Up until now these crazy cases have been rejected by the courts. But this feels like a crack in the dam. A judge actually sentenced someone to 30 years for hiding zines, zines that had been published for years. This was under the pretense hiding those zines was hiding evidence of criminality. And the criminality was worth 75 years. For someone who was at a protest where a federal agent was shot, but was not the shooter.
Does anyone have a link to details on the case because there must have been more details, like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, because otherwise this seems insane. It seems insane no matter what, but if this was a judge making a bunch of logical leaps while guided by DOJ lawyers, something is really broken
I think all of this hinges on whether or not you think it was a protest. If they had been peacefully sitting outside the facility holding signs, I think you'd have a case that the sentencing is insane. But if they were actively planning a break-in & preparing to use deadly force, that's quite another matter. I haven't spent a lot of timing reading about it, but what I have read suggests it was much closer to the latter.
If you think that this was a protest then yeah it's worrying.
The feds case, which they did win convictions based on, was that they were terrorists who set off fireworks to lure police into an ambush, and there weren't more casualties because one of the members shot early and only injured one cop. An accessory to this who hid evidence is also part of the crime in the Feds case
Is this embellished by the Feds? I think so, it seems some of the group did not think this was the plan. But there did seem to be a plan and it did involve bringing guns, setting off fireworks, opening the gate and trying to break out the prisoners, and "not going quietly"
That case, the incredibly bad handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco put a real freeze on the FBI dealing with domestic terrorism, and then the focus moved outward with 9/11.
But now "domestic terrorism" is priority number 1. Enjoy your choices folks.
It's pretty straightforward that if someone tells you to hide something because they've been arrested and they think it ties them to some criminal act, and then you hide it, you're an accessory to the crime. 30 years for that seems harsh though I anticipate they will be pardoned by the next Democratic Party President.
Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's partisan text and likely misrepresents other things. Listen, we've all been on the Internet a few decades. This kind of understatement of things is not new to any of us. "Oh so just because your country thinks it's not a big deal for someone to go to America to fly a plane means it should get bombed?" No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC and subsequent sheltering of the guy who planned it that does that.
The writing on the wall is pretty clear now: Undoing Trump-policies and Trump-legacy should be priority for any potential presidential dem candidate, no mater how center or left leaning.
I don't think we'll get a Ocasio-Cortez type front runner, but I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either.
If there is one thing the Trump 47 presidency has shown, it is that traditional decorum will not get you anywhere. It is the reason the Trump investigation didn't end up with anything - Biden and the DOJ were too fixated on decorum, and doing things as impartially as possible.
The Prairieland case is a direct product of Trump. They are terrorists because Trump has designated them as terrorists.
I would love to see a detailed comparison of everyone who comments on this issue vs their comments on the age verification issue. For the latter, people bend over backwards to make it a free speech issue yet so many bend over backwards on this issue to argue this 30 year sentence was good actually because they were an accessory to domestic terrorism.
My hypothesis is that these two groups are mostly the same people.
Tad Stoermer, lecturer on American history and author of A Resistance History of the United States summed this up [1]. The person in question here wasn't even at the event. They moved a box of publications and from all this the Federal government created an domestic terrorist organization out of whole cloth (ie Antifa).
What people seem to refuse to accept is that "terrorist" is a political designation, nothing more. It's basically saying "we don't like this person or organization". Were the standards of today around in the 1960s, every civil rights organization would've been labelled domestic terrorists.
The comparisons to January 6 are apt because that was an attempted coup in which people died. The harshest sentences were Enrique Tarrio (ringleader, 22 years), Stewart Rhodes (seditious conspiracy, 18 years) and Ethan Nordean (seditious conspiracy, 18 years). All pardoned by the way.
Yet the people who want to defend 30 years for moving a box of zines by someone who wasn't at the event is astounding.
The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation being sought under a federal warrant after being called by his wife and asking him to do so. The warrant was for documentation after the protesters shot fireworks to bring out first responders from the ICE facility, and allegedly one of the group shot a responder in the neck instead of the head.
A lot of stuff to scrutinize and complain about in the sentence, but it wasn't just "transporting Zines"
There are murderers who get shorter sentences. This is a clear attempt to discourage ICE protests by using the label "Antifa" as some sort of left-wing terrorist organization to send a message as the Trump appointed judge stated.
I don't approve of the violence apparently planned and carried out by these people, even though their cause was seemingly just.
However, we can't afford to let the government's position dictate the particulars of all the facts here.
The theory that the fireworks were lit to "bring out first responders" is just that - a theory, from the government's lawyers.
