, I was reflecting on, we had to read at least two albums. We had every aspect of the thing that you outlined as what the party was doing, Eddie had us doing the same thing. We had political education classes, we had military classes, we had first aid classes. All our class was structured around an environment that we was in, and our technic class was finding a hole to get out of prison by any means necessary. So we had that type of mentality. So Billy, as an archivist, you have a lot of distortions in terms of the images that’s being projected of the party and it’s been dubbed Panther Porn, and just to note that it’s images that’s being perpetuated by the federal government, it’s images that’s become more idolization of the party versus the images as an archivist.

What would you say is the most positive or how would you characterize the imagery of the party as from an archivist in terms of educating people and raising their conscience? I see you with a shotgun. I know you in Sacramento. I know why you in Sacramento and I know why you coming out like that. That’s a good thing. But then I turn around, I see somebody standing on the corner. They got a picture of somebody standing on the corner with their mug broke and they got a bandela on and it had nothing to do with organizing, had nothing to do with raising people’s conscience. It’s got more to do with projecting the image of a thug, for lack of a better word. Talk about that if you can.

Billy X Jennings:

Well, the party was vilified on the highest level from the government who lied on us continuously to the media that used disinformation to scare people. The big image they had was, oh, these Negroes, they have guns. They’re angry. They hate white people. That’s their basic pitch on everything. Let it be Republican New Africa or any Black group, they paint them as very threatening group. And because we had guns, I mean, there was nothing… It wasn’t against the law in California to have guns, to have them in public long as they was not loaded, which we knew that. So the images they printed of the Black Panther Party was to vilify us and to scare white people and to frighten Black people. So it was all a part of their method to control who we were. They were trying to identify who we were. We could only define that.

We defined our own selves. And so that’s why we started a Panther newspaper in 1967 to get our voices and views out. So even though we had Time, Newsweek, Life Magazine, the Black Panther Party was cranking out close to 250 to 300,000 copies of papers per week into the community to combat this disinformation about the Black Panther Party. The 10 point program outlines what the Black Panther Party was all about, what we stood for.

Only on one aspect, which is 0.97, we talk about defending ourselves with guns. Other

Than that, we’re talking about social change in all levels, in education, housing and so forth. That was a threat to them because they did not want anyone to rocking the boat and we are rocking the boat. We are waking people up from their deep sleep. I mean, we’re telling people to read. We’re showing people what books to read. We are the Vanguard. People are following us. They didn’t want that. We had people in the white community, they wanted to join in with us. We had people from the Latino community, they want to join with us. You had people from around the world reading the 10 point program and looking at the positive aspect of the Black Panther Party. And that’s how we get the New Zealand Panthers and the Panthers from Africa and Panthers from India and the UK because of our social programs, how we was dealing with the oppressor here.

And so they follow those same examples there. They started social program, they started demanding and fighting for their rights. And that’s what the oppressor hates. They hate for people to wake up. And we were waking up big time in the 60s with the music, the culture, the back to Africa, who we are. How could you be a Negro in 1970 after all has been presented before you? So those things have changed. The party was a part of that change, that

Mansa Musa:

Consciousness. Talk about, because to your point, I remember reading the paper and when United Farm Workers, the party was one of the first papers to one, educate people on what their issues were, two, organize the boycott certain wines that they was taking and exploiting their labor and not giving them equal pay. So talk about the party’s social contribution to raising people’s concept, but more importantly, the elasticity of it, because can you see some of the influences today? Oh,

Billy X Jennings:

Definitely. Definitely. I can see the influences of the Rainbow Coalition. And that was something that Fred Hampton talked about. I could see the coalition building of the Black Panther Party. We’re working with the Brown Beret, the Young Lords, the Young Patriots. We’re working with the welfare rights groups. We’re working with the BSU, the Black Student Unions on campus. We’re working with prison groups. There was a number of prison groups throughout the country that started Black Panther Party off in San Quentin, in Algeria, Raway and other prisons because the ideology of the Black Panther Party was strong. What we were talking about, there was backbone to it. Everything we did was dialectic materialism, right? We were dialectic people. We looked at things from all sides. We just didn’t look at things in one side. Black Panther Party was an international group from the very start. Dewey and Bobby were international.

You can look at our reading list, those 35 books that come from Fanon, that’s from Africa, Mao Zeitang from China. So there was all kind of influences in the party. And so it was a big job just working to educate and organize people on all levels. Because in our community, action speaks. People learn in various ways, but in our community, people relate to action. They see something, they learn from it. Just like the breakfast program. We started the breakfast program in California and within two weeks it was a national program because people said, “Hey, we can do that here. This is how they did it. We can do it here.” The party set examples that people could follow in every aspect. We were on the forefront of fighting racism on all levels.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Maximillian Alvarez:

I’m here at Red Emmas at the Baltimore Book Festival, and I’m sitting with Dr. Mark Anthony Neal. Brother Mark, it’s so great to have you back here in Baltimore, man. I know I only got you for a second, and we’re talking about your incredible new book, Save a Seat for Me, Notes on American Fatherhood. And I was thinking as another father in America in 2026, I wanted to ask you, it doesn’t take PhDs like we have to know that we’ve got a real fricking crisis in this country with men and masculinity and masculine culture and fatherhood, or we have a whole lot of crises that men are experiencing but aren’t dealing with well. So what do you make of all this? What do we do about it? And how can your book help us get there?

Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:

I think we have tried, America has tried to raise generations of warriors, if you will, to be on the front lines of American imperialism. And you can’t be human to do that. You can’t think, you can’t question, you can’t be vulnerable. So what we have done is raise two or three generations of men in America who don’t know how to be human, who don’t know how to lead into full range of who they are. We’ve been socialized to show up only certain kinds of ways, anger, rage, the ability to follow directions. Things like vulnerability are made fun of at the highest levels.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And those of us who are very vulnerable people have been made fun of.

Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:

Because of that.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Because of that.

Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:

We’ve been made to think that our responsibility in a capitalist system has literally been reduced to only making money, that our only value. And I think about this a lot as a Black father, my own father, that I’m sure he thought that his only value to me was making sure that I was fed and clothed and taken care of. And I get all of that, but I needed much more from him. As a father, I needed to be more than that for my daughters. And so I think when we look at young men who are clearly feeling so much with no outlet, their outlets become dangerous behaviors, self-directed violence,

Maximillian Alvarez:

Toxic online cultures,

Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:

All kinds of addictions, alcohol, Percocet, weed, porn. I mean, we can name all these things and understand it. And the fact that so many of the young men in the world today, their lives are what they can connect with on their handheld device. They don’t actually have relationships with people in the real world, don’t see a value in that. And I don’t know how we sustain that. I don’t know how we sustain our humanity in a situation where we don’t value human relationship anymore.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, and it’s like you see that the path that we’re on as a society or what’s left of a society is being driven by the sociopathic, psychopathic, bloodthirsty –

Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:

Or just plain evils.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Just plain evil maniacs who want a future where they get all the benefits of human society, but don’t have to deal with any of the humans in it. Whether they’re thinking of like, oh, AI is going to replace all their jobs and we’re going to get all the money. They’re not thinking about what the heck that’s going to mean for us. They’re just going to push us into slums and prisons and police us, hunt us, surveil us. That’s their big goddamn plan. And I think you put it so powerfully that it’s like so many men out there have the same human needs that we all have and we’re feeling them so acutely the more isolated we are, but we’re looking to find, we’re seeking inhuman avenues.

Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:

I mean, think about all the folks who are in relationships with chat bots. I mean, it’s surreal. I can’t have a relationship with an actual person. I don’t desire a relationship with an actual person. I need to have a relationship with some facsimile, some avatar that somehow that’s more meaningful to me than having a relationship with a person.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Yeah. And I think even as a editor in chief and co-ED of a media network, as a media star, we recognize there’s only so much you can do online. You got to get the hell offline and you got to meet each other back on that level of shared humanity and shared reality because that’s the only way we’re going to deal with anything, anything in this country.

Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:

And that’s why the Baltimore Book Festival is really important. First of all, not only just a reminder, someplace that’s celebrating the written word, obviously, but folks coming together in community. We have to get back to a culture where we share in community. We read together, we listen together, we debate together instead of these media silos. I’m going to have this debate over here on this network and you’re going to have this debate over there and never the twain shall meet.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, and final question, but it goes really to the heart of your book. Here in Baltimore, I see this every day. I feel it as a father, but right down the street from where I live in Mondamin, earlier this summer, there were six youth who were caught on camera just beating the hell out of an elderly member of the community, a former Black Panther. It was horrific. I’ve interviewed this man and the community that’s trying to help him, but clearly everyone who is showing up to help is seeing in that video the deficit of guidance, of fatherhood, of love.

Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:

Of respect. Basic respect.

Maximillian Alvarez:

So what can we do about that in our everyday lives at the person to person level?

Dr. Mark Anthony Neal:

We have to be willing not just to be witnesses to these experiences or commentators.

We have to intervene and feel comfortable enough to intervene. Whoever sat down with those young men, first of all, to explain, because the easy part is to say, no, this man was important to our movement in the past. The more difficult thing is like, no, this man is important because he’s another human being and you should value life and his humanity. But if they are young men who do not value their own humanity, don’t see their own humanity, they’re going to reproduce that behavior over and over again. And so we have to have the willingness because it’s real easy to go, I’m just going to build my life in this silo and protect my family and I get it. But to take that next step to say, okay, I might not be able to talk to all six of these brothers, try to talk to two of them.

Begin that process, that one-on-one conversation that can blossom into something that’s much more significant.

MANSA MUSA:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

Joining me today is Andrea James, activist in every sense of the word. I want to say abolitionist, but she’s an activist in every sense of the word, organizing, and is currently running for the governor of Massachusetts.

Thank you for joining me, Andrea.

ANDREA JAMES:  Thank you for having me. It’s really great to be back in your studio, and just to have the privilege of being a part of how you disseminate information. It’s really an honor to be here, and I thank you for this opportunity.

MANSA MUSA:  And we want to go on record right now saying that here at Rattling the Bars, we recognize that it’s a so-called two-party system. And we recognize that, when you’re dealing with electoral politics, that if you’re not a traditional Democrat or Republican or so-called Independent, according to their definition, you’re not going to get the recognition. So we are here primarily to level the playing field. It’s not our endorsement of it, it’s more opportunity for her to talk about her candidacy, why she’s in this position, why she’s running, and what she expect. 

And with that being said, introduce yourself to our audience, Andrea.

ANDREA JAMES:  Well, I want to say thank you for introducing me as an abolitionist. I mean, I am an abolitionist. I have had a direct experience that causes me to understand that this country has had more than 250, but 250 recognizable years of incarceration of prison and prison building and incarcerating people in cages. And actually, I believe in direct experience and that that’s what leaders should have, some level of direct experience so that there’s an urgency around the issues that need to be worked on. And so I’ve had the experience of incarceration myself personally, and I happen to know, having lived in a women’s prison, that they only cause further harm and that they are antithetical to getting us to a place of having whole, healed, and healthy communities and people. So I am a prison abolitionist, absolutely. And thank you for referring to me in that manner.

Why I’m running has a lot to do with that experience in 15-plus years specifically. Decades prior to that in my lifetime came from a family, African American family of Civil Rights folk breaking color barriers and so forth in law, in the field of medicine. My grandmother was the first Black nurse in the city of Boston. I’m from a community that is the most incarcerated community in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. We’ve been in Massachusetts for seven generations, in the same old house in Roxbury for five generations. 

And so why I’m running is this alchemy of these life experiences that have brought me to where I am in my life today with my understanding of these issues and also who I am today. And that includes all of my life experiences, not just the highs that I’ve reached and the accomplishments that I’ve had and the academic achievements that I’ve had the privilege to be exposed to, but also my incarceration, which has been one of the most important experiences of my life that propelled me.

This was 20-plus years ago. I made a mistake in my law practice. I wound up on a prison bunk in federal prison for wire fraud. And what I received and learned from that experience after having been a criminal defense attorney, after having worked my entire adult life on ending mass incarceration and bringing attention to that issue and then having the direct experience of myself of living in a prison, I knew immediately after being surrounded by all these women, I had to survive 24 months of incarceration. I was laying next to, head to toe, head to toe, head to toe on a prison bunk next to sisters who had been in there for 24 years. I mean, I knew. 

My parents were researchers of people of African diaspora. When I was a kid, they were traveling all over the world with us, showing us different cultures of our people. And one of them was a trip to Gorée Island, where we saw where they enslaved African people, put them into caves, waited for ships to come, load them on like cargo, and take them to every single place on the planet to work as labor. And when I was in that prison, I wrote a book, a memoir called Upper Bunkies Unite. And because I was on a top bunk and I remember looking up over this sea of Black women and being like, damn, the first thing that came to mind all those years later was Gorée Island, was how they stacked us.

And so I’m running for all of that, and I’m running for more of the immediacy of creating change right now. I’ve been going to the Massachusetts state House for 15 years writing policy, writing legislation, giving of my voice, my experience, to panels and state legislative hearings and congressional hearings, and being trotted out for all of the things on the federal level policy. And enough is enough. Enough is enough. 

And I have done every piece. I’m older. I’m older. I believe in pouring into our young because they’re brilliant. They have a language now that like, what y’all talking about, but I like how it sounds. But we need to break the ceiling of the caste system that they expect us to continue to live under. And I refuse to do it any longer. I refuse to be made a chump in an electoral process that is not addressing the needs of the people that are millions, that, actually, in Massachusetts, have become the majority of people who are dissatisfied with either of the establishment parties, meaning the Democrats or the Republicans, that 67% of voters in the commonwealth of Massachusetts have become unenrolled. 

Now, does it mean that they’re all the way over here, prison abolitionists and to the left and progressives like I am? I don’t even call myself a progressive because that’s been co-opted in so many ways to help democratic socialists get into office and so forth that do not go far enough for me. However, we need to be a part of this in more ways than just being on the table. 

We need to shake up. I mean, you talk about rattling the bars, the electoral process needs to, those bars need to be rattled. We get people into office and they think the job, the hard work, was getting elected — Which is an arduous process even when you have their millions of dollars, which we don’t — But still too many of our electeds have gotten into office and they thought getting into office was the job. And then term after term after term, they’re just comfortable. It’s like, they have a job. They have a nine-to-five that they go to.

MANSA MUSA:  Let me ask you this here.

ANDREA JAMES:  Yeah.

MANSA MUSA:  OK. So, you already clarified the so-called progressive. We agree that the term in and of itself says one thing, but the behavior says something else. But you are running as an Independent. Now juxtapose that against Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders has ran as the longest Independent, but how do you see yourself when you say you’re Independent? Is your Independency similar to Bernie Sanders, same, or are you saying Independent in fact and not in theory?

ANDREA JAMES:  I’m Independent in fact. I mean, I’m running on issues.

MANSA MUSA:  Come on.

ANDREA JAMES:  I am not running on any party platform, and I refuse to be constricted by a party platform. I unenrolled because I was a member of the Democratic Party, I was raised by strong Black Democratic women over the generations in my family. I unenrolled because I thought it was unconscionable what the Democratic Party has become. And I believe that it is a duopoly between the Republican parties and the Democratic parties.

That being said, I wasn’t running on any party because I’ve seen the party that I expected to do, carry the water and make the noise on behalf of the issues that are affecting so many people. When they weren’t doing that term after term, elected position after elected position, I decided the party platforms are not going to carry the work that needs to be done. So I said, I’m going to work on these four issues.

Now I care about a lot of other issues, trust me. But right now in the compounded crises that people are going through, everyday people are going through in the communities like mine across the country, but specifically across the commonwealth of Massachusetts, we’re a commonwealth. It’s different when you’re a commonwealth, that means of the people. We become a corporate wealth. And our campaign is it’s the commonwealth, not the corporate wealth. We are under the oppression and control of a corporate agenda right now in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. So wealthy donors and corporations are getting the focus and the attention that working families, underemployed, unemployed, formerly incarcerated people, people who have gone through a state of struggle, the focus should be on. We’re a commonwealth. But I’m running on four issues.

MANSA MUSA:  Come on, talk about it.

ANDREA JAMES:  So that it is very clear because they’ve co-opted the term “affordability.” They’ve listened to our language and taken our language, both the Republican and the Democratic candidate, and morphed our abolitionist language into their establishment party agenda. 

So I said, I’m not dealing with none of that. I’m an Independent, meaning I am running on issues, not any sort of party platform or party identity. We don’t have an Independent party in Massachusetts. We’re just called unenrolled/Independents. So it’s not even that I’m running on a platform called Independent. I’m running on four issues: housing, universal healthcare, childcare, and equitably funded education. 

Why those issues? Because I am the voice of the people who have been just tamped down into a caste system that is only growing and widening. So before it used to be all of us, Black, Brown. We have a wealth gap in the commonwealth of Massachusetts that is astounding that nobody even wants to talk about. It’s always like, why has it got to be about race? Because everything is about race, baby [Musa laughs]. And so we’ve got to discuss that. But we’ve got an unemployment rate that is double for Black people in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

And so, these are things that we have to talk about, but the issues that I’m running on are issues that would create an immediate lift. I call it lifting from the bottom and closing the gaps. When you talk about unaffordability, it is at a crisis level in this state and around the country, but housing, universal healthcare, childcare, and equitably funded education immediately gives economic empowerment to the people, the millions of people just in the commonwealth of Massachusetts alone, the wealthiest state in the country, that has been completely left out of that.

So, we have nurses and firemen right now who can’t afford places to live. And so it has expanded. It’s no longer just formerly incarcerated people who got no chance in hell — That’s got no chance in finding support, I should say. We still make it, but in finding support in climbing out of that hole they tried to bury us in and get back on our feet and raise our children and bring our families back together and restitch the fabric that they’ve shredded economically, family-wise. But it’s expanded to a lot of the middle class, so to speak, who are now feeling the same level of pain, even as they still are intact and have their jobs and may have a house or may be able to figure out how to pay their rent, but really are not making a living wage themselves.

And so housing, universal health care, why universal health care that’s single payer health care. I’ve traveled the world in the work that I’ve done as an expert on women and incarceration. I’ve talked to parliaments in different countries about the issue. I’ve visited women’s prisons all over the world. And while doing that, I have had the experience of those countries and their major cities and how they address policy. Well, housing is a number one thing in many of these places, but also they have universal healthcare. They’re not beholden to what we’re stuck with, which is the CEOs who make $200 million, with a M, a year who run health care companies in the United States. And we have no benefit of it. We pay high premiums, we have deductibles, and most of the time we have to ask if they’ll fix something for us and it’s denied.

And so universal healthcare is one way to immediately infuse some economic stability in the families and in the everyday people in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. If we have single-payer health care, which means the state takes over completely — Which we are uniquely poised to do here because Massachusetts already controls its own health care market — And so the only reason we don’t have it is that because the governor and the other leadership in the commonwealth of legislature are beholden to the wealthy donors who are the CEOs and their rank and file who donate money to these campaigns. Because there is no other way to explain in the commonwealth of Massachusetts where we already control our own health care marketplace, where it does not make fiscal sense or it’s not fiscally responsible to not have single-payer health care, that we still have it, except that we will hold in place because of the lobbyists, the health care industry, and the CEOs that make us have to pay all of this money for health care that does not produce the level of health and wellness that we deserve.

MANSA MUSA:  OK. Let me ask you this here then. OK, so you already acknowledged that you got this wealth gap, and you got in terms of the political structure. So how are you managing being competitive in the sense of being able to get out and get your message out unless are you getting PAC money? Are you getting corporate money? So how are you funding your campaign? How do you see it? Because like you say, you up against, just to your own point, it ain’t commonwealth, it’s corporate wealth. If it’s corporate wealth, right?

ANDREA JAMES:  Millions and millions of dollars. Millions of dollars. The Republican candidate in this race, there’s three of us. First of all, mainstream media is beholden to the Democratic Party and they only refer to her. And in reference to the Republican candidate running against us, they only refer to one opponent running this race against our current Democratic governor. There’s three of us. There’s not just two. So mainstream media plays a huge role in completely blocking. 

Took 10,000 signatures, they didn’t think we could get it as an independent candidate. We got 13,311 certified signatures from the secretary of state — Certified at the secretary of state’s office, which means I am on the general election ballot on Nov. 3. 

Mainstream media has refused to include me in anything. We did our first mainstream media interview that aired Sunday morning, the very first one, but yet that same network is hosting one of the few debates that the current governor, Mara Healy, has agreed [to do]. They left it up to her. They let her do all the deciding. There’s three candidates, but she’s the one that got to decide where she was going to show up. Fine. They’re excluding me from the debates, the mainstream networks. I’m a candidate. I am on the ballot, and I am being excluded from being in the debate. 

When I asked the other network that I just did the interview with, why had they not invited me into the debate between the gubernatorial candidates? And they said, because the people have expressed that they only want to hear from the establishment parties. Well, that’s interesting in Massachusetts where 67% of the voter roll are currently unenrolled Independents. So who are you talking to?

And so, it doesn’t matter. What Donald Trump is doing right now with mainstream media on the national level, CNN and all them, he just kicked them out of the press [inaudible] their credentials, and they’re on the sidewalk outside of the White House trying to do an interview, being fed information from inside the press room. That’s exactly what these networks are doing to me by inviting us into the debate and allowing the voters to hear the messages, to be informed voters, and not just mainstream media being able to determine who gets to be heard and who doesn’t get to be heard. That’s violation of constitutional rights, of [the] First Amendment, there’s a plethora of wrongness with it, and that shouldn’t happen.

And so then we got to talk about the money, right? So the current governor’s a millionaire, but she also has millions of dollars that have flowed into her campaign by corporations, the CEO. And then all you got to do, it’s all public knowledge. Anybody can look at ours, they can look at theirs, and you can see where the money’s coming from. And it’s all the wealth and power in the commonwealth and people of wealth and power who want to make sure that the Democratic platform stays intact.

Now look at the Republican candidate that’s running against us. He’s got a $31 million mansion in Montana somewhere, a summer home in Montana. But he, at the start of his race, said, I’m putting $10 million into this race. So they’ve got commercials running, they’ve got all kinds of stuff that we don’t have. So the only thing that we have is an opportunity to be blessed, to be invited into opportunities like this, like what you have always provided for us at Rattling the Bars, but it’s about boots on the ground. And that’s one thing that our style of organizing didn’t change because it shifted to electoral politics.

So we know how to do this. It’s still hard because you have to pay for signs. You have to pay for, even though — Here’s an example. I don’t know if you can see it because my screen —

MANSA MUSA:  Yeah, I can see it.

ANDREA JAMES:  But throughout this entire campaign, our money has been spent on toner and paper. You know what I mean? Because we’ve been talking to Independent candidates, Kshama out in Washington State, and just talking to their campaign managers about how y’all getting this done against multi, multimillions of dollars that are just, they’re not even talking about us yet because they don’t want to give any rise to the awareness of people that there is a person like myself running. So they’re just suppressing everything else by covering everything with signs, with commercials, things that we just don’t have. 

So we’re doing our best. We’re boots on the ground. It took them two days to get 10,000 signatures to get back on the ballot. It took us months because we were grassroots. I stood outside in the rain, the heat, the snow, whatever for months, personally asking people if they would sign my ballot sheet. But also it gave me an opportunity to have conversations with people about what’s their pain points, what do they need in their lives to create joy? It’s not just about the struggle we’re going through, but where are the investments to create joy in the lives of the people of the commonwealth, all of us.

So it has been a really — And then again, Massachusetts is a blue, blue state. We got a blue governor, which is another reason why I ran because I’m like, hold up. The line in the sand for me was we went — So, Massachusetts was one of three states up until 2000 that allowed incarcerated people to vote, full access to the ballot. They took that right away from incarcerated people in 2000 because the brothers inside of a men’s prison here called Norfolk State Prison started to organize themselves. And they started to organize themselves because of the hard draconian sentences that more of these young brothers were starting to come into the prison with these real heavy sentences hanging over them, young. 

And so the Legislature was predominantly white and male was like, oh wait, you going to organize yourselves and your families on the outside? We make 7% of the population, Black folks in Massachusetts. We make up 51% of the carceral population. First of all, make that make sense. Math ain’t mathing, OK?

So they said, we’re going to strip you of the right to vote. And they did. They had to move heaven and earth. They had to change the Massachusetts Constitution to strip us of the right to vote inside.

Now, we have been fighting to reinstate that ever since. And so, they got a congressional hearing in one of the sessions, and we went and poured our hearts out. And with my testimony, I lined up the fact that this is voter suppression. This goes back to denying Black people the right to vote whenever you have a disproportionality in the numbers of Black folks in the state and the levels of incarceration, on and on. Well, they didn’t even reconvene after the hearing to discuss it. It never made it out of committee. It was what every other piece of our legislation that we have worked on over decades went to what they call “went to study.” 

That was it for me. Y’all ain’t even going to huddle and discuss this after we came in and poured our hearts out about why it’s important as people who have had direct experience with incarceration for people inside to vote. I was a mother. I had a 5-month-old little baby boy when they made me go into the prison, a 12-year-old daughter, and young adult, a son and two daughters. I had good reason to still have my right to vote.

MANSA MUSA:  Right. Answer this here, Andrea. And I want you to put yourself in this space, your candidacy in this space. So when we was at the Free Her March, I asked you about that, and this is what you said. You said when we first started this, the first time we came down here, we had a hundred people. The day that we was down there, we had blocks and blocks and blocks of people. We had Freedom Plaza flooded. So that’s one. I want you to put your candidacy in these two spaces. How do you see your candidacy in this light?

I was in Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts, I think year before last, where they was doing a showing of the movie called “The Strike,” where they shut down Pelican Bay, where the men shut down. How do you see your candidacy in terms of you was in a prison where they was treating y’all like animals, y’all made y’all minds up when y’all got out, when y’all got in a position to change the narrative, you was going to change it systematically and continuously, you changed it. Her movement. 

When I was down there where the buses was at, I ran into a lot of sisters I had dealt with and interviewed. Everybody was energized. Strike. They organized this strike throughout California under a situation where they ain’t even had the ability to communicate. So put your candidacy under that type of light.

ANDREA JAMES:  Well, we did. We started our work as incarcerated women inside of a federal prison and we were like, You know what? We don’t hear nothing about us, the separation of us from our children, whatever. So we organized ourselves in that prison, and we didn’t have no way of… We were writing letters and sending kites outside, whatever we could do to raise awareness of the issue of the incarceration of women and our separation from us from our children. But if you look at the life of a woman on a prison bunk, every issue that we are fighting for has been a factor that led them to that prison bunk. The lack of housing, the lack of health care, the lack of education, the lack of childcare, the lack of resources for the most vulnerable among us. And so that’s the first thing.

The second thing is I’m older. I’m older, and they want to create a narrative, and have created a narrative, that we have no more value and we don’t count. And the issues that we’re talking about, nobody should listen to because we have incarcerated or formerly incarcerated as part of who we are. And because of that, we just valueless now. We have no more authority. We cannot be accountable. We cannot be relied upon to run these institutions, to run these states. 

And they have these positions like Qiana Johnson, county clerk. What? Come on now. We got the first formerly incarcerated Black woman who is now the clerk in Prince George’s County. This is what we talking about. We’ve got a new Black woman mayor in Washington, D.C. because of the rallying and the intense work that Black women did, formerly incarcerated Black women did, to change that and put new leadership into that seat. 

So I want to be that. Let me break the mold. You know what I mean? It’s a win-win for us as far as I’m concerned because I’m challenging that. Yeah, they’re like, oh, now they started out only writing stories. There’d be one page of a story when I announced my candidacy a year ago and the whole page was filled up linking my case and talking about my transgression of wire fraud and went to federal prison as a lawyer and one little line that said, oh, and by the way, she’s running for governor.

So I’m like, OK, somebody has to step out and kind of be like, OK, I’m the whipping post. You know what I mean? Because I’m going to push back on that. And what? I don’t have time to talk about that. I have time to talk about why it’s important to have people with direct experience who actually know and have the urgency, the transparency, the accountability that it requires that we don’t currently have from our current legislature, from our current governor, particularly in Massachusetts. Massachusetts just received the Black Hole Award in the country. That means the least transparency in any state in the United States. The least. We have the least effective legislature in the entire country. So we have to do something different. 

And they’ve made it impossible pretty much if you have a felony conviction to run for things. You can’t be a state legislator for the felony conviction in Massachusetts, but guess what they didn’t think anybody would have the nerve to do as a formerly incarcerated person? Run for governor. But also I’m not a politician. I’m a community organizer, and I have no interest in making a career out of starting from school committee and working my way up and sitting around in the state legislature. I’m going straight to the top.

MANSA MUSA:  To the top. Yeah, that’s right.

ANDREA JAMES:  Where we can get the things moving that we need to have moving. And so if this just tills the soil, I have had so many sisters in our network across the country say, hey sis, I’m going to run for office now. You’ve inspired me. That’s what I’m talking about.

MANSA MUSA:  One thing for sure and two things for certain, you got a broad network in terms, I seen the response that you got from men and women coming out that’s in this space. So what kind of feedback, because you told me earlier that you’ve been traveling across the state. And I want to say this, because Massachusetts got the misnomer of being a progressive state, the Kennedy and whatnot, but talk about what kind of response you getting from the people that you’re talking to across the state. And I know you going everywhere, every crevice. Talk about the response you’re getting from the people that’s going to be responsible for you getting elected, because I believe you can get elected and you will get elected.

ANDREA JAMES:  Well, those are the communities that I’m in where no other politicians seem to go. The people who represent those communities go there when it’s election time and then they become the untouchables. Nobody sees them or hears from them. I’ve been in the western part of the state, which is closer to New York than it is to Massachusetts. They wear Yankees caps as opposed to Red Sox hats because they are completely disconnected. I’m talking about what’s the Springfield, Holyoke, Chicopee, these towns that… I was in Holyoke last year and this sister said to me, you came all the way out here. And I was like, of course I came out here it’s a part of Massachusetts, isn’t it? She was like, nobody comes out here. They can’t even tell you who the governor is in those parts of the state. And it’s mostly Black and Brown. Black, Brown and poor. And they’re feeling like they don’t even vote. 

And so we have this tiny, tiny base of predominantly Democrats who are holding a party platform in place. There’s not enough Republicans in Massachusetts to make that matter. And they are predominantly white. They do not have the direct experience of struggle economically, and they have co-opted the term “progressive,” and they go to things like No Kings and hold signs because that’s the only kind of way that they’re feeling like they could make a difference. They will never vote for me. And so I’m like, if you vote for me, I would love, great, you have a choice. We just want you to know that. I [inaudible] communities that are in the housing developments, you know what I mean? Up in the projects. I’m knocking doors there. I’m talking to people in towns where people are like, Don’t nobody vote out here. And I’ve never voted. But we’ve been simultaneously doing a voter registration drive along with this campaign from day one.

We have a false belief amongst the majority of formerly incarcerated Black men that I’ve found out running this race over the past year that do not even know that they can vote because they’ve been told when they leave the prison. Massachusetts, if you’re felony conviction in a state prison, they took the right to vote. But the minute you walk out of that door, if you were registered before, all you got to do is go and vote again. If you aren’t registered, you can register and vote in the next election. We can vote as formerly incarcerated people in Massachusetts as long as we are not currently serving a state prison sentence for a felony conviction.

If you’re in jail in Massachusetts, you can vote. You can vote while you are serving a misdemeanor sentence in a county jail, access to the ballot. Do they have it? No. So those are the people that we’re talking to.

And again, we live. I get it. So many people have said to me, Black people have said to me, sis, I don’t vote. I would vote for you, but I can’t vote. I’m formerly incarcerated. We correct that and say, You can. We get them registered. We tell them, you don’t have to go into the voting place. You can get a mail-in ballot. You can do all these things. The other piece of that is no matter what, too many Black and Brown folks have said to me, I don’t even believe in the process, sis. I don’t vote. 

And now my response to that is one in six Black children in the commonwealth of Massachusetts go to bed hungry. 30,000 children, predominantly Black and Brown and poor kids, sleep in a car or under some makeshift shelter every single night in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. If they still go to school, they go to schools that are woefully, unequally funded, underfunded, and they just had more teacher layoffs.

If you say to me, I’m asking you, I’m an elder Black woman running for office. We’ve never had a candidate like me. I’m asking you to get engaged just to vote. Just vote. Vote for us. Vote for our issues. If I’m wrong, I’m willing to step out of the electoral process and to do. What are you doing? When I tell you that, do you have children? Most of them tell me yes. Do you care about the Black child over here who’s going to bed hungry every night, that’s sleeping on the street? If you have a better way to approach that, I’d like to know. If you have an alternative to getting somebody like myself in the governor’s seat to create immediate significant radical change that is going to start not from a budget that they’ve created that has no transparency, that nobody knows if it’s true, if it’s not true, that we voted for an audit that we can’t get.

We don’t know how much money’s there. We don’t know who’s deciding where money should be allocated. If you don’t understand the power to not start from a budget that we don’t even know if it’s true or not, but instead start from the issues and the people that need the support the most and make that the priority for the work and where the money is being spent. Then tell me what you have as an alternative for me to make sure as a mother who raised Black children, as a grandmother who now has grand babies and is from a community that the fabric has been shredded by all of these systems, you tell me what your proposal to me is so that I’m not wasting my time any longer so I can make sure that these Black babies and these poor families, white, Black, Brown, whatever, we don’t have any more children who are hungry and sleeping on the street.

MANSA MUSA:  Andrea, tell our audience as we close out how they can get involved with your campaign or how they can get more information rather about your campaign.

ANDREA JAMES:  We don’t have millions of dollars. We barely have any dollars. Our money comes from mostly poor, formerly incarcerated Black, white, Brown women who just are urgent to create change in their own families and communities who are struggling just to feed their kids, find a place to live and the whole bit. AJFOR — That shows my age. My kids were like, Ma, why didn’t you just put the number four? Because I didn’t know — So ajforma.com, that’s our website. You go there, there’s a volunteer form, there’s a donate button. No amount is too small. We get $5, $10, $15, $20 donations, and that has carried us for whatever we’ve been able to get the signs, whatever we’ve been able to do. We’re doing lit drops right now. Lit drops are where you carve out turf and you literally drop in literature like this so that people know we’re running and knocking on doors, door knocking.

Anybody who’s run campaigns like we have to stop prison builds and so forth, you’ve door knocked with me. Come and stand with me and door knock for this campaign now. It is change. And so that’s how they can. Ajforma.com, hit us up, send us an email, whatever you want to do, ajames@ajforma.com. All the information’s on our website. And we’ve got 45 [days]maybe, I don’t know, Nov. 3 is the election day. We are in the 11th hour, and still too many people in the commonwealth of Massachusetts who want or are looking for change don’t know about this campaign because mainstream media has intentionally left us out. And so we need help. We need boots on the ground who can go do a standout for us, disseminate our lit for us, put a yard sign if you have a yard or a window sign if you have a window. We need to raise awareness and we need to do it right now.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Maximillian Alvarez:

I’m here at the Parkway Theater and I’m sitting with Mahmoud Khalil, freed political prisoner and former Columbia graduate student who was heavily involved in the student-led Justice for Palestine movement and who because of that was abducted by plainclothes ICE agents from his New York apartment building in March of 2025 and locked away in immigration jail for 104 days. But he’s here with us now. Brother Mahmoud, welcome home, man.

Mahmoud Khalil:

Thank you for having me, Max. Thank you so much.

Maximillian Alvarez:

It’s such an honor to be here with you in person. I don’t even know how you begin to answer this question, but I can’t begin without asking it. How are you and your family doing after enduring this horrific nightmare that is sadly still not over?

Mahmoud Khalil:

We’re doing all right and we’re taking it day by day, really sort of surviving under the threat of deportation at any second or worse than that, whatever this government may decide to do at any point. But our fear is part of the fear of so many families in this country who are now worried about sending their children to school. We are in September now and I know a lot of kids are worried about going to school because they’re either undocumented or their parents are undocumented. I’m thinking about just the families in Minnesota and in New York and in Texas who are now under the threat of being really deportation by this or ripping them apart. It’s not only deportation. Haitians

Maximillian Alvarez:

In

Mahmoud Khalil:

Ohio,

Maximillian Alvarez:

Latinos in

Mahmoud Khalil:

Southern California. Anyone who this administration sees as the other or sees as a threat to whatever plans they have. So in that bigger scheme of things also, at least I know my son will be fed tonight. There wouldn’t be a bomb being thrown on our house as happening in Gaza right now as we are speaking. So in the bigger scheme of things, we’re grateful. We’re grateful for the community that’s supporting us.That’s what’s keeping us going forward right now is just the level of support, the level of solidarity, the community that was built around us because of what this government has imposed on me and my family.

Maximillian Alvarez:

I didn’t plan to ask this, but as a father as well, I have to. What was it like to hold your kid that first time?

Mahmoud Khalil:

I don’t think anyone can describe that feeling. It’s just the first time I held Dean was in detention in a courtroom, in an immigration courtroom where verdicts of deportations happen, like rain daily in these rooms. So it was a little bit weird that I was able to reunite with my family in a place where families are being torn apart. But at the same time I felt victorious because that’s a moment that this government tried to steal from me. Although it was only for one hour, but felt the world to me. And of course now being with Dean, a lot of people ask me, “What gives you purpose?” And just seeing Dean and dreaming of a world where he can live in dignity and safety, inequality, just like anyone else, as an American citizen who has the same rights and responsibility as any other American citizen, regardless of his background, regardless of the ethnicity, regardless of anything, really it’s just like being a human.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And how could you not look at your kids and our children and not fight? We’re going to give this world over. We’re going to give their future over to these psychopaths, to these fascists, to these fanatical nut jobs? Of course not.That’s just not an option. But it’s really hard to put that into action on a day-to-day level when we’re being bombarded by so much terror and awfulness. I interviewed members of your former graduate student union at Columbia after you were taken. I’ve interviewed members of my former grad student union in Michigan where activists are having their homes raided by the FBI. I mean, students, community members, workers, people all over this country who are terrified to fight back or do anything because of what happened to you. But you continue to speak out. You wrote this book, No Land to Stand On. You’re here in Baltimore to speak to folks.

What do you and this book have to say to all of us out there about confronting that fear and not living in fear?

Mahmoud Khalil:

I think the fear is very real and I would be lying if I said I don’t have fear about myself, about my children, about my family. But courage is not the absence of fear. It is actually acting despite the fear. I would be lying if I said, “Oh, I’m not afraid.” Or when you are dealing with such injustice and as you’ve mentioned, just these fascist tactics and the way that they dehumanize us, whether as immigrants or whether as Palestinians or just as someone who does not agree with what this government is doing. So to take you back, I think a day after my release, I decided to go to a protest. And I usually am not that protest guy, although I was very heavily involved in the Columbia movement, but I decided to go mainly to give a message that despite all this violence inflicted upon me from the government, from the university, from the institutions and the establishment in this country, I refuse to be silent.

And now my book is out because the government tried to silence me. Or in essence, they tried to make an example out of me so you and others wouldn’t speak out. But to me, this book is a testament that I refuse to be silent. Now the government gave me a platform and they would take it with a grace and responsibility that I should take this platform to advocate for those who don’t have voices. At any moment now there’s over 70,000 immigrant in ICE detention. At every second, there’s at least 70,000 immigrants in detention. That we know

Maximillian Alvarez:

Of. Now they’re like, we don’t even know if they’re keeping proper track.

Mahmoud Khalil:

Exactly. I don’t know how many went through the administrative errors that this administration every now and then does. So really this administration tried to silence me and I refuse to be silent. And that’s why I want to give people not hope, but at least some sort of despite all this violence, you can still speak out because what we’re dealing with right now is this administration, they are bullies and what our parents teach us when a bully come to bully you, you should not – Stand up, baby. Exactly. So that’s what I’m doing right now. And part of my fight is not about staying in the US. It’s more around what happened to me is wrong and shouldn’t happen to anyone else. Even if I win my case tomorrow, I may decide to leave the day after, but that’s totally besides the main point, which is what’s happening is wrong and should be confronted.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, I want to end on that note because ever since you were taken, one of the reasons that people found so much hope in your story was that you continued to use your voice to advocate for others who were locked away in immigration jail, people who couldn’t speak English, people who didn’t have access to lawyers and who could get contact with the outside world. And that meant so much to so many. And of course you ended up in that jail because you were speaking out and speaking up along with millions around the country and around the world against a genocide in Palestine funded by our tax dollars. So here we are in 2026 and I’m not going to say it doesn’t feel like we’re losing everything and that it was all for naught, but I know a lot of our viewers can feel that way when they look at what’s happening to the ruins of Gaza and to the continual onslaught to erase that people from that land while back home they’re using the same tech to disappear our neighbors and family members.

So how do you put all of this in perspective and how do we continue to fight even when it feels like all is lost?

Mahmoud Khalil:

I think hope and resistance is our only option right now because this administration wants us to feel defeated, want us to feel that nothing is working. And the moment that we succumb to that feeling is the moment that they win because even if we remain silent, because I know people who were targeted and remain silent, the administration did not stop going after them because their mere existence was a problem to this administration. And that’s why I’m hopeful because I don’t have any other option. And the fact that the president of the United States came after an unknown student speaks a lot to the successes of our movement because it was impactful. It was actually changing things on the ground. It was changing public opinion in droves. That’s why the president of the United States felt the need to go after a random student to make an example out of him so that others would fear speaking out.

And that’s I think my only message in terms of why we should be hopeful because the change doesn’t happen in a day and night. It is the persistence. It is the continued resistance against all odds when you see that nothing is happening, but you continue because you believe in that. And that’s the thing as Palestinians, why we continue resisting despite everything all odds against us is that we are righteous. We know that human beings, regardless of their faith and nationality, they can see that in us and they would support us. So that’s why we have a strong belief in our cause that it’s a righteous cause. We don’t need millions and billions of dollars to convince public opinion about the righteousness of our cause or not. It’s just like we need to present it and that’s it. And that’s what they are fearing right now.

That’s why you see the establishment in this country is scrambling to control the media, to buy TikTok and to buy CNN and all of these just because we are actually winning and they know they will not be able to stop us. That’s why they’re bringing these all new tactics about, in my case, they’re weaponizing the immigration law from 1952. And in other cases they’re bringing all these alien laws.

Maximillian Alvarez:

They’re

Mahmoud Khalil:

Reaching back to laws from centuries ago. Yeah, 1800 something because they’re looking for tools because we’re actually winning and the public is with us. But also with immigrants, an average American sees that an immigrant is a benefit to this country, whether it is through the work that they do, whether through the diversity they bring. And this country was built upon, I mean recently, I don’t want to stoke about the enslaved people and how this country was built on their shoulders, but recently also immigrants were part of this.

Maximillian Alvarez:

You and I wouldn’t be sitting here if that wasn’t true.

Mahmoud Khalil:

Absolutely. And we absolutely must be conscious of that. And that’s the other thing about why I’m writing the book now, not in five years, because this is urgent. A lot of people ask me, “How would you look at this moment in 20 years?” I don’t want to look at it in 20 years. I want to do what I can do right now to stop it because what’s happening right now is a stain on the constitution, is a stain on the American consciousness, is a stain on every human value that we stand or we say we stand for. And I don’t want to look in 20 years and say, “Oh, we should have done something because it’s happening now in our backyards. An ICE detention center is at least 30 minutes from any one of us right now. If you drive 30 minutes, you would find an ICE detention center.

There’s one

Maximillian Alvarez:

Five minutes that way. Thank you so much, bro.

Mahmoud Khalil:

No, thank you so much,

Maximillian Alvarez:

Max.

Mahmoud Khalil:

Appreciate it, man.

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Reporter 1:

Breaking story in Frederick. We have been told that ICE agents have been camped out in the Taskers Chance neighborhood. Neighbors

Reporter 2:

Say ICE has made a move on one home under the cover of night. That’s exactly what you are seeing right now.

Soolah:

There were protestors next to me. There are protestors across the street. And then I turned to this car and it was right here. And then I heard out of the side, the siren go off and I turned and here’s this car coming at me from on the sidewalk. By

Reporter 1:

Friday night, protestors were chanting on the sidewalk, also trying to block the street and a home they believed ICE was targeting. That’s when Santos says ICE became aggressive. This video shows when an ICE officer drove up on the sidewalk toward protestors. Santos and local activist Sula Kemp say ICE officers became violent.

Maximillian Alvarez:

I’m standing here in Frederick, Maryland, just over an hour west from Baltimore, and I’m standing in a quiet residential neighborhood where just over a week ago, ICE agents in unmarked cars swarmed this neighborhood, surrounded the house behind me. ICE agents are on video beating peaceful protestors with their batons, menacingly driving their cars onto the curbs into the directions of protestors. And I’m standing here with Sula, who is a local resident of the area and who was here the night of those events. Sula, thanks so much for joining me here. Can you walk listeners through what happened and what you saw that night?

Soolah:

Okay. I was asked by as many people were asked to come and help. So I had that time and I was able to come down and I saw different ICE peoples actually around this whole neighborhood. They were in different pockets and locations. I hadn’t even come to this street. I had gone to two streets down and then the next street right over and you could see where they were positioned. And then there was also one that was driving around that seemed to be sort of intimidating by chasing cars, which I thought was really strange behavior because you didn’t see anything on the vehicle to say who it was. It didn’t say police, it didn’t say anything. Didn’t have any markings on the cars. So we didn’t know who they were. Assumed they were ice and their lights were just kind of on. They’re just sitting in their cars parked on the street.

So then there was a call later. I was there about three hours and then somebody had just said they need people on this street specific. So I was like, “Well, I’ll just walk over.” And they said that there was one car that had a spotlight on protestors. And what they were apparently trying to do on this street was just line the sidewalk, a public space with protestors. So that was fine. So I was like, “All right, let me take my phone and go to the other side and get the perspective of the spotlight being put onto the protestors.” So I did that. I first took a bit of video from this side as an observer and then went to the other side and stood there and watched just cars. And then all of a sudden as I was standing on the sidewalk, I heard a siren go off, just a few bursts of it.

And I happened to turn my camera and there was a car on the sidewalk coming toward me and telling me, and everybody who’s on the sidewalk, “Move, move, get out of the way.” At some point they sa, “You’re impeding a federal investigation.”

Maximillian Alvarez:

We’re talking about a car driving up

Soolah:

Right

Maximillian Alvarez:

Here where we’re standing.

Soolah:

Right. On the sidewalk, public space.

Maximillian Alvarez:

These are people’s houses. They’re driving onto people’s property.

Soolah:

Well, and if you or I had done that, what would’ve happened to us?

Maximillian Alvarez:

Yeah, they’d throw my ass in jail.

Soolah:

Reckless endangerment of people. And it was crazy. They stopped for a hot second and I jumped onto the grass at first and then I stepped back onto the sidewalk because I was like, “I don’t know what’s happening.” Just a natural response. I was like, “Wait a minute, I’m on the sidewalk.” So I stepped back on the sidewalk and then he started really coming. He did not stop and he sped up toward me first and then there was a woman behind me. And then there was another person, another protestor that they did hit and started to push with their car.

Maximillian Alvarez:

So you were standing right around here?

Soolah:

I was right here. And there was a car there. There was a car across the street. So I had my camera on this car. There were protestors next to me. There were protestors across the street. And then I turned to this car and it was right here. And then I heard out of the side, the siren go off and I turned and here’s this car coming at me from on the sidewalk. I jumped over to here. He passed me. He hit another protestor and then pushed that protestor out of the way. And then the protestors at some point have been sitting down, just linked arms, sitting down, singing and chanting right in the middle of the street, which is fine. They can do whatever they want to.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Community members surrounding one of their neighbor’s homes to try to protect them. Yeah. And then agents of the state come in and start beating the hell out of them for it.

Soolah:

Yeah. So they sat in the road and then they did get up and did that protection. And it’s a typical thing that people do to blockade, but peacefully, they didn’t do anything. They just linked arms. You can’t do much when you’re linked arms. And it’s a whole group of people. And then all of a sudden Frederick Police were coming and then they moved up to the porch area and started beating them up.

Maximillian Alvarez:

You and I are standing here right now on this quiet residential street. People who are watching this may have only seen a small slice of this street on line. What they can’t see is that this is the quietest residential street you can imagine. There’s nothing happening here. You would think with all the ICE agents and vehicles that were here last week that this would be a hotbed of overrun with criminals and criminal activity. It’s just families and houses.

Soolah:

Yeah, it’s very quiet here. You can drive around here and people are working, people are doing their lives and that’s it. So it’d be like every day storm into your everyday world in your suburban America, and that’s what happened. And when you look at now, it’s quiet, it’s peaceful here. So they brought a sense of terror and they brought a sense of unsafety. So yeah, the main set of protestors, they’re stationed on the sidewalk here right at the stop sign. There’s a whole group here. And then there was an ice vehicle here. There was an ice vehicle behind –

Maximillian Alvarez:

Right behind

Soolah:

Where I’m standing. Right behind where you’re standing. Because they started sort of parading in, it looked like a little ice parade. And I’m just joking about that because it was so weird. Once they got into the house, I could hear up in one of the rooms them banging stuff around. And another protestor had asked me, who was observing, asked me, “Do you hear that?” I was like, “Oh yeah,” because it was loud. I don’t know how the house was on the inside when this was all done, but this was a lot. And then I actually went and looked through the back part. They had a shed or some kind of building out in the back there, and you could see these guys go into the back and they started searching. They didn’t know how to get open the shed or whatever because it’s big, but eventually they did.

And it was eerie. It was very eerie.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And it feels reminiscent of the Gestapo view.

Soolah:

It does because who bangs down a door like that? Who goes through looking for whomever? And apparently they didn’t take anybody. I don’t understand why it all happened in the first place.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Yeah. So all that terror for nothing?

Soolah:

All that terror for nothing.

Maximillian Alvarez:

How do you move on from something like this? How does this community move on? How are folks responding?

Soolah:

I know right now they’re collecting donations for the people who were beaten because they had hospital bills. And it’s really hard because I don’t know them all personally. I came because just like anybody else, we don’t know each other half the time, but we do see something in need. So they do have a donation set up for them specifically. I am not sure what the next steps are. I know that I have personally tried to contact the attorney general’s office a few times. I haven’t heard anything yet. And I’m hoping that somebody who’s above, in some kind of governmental stance or something, because who feels safe going to the police when you watch the police stand there? There’s the question. I didn’t report anything to them, even though I had a vehicle come at me on the sidewalk. I doubt anybody else is really going to feel comfortable or safe, and maybe that’s the point.

Maybe that was the point too. I can’t speak for that, but it’s just what goes in my head, why would I contact you to tell you what happened? So I want to go higher up.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And so when you were here and you had federal agents and unmarked cars and you also had local police, did you feel in that moment like the police were there to protect you?

Soolah:

No. And the wild thing too is on the car that, at least this car that came at me, you couldn’t tell who they were because their license plate was tinted out. There’s nothing identifying that either. So who are these people? I don’t know if Frederick Police had some kind of directive because I don’t know what even drew them out here in the first place. Maybe they heard that people were getting beat maybe, but they were here before that happened. So maybe they have to take a specific. I don’t know. I literally do not know. And if that’s the case, if they have a specific directive or they don’t know what to do, maybe that needs to be talked about. Maybe something like this, when you have unmarked cars doing reckless behavior with their cars, doing reckless behavior towards other people, what is the community’s protect and serve folks going to do for the community?

Yeah.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Who are you protecting? Who are you

Soolah:

Serving?

Maximillian Alvarez:

Not us.

Soolah:

There are tax dollars going into all of this too, that people are going to step back and go, “Wait a minute, what’s happening here? I’m putting money toward them and it’s whoever was called out here for that night.” Who knows? I don’t know. But at the end of the day, who are they protecting?

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Speaker 1:

We all are well aware that we’re not dealing with good faith actors when it comes to the people who want to build data centers.

Speaker 2:

I currently work at a data center. That doesn’t mean that I approve of data centers. Every

Speaker 3:

Every time it storms, it seems that a bunch of lights go down in the city. I’m confused why we’re even talking about a data center if we can’t keep our own lights on.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Baltimore currently has a moratorium on new data center development while a city study examines the potential impacts that data centers would have on our city. However, even though that study hasn’t been completed yet, a proposed city council bill has residents here nervous that the door is creaking open for data centers to come into the city and that city council views this as inevitable. Council Bill 260174, sponsored by city council member Felicia Porter, would require new data center projects to go through a conditional use approval process that includes a health equity assessment. Now, residents who are opposed to the bill say that the bill may be well intentioned, but what they want is a full data center ban in Baltimore, not stricter guidelines for data centers to operate in Baltimore. Now, the bill is going to get another public hearing in front of the Baltimore City Council’s Land Use and Transportation Committee on the fourth floor of City Hall on the morning of September 24th.

And that meeting is open to the public. Now, I was there in the room during the last public hearing on Council Bill 260174, which took place on August 27th when the bill was reviewed by the Baltimore City Planning Commission and residents were given a chance to voice their public comments. Now, the planning commission ultimately declined to support the bill and opposition from members of the public to data centers of any sort was frankly overwhelming, but you don’t got to take my word for it. Watch for yourself.

Andy Ellis:

We’re here at the Baltimore City Planning Commission getting ready to hear a bill that would allow data centers to come in if they had a health equity assessment into Baltimore. This happens despite the fact that we have an existing moratorium. And so we’re here today to testify against the bill because we think that the moratorium should be extended or made into a ban so that we can stop data centers from coming into the community.

Blaire Postman:

Hi, I’m Blaire from Cat Ladies for America. I’m a resident of Baltimore and I’m here today because even though there’s a moratorium on AI data centers in the city, it seems like they’re laying the groundwork for them to allow them and allow them to come in without a lot of oversight. And that makes me very angry. Claws out!

Speaker 8:

The next item is number eight, city council bill number 26-017 zoning conditional use, health equity assessment data centers.

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

I am Councilwoman Phylicia Porter and I represent Baltimore’s 10th District and chair of the Public Health and Environment Committee and bill sponsor for 26-0174. The data center industry is looking at Baltimore at the peninsula, Fairfield, Hawkins Point and other industrial areas. At the same time, the federal government is accelerating AI infrastructure development and scrutinizing state and local laws. It regards its obstacles to that development. This creates a real risk for jurisdictions relying only on a temporary moratorium without a permanent framework under development, which will face legal and economic pressure. Other jurisdictions have already quickly learned how that pressure can arrive. Hill County, Texas faced a hundred million dollars in federal lawsuit shortly after adopting its moratorium and rescinded under that pause under the weight of that litigation. This lesson is not that Baltimore should surrender its authority. This lesson is that Baltimore must exercise its authority carefully, deliberately, and now.

A moratorium alone without companion framework and process is exposed to taking legal challenges. Moving bill 26-0174 through this process, hearings, testimonies, amendments, votes itself is a part of that good faith planning effort that the Supreme Court has been requiring. Bill 26-0174 does not promote or green light data centers. It strategically and administratively blocks development at every step of the way that does not align with community. It creates public accountable process for deciding whether a qualifying data center is appropriate for a particular location and under what conditions it may process. This is the foundational right of the conditional use ordinance process. Traditional zoning asks whether proposed use is compatible with the land around it. A health equity assessment asks an equally important question, what will this decision mean for the people who already live in those conditions surrounding that land? Bill 26-0174 puts that cumulative reality into the decision making process of the city council before approval, not after residents become ill, household costs rise and public infrastructure is strained.

This is environmental justice and it’s basic due diligence.

Jon Laria:

There are maybe some questions, but it took me a while to sort of get this straight in my head, but there are only written submissions opposed to this bill by people who are opposed to data centers and so are you. Yes. So it’s kind of odd because they’re opposing a bill and I think the reason that’s happening is because most people are starting with the idea that there’s a moratorium, meaning zero data centers. And your bill provides a path, a difficult path, but a path to data centers. No,

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

That’s not correct. So it is not correct. So the study adds a legal framework attached to the moratorium right now as shared within my remarks, right now we are under a moratorium where we are legally unrestricted. We are unprotected right now under this moratorium without the conjoining health equity framework attached to it.

Jon Laria:

I’m not sure I understand.

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

Yeah. So no worries. So when you have a data center and we currently have, I will say if you have a data center that comes into the city that’s under a moratorium right now, if they sue Baltimore City, they sue Baltimore City saying this is unjust. We understand that data center developers are getting very crafty in their arguments. They’re arguing First Amendment rights. They are arguing other rights that provide them a pathway forward. We are seeing that those moratoriums are getting overturned. The successful moratoriums that have been upheld are always assigned and/or connected to a framework that allows good faith effort to showcase that they are doing some sort of regulatory footprint with that moratorium, not just saying that you want a moratorium. So that is the issue.

Jon Laria:

Okay. Although we are doing this study, I mean the moratorium is not just a moratorium. A moratorium that just says moratorium because we feel like it, I see the weakness that you’re describing, but a moratorium so we can study it seems like a defensible position.

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

It’s not because again, what was mentioned in the planning commission report was that there is a lack of health equity associated with the current moratorium. This answers that response.

Jon Laria:

But it is sort of an odd posture because I think, and people should speak for themselves, but we have all these people who are opposed to data centers and they will come and testify and they’ve submitted testimony saying no data centers because I think they see in your bill a pathway to data centers and their view is we don’t want them at all. And under the moratorium – I’m not arguing with anyone. I’m just trying to get straight because they have all these people who are going to come up and say no data centers because they perceive perhaps your bill as loosening the restrictions, which is actually not how you intend

Councilmember Phylicia Porter,:

To bill. It’s not the intent of the bill. And I will also caveat, how many data centers have an application now with the current city of Baltimore that once this moratorium goes away, if we do not have the regulatory framework in place, how many of them will be actually going through the process?

Speaker 1:

But if I’m understanding the bill correctly, basically we currently have a moratorium that is pending a health review, health study review in the findings there. And that the bill is saying we need to do something that is stricter than a review and stricter than a moratorium because a moratorium can be overturned. And basically the bill is saying we’re going to provide a path to a data center, but the path is going to be very difficult. And so the hope, I believe if I’m understanding correctly, is that with the difficulty of the path, the data center should not be able to be built unless it passes very strict scrutiny that it likely will not pass. My concern as a citizen of Baltimore is this. I understand we all know full well, we cannot legislate the hearts and minds of people. We cannot put into a bill.

We all have to be nice to each other. However, we all are well aware that we’re not dealing with good faith actors when it comes to the people who want to build data centers. We’ve already heard testimony that there are people in rooms looking, combing through every law, probably across the country with fine tooth combs to see where they can actually exploit loopholes. And my concern is a citizen of the city and someone who cares about the city, who has young people who I care about in the city, who I want them to grow up in a place with clean air, clean water, not having the sound pollution and the headaches and all the things that come with having a data center in their vicinity. My concern is that if we know that we’re dealing with bad faith actors, then is it not our responsibility as citizens and as people in government to deal with the world that we have and not the world that we want to be?

You know what I mean? Deal with the people who we know are building these, which are bad faith actors and not deal with the fantasy of, oh, well, it’s going to be really hard so people aren’t going to be able to pass the test when people are looking to do everything they can to subvert every possible obstacle to getting these built.

Speaker 2:

So I’m a longtime Baltimore resident, electrician with IBW. I’m here to speak against obviously data centers. Obviously the contradiction here is that majority of the work for the IBW right now is data centers. I currently work at a data center. That doesn’t mean that I approve of data centers. One of the things that I think that we’re all missing here is that Baltimore is a city that has suffered from de-industrialization for a long period of time. Obviously the shutdown of General Millers, the shutdown of Bethlehem Steel. What we could be talking about instead of wasting our time with this is we could be thinking about how can we generate the power that the grid demands for something like this. We could be talking about solar farms, wind generation, be talking about battery storage. If you look at PJM’s own records, they say that Baltimore and the mid-Atlantic region is at risk of rolling blackouts, as others have said, by 2028.

Obviously our grid needs investment. Our infrastructure needs investment. The city needs investment. Investment from Google Meta does not solve our issues. If we actually care about having a city that functions, we’re going to need to be thinking about where are we putting power, not where are we taking power to? It’s really just that simple. And on that topic, if we’re talking about actually maintaining a labor force, we should be talking about how do we get the young people in our city into the trades that this type of work demands by doing some type of local hire mandates, something to make sure that our young people are not just left in the wind. Roughly 25% of young black men in the city aren’t working. Why are we not talking about what we can be doing for our city? It pains me. I just see no solutions, but we’re talking about something that can help billionaires become trillionaires.

Speaker 10:

Baltimore ordered the nine month study specifically required to recommend conditional use standards for data centers, yet this bill is already establishing conditional use framework. Why not finish the study and let the evidence inform the legislation? Second, under this bill, the company seeking approval prepares the health equity assessment evaluating its project’s potential health and environmental impacts. Subjection C9 even requires that applicants to explain the compelling public interest in its own project would serve. When a company has financial stake in an outcome, relying heavily on evidence prepared by that same company creates a conflict of interest. Why isn’t this assessment independent from the applicant seeking approval? Where is the scientific independence in this process? Finally, if this legislation is truly about putting community first, where is the community process when this hearing is being held in the middle of the day? As other people have stated, my friend, she had to leave.

Many working class Baltimoreans cannot take off to participate. So we are urging that this study be completed, that we require independent assessment, give affected communities meaningful participation. Please oppose this bill and enact a ban on data centers.

Blaire Postman:

I’m a 29 year resident of Remington in Baltimore. I want to tell you about a new building that’s being built. I know this hearing is not about that, but it’s relevant. This new building is going to use more energy than Remington and Charles Village combined. It required the building of a new electric substation. It’s going to be as big as the convention center. It’s on the edge of Stony Run, ground not appropriate for such a large building requiring very deep pilings. It’s displacing animals already. There are deer on my street. For the first time in 29 years, there are deer on my street. My street is five blocks from any wooded area. Deer are walking five city blocks to come to my street to eat all my flowers. I don’t care that they’re eating my flowers because they’re hungry. This building also has a truck road.

It’s going to result in this destruction of over a hundred trees. There was strong community opposition to this building. We were told that this building would not be a data center. I personally don’t know if it’s a data center. The amount of power it’s using, the size of it makes me wonder. So I have some questions. How did this happen? What’s the definition of a data center? And I just want to say that’s why I want to ban. I don’t believe this is a legal issue. I believe it’s a trust issue. There are bad actors. The megas of the world are bad actors and often our representatives do not support us. Odette supported our community. We voiced our opposition and yet Zeke Cohen voted for this and said data centers are inevitable and we need them.

Speaker 11:

I want to also remind everybody that people in Baltimore City, many, many are living on the edge. They’re living week to week. They’re living month to month already. Now, data centers are needed for AI. So you have AI and data centers working together. For some reason, we’re rushing into unregulated, unplanned black box of technology. I don’t know why, except I think it’s the investors who are creating this, creating this need and creating this bubble. So we have people, regular people striving to just get by. AI on the one hand is displacing jobs. It has displaced jobs. Everybody involved in AI says it’s going to massively destroy jobs. Sam Altman bragged about it. On the other hand, we have data centers which have raised utility rates for people around the city. As they’re built, they will raise more utility rates. Now we have people who are barely getting by.

What happens to them?

Speaker 3:

I love Baltimore. It’s a fantastic city. Fell in love here. We’ll have lots of friends and I’m connected to a lot of local art communities. It’s an important city to me and everyone in this room. And I say that because there’s a lot of conversations going on about water, about power. Every time it storms, it seems that a bunch of lights go down in the city. I’m confused why we’re even talking about a data center if we can’t keep our own lights on. I see streets and potholes all over the place and I would really like Baltimore to be a city that is ready for something like a data center. And to be clear, I want a ban on data centers.

But if I’m looking at the infrastructure we currently have just to support homes, just to support me, just to support my friends and family using regular water, I turn the heat down on my water heater. I’m doing what I can to try to make sure that I’m a good citizen in a drought, in a moment of contention. So I am asking council to put a ban on data centers, period, until we deal with potholes, until I can drive my car and not worry about it, period, until we can deal with power outages after storms, until we can make sure that all of our neighbors have access to grocery stores that are healthy for them in their local neighborhoods.

Speaker 12:

I’m a longtime participant in Baltimore’s professional filmmaking community. I’m also a longtime member of IATSE Local 487. So I think I’ll kind of address my concerns in terms of in sort of a cinematic fashion with a metaphor of sorts. When I think of the evolution of data centers as a topic of debate in the public consciousness, I can’t help but think of vampires as a metaphor for what they offer, both in how they mystify the impressionable and how they have the power to leach resources and destroy communities. When I look at this bill, it almost feels like they’re saying, “Hey, vampires want to come to Baltimore. We want to lay the groundwork to only allow the right vampires to come into the city. Vampires are risky. We want to make sure we know what a vampire is and then we want to make sure we get the old money vampires who have accumulated their wealth over hundreds of years and only bite certain kinds of people, maybe vampires that’ll make some of us super hot and young forever.

We want the best vampires for the community.” I don’t think I’m alone when I think of that and I go, “What if we just did no vampires?

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to Rattling the Bars. I’m your host Mansa Musa. Today I’m joined by Lance Grandpre, political commentator with Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, to discuss his recent article for Baltimore Times, “The Dangers of ‘Law and Order’ Leftism—Toward a Black Power Public Safety.” Thank you for joining me, Lance.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Thank you for having me.

Mansa Musa:

Alright, so let’s start like this here. At one point we had in 2020 where you had a push for the abolishment of prisons and to dismantle the police system as we see it during that period. But immediately you had a pushback and the pushback came in the form of saying that this was woke. Now we look at the United States and mass incarceration, armed policing, and you juxtapose that with the lack of funds for healthcare, lack of funds for education and lack of funds for housing and the fact that the criminal injustice system is in itself painful when it comes to poor and oppressed people, mainly people of color. Let’s start with your article.

Lawrence Grandpre:

So this article stems out of a protest I went to because sometimes people say if you talk about police reform or defunding police, you don’t care about victims. And this protest was the opposite. This was a Black elder, a former member of the Baltimore Black Panther Party who was assaulted by many teenagers and it was caught on film. So of course Fox News, our local Fox News is showing this over and over again saying, “Lock them up, what’s wrong with these kids?” And these were community advocates, many of them women, Queen Mother Victorious who lost her son to gun violence, Mama Gwen, who was formerly incarcerated, coming together with community and saying these young people, what they did was a problem, not because it just violated the law, because it violated our community respect for elders. And we don’t want to just throw the cops at these kids and throw away the book, but if people know who these young people are, turn them into us, the Black community, so we can make sure that they are held accountable but not railroaded by the criminal legal system.

And I though the sophistication and intelligence of that response and even Baba Ade, the elder who was hurt, saying the Black Panther’s argument was that capitalism and racism breed criminality in the community.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And it’s not for us as the vanguard to educate ourselves and use political consciousness to eliminate criminality, not just from a material standpoint, but from a psycho-spiritual standpoint. And it was really interesting because this was a few days after AOC went on the news and said, “Nobody’s talking about defund anymore. Woke 1.0 was crazy.” So it was really interesting that the people who were supposed to be talking about social justice, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, some of these other so-called leftists,

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Even they were saying, “Defund—that was just people on Twitter trying to look woke. Nobody really talks about defund in real life.” And these Black elders, Black people in West Baltimore, were saying things like, “We have a $700 million police budget in Baltimore. How are we going to have that and schools and investments in the Black youth?” So these Black people who the left is telling us are conservative are actually more progressive than the DSA.

And I thought that was very telling that, in this moment, going into the midterms, there are these leftist democratic socialists who are trying to get elected, and because they want to get elected, they want to push away from radical rhetoric because they think it’s turning off voters. And I think that that goes to show you that when it comes to Black people, we need to have our own vision of public safety, because what’s being offered by even the left, the Democratic Socialists, is willing to push our issues aside, because they have a misunderstanding of our issues. They think it’s just a bunch of radicals on Twitter as opposed to Black folks been talking about Defund since the ’50s. And our visions of Defund are very different than what you saw on Twitter in 2020, but these folks wouldn’t know that.

Mansa Musa:

So how do you see the DSA in terms of how they look at the budget, just police budget and the fact that it’s undercutting the services of the very people they supposed to be representing?

Lawrence Grandpre:

It’s interesting because I think if you are a democratic socialist, it’s obvious you believe police are a tool to protect capitalism. So a world where if you’re a socialist, the idea that you wouldn’t talk about [how] protecting capitalism getting more money is a problem for you—it’s weird.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

But these folks are a particular brand of socialist. Many of them were very much pro-Bernie Sanders. So when Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris used conversations about identity to attack Bernie, now a lot of these folks see all conversations about race as just distraction from class issues.

So, even when Black people talk about police, they say, “Well, it’s not serious. No one really talks about Defund. So you’re really just trying to attack the socialist candidates.” And it’s like, no, Black folks have been the community control of the police platform.

It wasn’t just invented by the Black Panther Party. It was talked about by Black activists in the ’40s and ’50s, in part because the understanding that if the police were seen as a solution to all social problems… it’s not just police, it’s police-ism: the idea that policing is the only solution to the problems facing all poor people, but especially Black poor people, that’s going to push money away from all the other programs we need in the Black community. So Black folks have been saying that, really, since the Northern migration.

So when we talk about community control of the police, part of that is having community control boards control the police themselves, hold them accountable. And we’ve worked on that as LBS, but it’s also community control of the institutions that produce public safety beyond police. So, housing, addiction, education. I mean, I love to point out that Bobby Seal, he was in AmeriCorps before he was a Panther. So he would be shooting dice with the Black kids trying to school them on AmeriCorps’ time. And part of his frustration is these nonprofits don’t let us actually do the training we need to do with these youth, but we got to get the money from the nonprofit because that’s the only job we got. So even the Black Panthers program was a push for Black control of resources to socialize our youth, specifically around things like violence prevention. And again, the idea that all of that is just under this large framework of “woke”… And again, the right wing hates woke, we know that, but even some of the Bernie folks—they really hate “woke,” because they associate it with the attacks on Bernie and they see all conversations about police as woke.

Mansa Musa:

Let’s unpack some more about DSA because we see upheaval of DSA type activity and we see in terms of midterm elections, some of the candidates that ran on DSA platform have made it through the primary. And so at the same token, what is their appeal? Because they vacillating when it come to social issues.

Lawrence Grandpre:

The federal government, in theory, can print money. So there’s this belief that if we just spent more money, things will get better, and the Democrats have been afraid to spend money. I think that in the DSA, it’s like, “Let’s really focus on, in theory, cut the military budget, invest in community through things like Medicare for Al”l. Now, if you don’t have the integrity to stand up for “Defund the Police,” why do you think we would believe that you have the integrity to stand up to “Cut the Military Budget? If you don’t see the connections between the violence of policing and the violence of militarism, why would we expect you to be able to push the military budget to community?” 

Lawrence Grandpre:

These are intelligent, college-educated voters who feel like the government needs to spend more money, in part, because it’s a job program for people like them. So they have an interest in fighting the austerity of the Democratic Party, in part, because they want to see conditions improve for the community, but also in part because it’s a business model for the voters of DSA. And that’s a big concern for us, because even with Medicare for All, there’s no world in which healthcare should be a for-profit enterprise. But it’s not just that doctors are racist. When you look at things like Black women get more cesarean sections than other women, So, literally, they’re getting cut open in these dangerous surgeries. Black women, if you have a child in the hospital, you are going to get a drug test. And even if you pop for that drug test from the epidural, the drugs they give you for the pain, they might take your kid away. So engagements with the medical system are not just imperfect for Black people; they are places of surveillance and violence.

So we, as Black people, need systems like a birthing center, like nutrition, upstream investments that are different than what the DSA crowd cares about. So the idea that we should just accept not talking about Defund to get Medicare for All ignores the fact that Black people—we don’t just need healthcare to not give us a bill. We need to change the vision of healthcare so we control it. And the DSA is not interested in that. They don’t really think that way. And they honestly believe the only way anything will get passed if it goes to everybody. Universal programs prevent racial backlash. Because we know any spending in America is seen as giving money to welfare queens. So we just got to give the same thing to everybody and that’ll deal with racial backlash.

And what we know is anything you do that gives out any tax money will deal with racial backlash, but also do things that don’t give Black people the power we need to build for ourselves. It will just put us in systems that really are built by other people that, even if it’s good for them, can often be violent for us.

Lawrence Grandpre:

But I think that, again, when you have a class-based vision of the world, that has become in some ways hostile to thinking about race because you had negative experiences with people weaponizing race against people like Bernie Sanders. You’re not thinking about what a political agenda would look like when you actually invest in… because we should do both. We should have a class-based redistribution of wealth, but that restribution should also be invested in community institutions that reflect the culture and history of specific communities, not just Medicare for All, but clinics that use the history and culture of the community to provide that healthcare. Nutrition that reflects the culture and the way communities like to be fed so that they can have upstream nutrition so they don’t need to go to the doctor in the first place.

These things should go hand in hand. And I think it’s concerning that it feels like, because DSA is becoming electorally viable in some spaces, that [they] only talk about affordability issues, only talk about Medicare for all, only talk about ending the war in Iran, without really thinking intelligently about a platform that would meet people’s needs for community control of public safety, broadly defined. So not just policing, but again, youth programming, schooling, getting nutrition. Our kids are literally hungry.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Lawrence Grandpre:

They’re fed junk food, but they’re undernourished. So we actually do have serious nutritional needs as we have obesity in the inner city. So what does it look like to build a food sovereignty ecosystem, whether it’s Black Yield, Black Church Food Security Network that can actually feed ourselves as opposed to just the DSA, it’s like, well just make sure they get food stamps. And food stamps are cool, but food stamps are not the vision of liberation for us.

Mansa Musa:

But talk about, because when we look at DSA, and it’s misnomer even to use the name socialist because when you look at. We got examples in Cuba and when they first took over, the literacy rate in the countryside was 90%. 90% of the people could not read or write. They organized, it’s a book out called Vincent Ramos. We were trying, that’s the name of it. And they organized all the college kids, all the intelligence and made them go in the countryside and stay to educate the people, to get them to read and write.

They didn’t say, “Oh, we’re going to create a system where they can come out the country, live in a project style housing dwelling and get them public schools that’s not going to teach them nothing.” They actually educated the people and a lot of that education led to what we see today in Cuba, got best medical, despite all the things going on. So when we talk about DSA, and I think this is a danger, and maybe you want to weigh in on it. I think it’s a danger that confronts that notion that this is a socialist party and because the right wing is going to put them right in the category like communists and they can resurrect that notion.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Socialism, to me, the key word is social. You either have the market making decisions about planning for the world or you have people doing it socially. It’s clearly better to do it socially, but there are divisions within that larger social body. And my concern is that even amongst some of the people in the DSA crowd, the leftists, some of the visions of what they would socially plan may like and lean on policing partially because they are afraid of being looked at as communist. So they might, for example, even in very, very progressive Bernie Crat, DSA San Francisco, there’s this push to, well, we got people homeless, they have mental illness. So they as individuals may not be rational, so we are going to use policing to bring them into drug treatment.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And again, this is like even Bernie people sometimes say this. So there are elements of even the less progressive mindset that are like, we as a society can’t let you be out here damn bad. We have to help you lift yourself up. And if that means we have to involuntarily commit you to treatment, and if we have to use police to do that, then we’ll do that. While one thing that we talk about here in Baltimore is, and Baltimore’s been a heroin town since the 60s and 70s. And it’s been really hard for us, but we’ve also had systems of informal community care that have been designed to address some of the worst exigencies of drug abuse. Nika Namdi from a program called Fight Light said that grandma’s basement was the first halfway house. We had systems where elders, you would be able to stay with family and you would be able to get certain stabilizing influences through your social network so you wouldn’t be out on the streets.

So in that worldview, we would look at something like making sure these abandoned homes get rehabbed and given to Black people in community. That’s partially an anti-homelessness effort.

That’s an anti-addiction effort. That’s a crime fighting effort. So it’s not just social housing, it’s not just public housing. It’s also making sure that Black people in communities can pass down their family homes

And they have a way to make sure that they’re affordable so they can stay housed because that produces capacities for people who do suffer from addiction to not be on the streets committing crime. And again, the DSA vision is so limited to what they see and what they know, they sometimes end up using police where it’s like, if we just had networks of people in community that could care for each other, we wouldn’t need police for that. But I also do think folks are afraid. I know academics are very afraid and some folks are afraid of looking too radical, looking like the rhetoric of 2020 was burn down the police station.

Mansa Musa:

And

Lawrence Grandpre:

I think that’s also part of what they want to distance from when they talk about we not doing defund no

Mansa Musa:

More. Part

Lawrence Grandpre:

Of it is the direct antagonism with the state, the cost of that has increased for them. What we know is that the cost is high for us, whether we’re openly antagonistic or not, we are politically antagonistic by making demands upon the state to recognize our humanity. So we’ve always had to deal with that potential backlash. And I think now for some folks they’re saying, oh, I can’t use that. We’re not trying to do that radical rhetoric no more

Mansa Musa:

Because

Lawrence Grandpre:

People are losing jobs, people are potentially getting deported. So it’s like the ’70s, marginally away from the rhetoric of the ’60s and leaving the Black radicals out to dry after the draft ended. I think the white radicals moved away from radicalism and that we’re seeing a similar

Mansa Musa:

Dynamic. Okay, but we know that this is the 60th year of the anniversary of the Black Panther Party. And I was talking to somebody about just like we’re not anti-police. The party wasn’t anti-police. One of the things they did, one initiative they took was, and this is a revolutionary suicide by Huey Newton, where they had this particular intersection that didn’t have no stoplight and it was in the Black community and kids was getting hit. So somebody came and said, “Man, they not doing nothing about this. We’ve been complaining.” So they went down there and became traffic guards, the members of the Black Panther Party. They held up the traffic, let the kids walk by, you know what I’m saying? And this is what they did. And they had guns with them because they had one part of their program was policing the police. The police in turn came and told them they stop.

Now you guys stop this. They said, “Well, we’ll stop this when y’all put a traffic light up there or y’all stop directing traffic. We don’t care which one you’re going to do, but you do or we going to continue to do.” They wind up putting the traffic light up there. So in terms of that particular example, what are the core aspects of the Black Power Public Safety?

Lawrence Grandpre:

I like your example because the party was a little bit different in different cities, but I think one thing that stands out to me is that they had questions about police, but the Black Panthers in some ways were law and order. It was law and order within the party. You cannot show up high, very much about discipline, law and order in the community. If you’re selling drugs, if you’re a parasite in our community, we’re going to deal with you. And I think that’s a perception, because this is something that happened in 2020, that there were white leftists being like, “Let’s just run wild and be anarchist and burn stuff down.” It’s always been Black people that’s been like, “We’re not doing that.” So the idea that somehow that is tied to Black issues, no, we’ve always been extremely serious about our liberation.

So when the Black Panther Party talks about doing a plebiscite in order to get Black sovereignty, I think that’s an example of why we need to think about community control of the police in terms of we have in Maryland, substantial police reform is nowhere near enough, but we need to have the ability for the community to have investigative power to be able to investigate police. We need to have community resources to be able to flow to community institutions so the community decides who’s doing public safety in that community. So when we talk about who’s funded to do violence prevention work, it shouldn’t just be the people who are tied into the police or the people that are tied into the nonprofit world. We got tons of people in community that have been doing work that have not

Mansa Musa:

Been funded.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And the fact that they are getting a little bit of money now, I think is part of why we’re seeing these unprecedented declines in violent crime. So Black power public safety isn’t just people getting grants. It is the community having the power to determine what the grant making criteria are. It’s the community being able to tax institutions in their community that they see as producing crime. And by that I mean Johns Hopkins. That’s

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Because Johns Hopkins gentrified the whole area of the

Mansa Musa:

City. The big colonial king in Baltimore.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And when you gentrify a whole part of the city, you’re moving people to different hoods and that creates a lot of possibility for conflict. My father was a cop for 20 years, so he talked about East Baltimore used to be called the country club because it was so quiet up there. But when Hopkins gentrified all those people out of the Middle East Baltimore, a lot of them moved to Northeast, which creates a ton of conflict, pretty much increased the murder rate in that part of the city. Hopkins should have to pay for that. They got a $13 billion endowment. So Black Power Public Safety is about us not tying in our future to gentrification, which is what the police really are a tool for. They’re a tool to produce gentrification. That’s good for that business model because gentrification needs policing.

Mansa Musa:

We

Lawrence Grandpre:

Should be able to put tax on the gentrifier so we can secure our communities so they can’t gentrify them, own our own property, stabilize our communities, but then invest in the capacity to take care of our youth, to do violence prevention, to take care of our health. All the things they stripped from us, they should have to pay us to be able to do for ourselves. In that world, I think we would have Black Power

Mansa Musa:

Public Safety. Right. And that’s basically what the Black Panther Party was doing because they had the survival program. Exactly. And the concept was Survival Pending Revolution. The Survival Program wasn’t like us being in a basement, taking guns apart in the dark with blindfolds, then putting them back together, making bombs, reading Ann Archer’s cookbook. No, survival program was the free breakfast program, free medical, sickle cell anemia, taking prison families to prison to visit them, alternative education. This was a survival program, survival pending revolution. And what the goal was, going back to your point, the goal was to stabilize the community for self to be able to be self-determined. So if I’m self-determined, I got self-determination. A great example for Baltimore would be the Clean Block because when they had Clean. And I remember I was locked up and I used to read the Afro. Afro had a big thing about Clean.

The sense of community that came out of that, the Clean Block, when they was able to say, “We recognizing this neighborhood for Clean Block.” But more importantly, that neighborhood not only had a clean block, but that neighborhood had policing. That neighborhood had a sense of identity that if I seen you, I know you Meryl’s son or Meryl’s daughter. I know you Tommy’s son or Tommy’s daughter. You know me and you know that if I see you doing something that you ain’t supposed to be doing, then I’m going to tell your parents the minute you see me, you’re going to alter your behavior because that became the sense of community. But like you say, once Hopkins got in the equation, and not only Hopkins, I remember when Shafer started when he did the Inner Harbor and they started pushing people out of certain areas in order to get to Inner Harbor and they pushed people into.

Either they pushed them out into the county or they pushed them into the interior of Baltimore in neighborhoods they wasn’t familiar with or neighborhoods they was familiar with and had issues with and would automatically create a conflict. But talk about how do you see, because what you just outlined is in fact a model that is one, inexpensive because it becomes self-contained. So the monies that you’re putting towards astronomical police budget can go towards stabilizing some of the projects that deal with housing, deal with substance, the people that’s actually doing the work.Like you say, you got people that actually going around taking people and putting them in a place and letting them drown. So we talk about how you see DSA and the gains that they’re getting and the models they’re using. How do they fit into this narrative? Are they rewriting the script and say they’re going to invest in this type of thinking or their model is, like you said earlier, we creating a cadre of intelligent people that can grant write and that’s going to become our funding source and not only our funding source, but create an infrastructure for doing case studies and then marketing these case studies, the new Jim Crow.

Lawrence Grandpre:

Yeah. I think it’s to be determined. We’re going to see a huge increase in DSA affiliated leftist people in Congress. Now, whether they’re going to be able to write bills, whether they’re just going to vote on stuff that comes from the Republicans, we’re going to see. I think the real test is going to be 2028 when it’s possible the Democrats will take the White House, Senate and the Congress. So it’s really going to be important for us these next two years for people that believe in the possibility of these folks doing good to push them. What is your actual proposal on how you can use the power of the federal government to enhance the ability of people On the ground locally to have more ownership and power and control over the institutions that impact their lives. Because policing is a state and local issue. Feds actually have relatively little control

Mansa Musa:

Over it,

Lawrence Grandpre:

Except given a few grants here or there. So really it is, do you have a vision for whether it’s through food sovereignty policy, whether it’s through manufacturing policy? The metric for us at least is again, local self-determination and the ability for local people on the ground to own the institutions that are doing this work. I think part of even going back to the New Deal, the frustration with these progressives is that sometimes they do these top down technocratic re-imaginings of what solutions look like that don’t involve community. Mamdani, people have called him a technocratic socialist.

Mansa Musa:

And

Lawrence Grandpre:

I think that’s not on some right wing stuff, but that’s scary from a Black power

Mansa Musa:

Perspective

Lawrence Grandpre:

Because technocracy oftentimes views Black peoples as widgets and inputs in someone else’s equation for progress and liberation. And I think part of the value of the Black Panther Party is they called themselves socialist, but in many places, in many ways they were also Pan-Africanist and Black nationalists. And they were combining them all to say that, yes, we will fight capitalism, but we will not just make the people this abstract proletariat to fit within a Eurocentric version

Mansa Musa:

Of

Lawrence Grandpre:

What a class centric revolution will look like. We are going to lead our people on our vision of what we think fighting capitalism looks like. And again, I think it’s going to be our job to force the DSA to not see that as woke, to actually recognize that that is just what black people demand. And that’s the cost of us being in political coalition is you respecting our self-determination.

Mansa Musa:

And I agree it’s to be determined because one, you gain electoral office through coalition building. That’s really where it come out of. And you’re able to get a common identity out of the coalition, common identity being what we want change, the change that we want to see. Harold Washington in Chicago, he was successful at building a coalition. And to his credit, he tried to maintain the standard, but they fought him tooth and nail at the state government. So he wasn’t able to get a lot of things done. But the fact of the matter, what we’re asking or we’re talking about is not really hypothetical because we see this in Europe and we see examples where police don’t have guns. They call in, if it’s a violent situation where a gun, they got a unit that comes in to deal with that. But outright, the police walk around with no weapons because the lack of fear towards the society.

Lawrence Grandpre:

You mentioned New Zealand, I think in that as

Mansa Musa:

Well.

Lawrence Grandpre:

But in New Zealand as well, the Aboriginal communities actually have really pushed a model for youth justice that places tribal elders and tribal institutions at the heart of restorative justice programming

Mansa Musa:

For

Lawrence Grandpre:

Youth who are engaged in acts of criminality. And so that’s been a big fight for Aboriginals in New Zealand and Australia to really demand tribal sovereignty over their youth as opposed to putting them into the juvenile justice system.

Mansa Musa:

But

Lawrence Grandpre:

Again, given the legacy of the private schools where they beat the Indian out of you and stuff like that. And again, I think it’s jarring for white people to think that we as black people are asking for something similar here in America because the joke is white people are so settled in America, they don’t even see themselves settler colonists no

Mansa Musa:

More.

Lawrence Grandpre:

And I think unfortunately that’s part of what’ happened with the DSA. It’s like the idea of black sovereignty is just jarring to them in a way that you’re an Australian, you know you took over Australia and there are people here that are really dark skinned, you’re not.

Mansa Musa:

But

Lawrence Grandpre:

I think in America, that basic concept of having to negotiate with people who have their own sovereign agendas is not something that they’re used to conceiving as anything other than a tool for the centrist to undermine the Bernie’s of the world.

Mansa Musa:

And

Lawrence Grandpre:

I just think the reality is if DSA is going to get Black support, it’s going to really have to reckon with the visions of the world that come from Black people, including our visions of public safety.

Mansa Musa:

Right. And before we close, you got any closing remarks?

Lawrence Grandpre:

I really appreciate this. Please check out our podcasts and search of Black Power and Political Commentary Corner. So those are on YouTube. Check us out at lbsbaltimore.com. We have all of our email updates about the work we’re doing in Annapolis to push criminal justice policy, reparations policy, which

Mansa Musa:

I’ve

Lawrence Grandpre:

Never seen DSA has been skeptical on, but we’re very adamant about its practical utility as a framework to invest in Black sovereignty here in Maryland. And you can find me on any social media at Neil Nubian, N-E, the number zero, Nubian, N-U-B-I-A-N. Right.

Mansa Musa:

And we ask our audience to really take deep thought on this particular subject matter. It’s not like say it loud, I’m Black and I’m proud. It’s not when Stokley Carmichael in the ’60s, they called Black Power, James Brown, Song and Song. We’re not in that state. We’re not trying to go back into that state of mind, that conditions created that state of mind. We’re talking about an analysis of having Black political power as it relates to our safety. We’re talking about because we’re the ones that’s unsafe, we’re the ones that this astronomical budget is being doled out to, to make us feel unsafe, to lock us up. Then we believe, as the brother was talking about Lawrence, that we believe that we have a right to define what is safe for us and what is not safe for us. And making that definition or defining that, we see the necessity to make an analysis and implement it.

And in this case, this is an analysis that we want to, I think the Gullah Geechee in South Carolina got a thing where they do restorative justice. And so the fact that you infringe on the community, that they might not put you out the community, but they’re going to put you in such a shameful state of mind and the fear of what you’re getting ready to lose or make you get the person to come back or people come back and lie in accordance with the social system that they set up. We ask that you continue to support the real news and rattling bars because guess what? We’re actually the real news. Thank you.