The undisputed facts are that these people were working to disrupt an ICE facility, which is to say a facility of a lawless, criminal organization which, given its placement entirely outside any constitutional limitations, renders it, at least at a moral/ethical layer, ineligible for any sort of civic protections of its property or activities. A third party, who was employed by a police department, then aimed a firearm at these people, and one of them fired, in apparent self-defense at this person who was training a firearm on them. Again, I hate that they shot this dude who was just going his job. But it's certainly not tantamount to attempting a premeditated mruder.
All of this 'moving zines' business is downstream of this basic fact pattern. I'm not willing to buy the government's advocacy that this was a crime to society in the first place, so I certainly don't have any ruffled feathers about moving zines.
When the state brings its lawless armed kidnappers to heel and follows its own rules with the unrelenting strictness befitting a nation of laws and not of men, then we can talk about whether those same laws can be applied to persons attempting to disrupt its activities.
If this was an incident in Europe, comments like this would be talking about how clearly the state is corrupt, it’s account cannot be trusted, and obviously civilisation is collapsing because free speech outside of the US is dead. “You can be arrested for zines!”
Inside the US though? No, clearly the state’s account is definitely accurate, the citizen is obviously guilty, it’s not only correct they are being jailed it is actually good, free speech - oh it’s not relevant because they committed unrelated crimes (we’re told. By the state’s account).
US propaganda/copaganda on its own citizens really is something else to behold
- The group was designated as "Antifa cell", and thus this became a terrorist and aiding terrorism charges.
- The judge went above and beyond to hand out harsh punishments. There's been commentary from previous state prosecutors that the sentences, and how they were carried out, were much harsher than predicted. The speculation was that these sentences are being handed out to be served consecutively, not concurrently.
Would not surprise me if some of them could be appealed as "cruel and unusual punishments" / 8th amendment.
> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation being sought under a federal warrant
Can you cite a source to support the claim that the stuff he transported was being sought under a federal warrant at the time he transported it? And is there documentation showing that he was aware of the warrant?
My understanding is that aiding and abetting has to be causal and happen before the alleged crime. That doesn't seem to line up with the timeline of this case (barring the existence of secret Antifa time machines)
Freedom of speech is absolute. It doesn't matter what the government thinks of the situation. It isn't a "crime" to move publications, even if the police think that.
It's sickening how this could even possibly happen.
This judge has a very high rate of overturned rulings, and reliably rules for conservative causes.
Prosecutors openly acknowledge strategically filing cases in his court for conservative causes.
It isn't a mistake that he was the judge here, and there is a very good chance the sentences will be overturned if not entire cases.
Of course, that doesn't matter to these defendants, some of whom probably do deserve punishment for what they did, and all of whom will suffer through years of appeals, stress, etc. because some prosecutor wanted to make their career on a big case, and will have moved on years before this is all resolved.
In short, the case was made for headlines, and after putting the defendants through hell, appeals will invalidate most of those headlines after incurring great expense on behalf of the taxpayers and defendants.
A lot of people in these Hacker News comments are accepting the framing that moving the zines is evidence tampering and therefore deserves a 30 year sentence. What crime are zines evidence of?
Insane charges, insane justifications, and judging by the comments in this thread, I feel insane for having ever believed in the myth of the "decent conservative".
77 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 82.8 ms ] threadDoes anyone have a link to details on the case because there must have been more details, like these two were accused of planning a murder in advance, because otherwise this seems insane. It seems insane no matter what, but if this was a judge making a bunch of logical leaps while guided by DOJ lawyers, something is really broken
The feds case, which they did win convictions based on, was that they were terrorists who set off fireworks to lure police into an ambush, and there weren't more casualties because one of the members shot early and only injured one cop. An accessory to this who hid evidence is also part of the crime in the Feds case
Is this embellished by the Feds? I think so, it seems some of the group did not think this was the plan. But there did seem to be a plan and it did involve bringing guns, setting off fireworks, opening the gate and trying to break out the prisoners, and "not going quietly"
The 30 years is for evidence tampering. The rest have been convicted of various terrorist charges. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
It's really funny because all of this has played out in the past with people that actually conspired to do all that and more and walked away free. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Smith_sedition_trial
That case, the incredibly bad handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco put a real freeze on the FBI dealing with domestic terrorism, and then the focus moved outward with 9/11.
But now "domestic terrorism" is priority number 1. Enjoy your choices folks.
Apparently Marxist film reviews and gardening tips are more criminal than child pornography
Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's partisan text and likely misrepresents other things. Listen, we've all been on the Internet a few decades. This kind of understatement of things is not new to any of us. "Oh so just because your country thinks it's not a big deal for someone to go to America to fly a plane means it should get bombed?" No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC and subsequent sheltering of the guy who planned it that does that.
I really doubt it.
I don't think we'll get a Ocasio-Cortez type front runner, but I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either.
If there is one thing the Trump 47 presidency has shown, it is that traditional decorum will not get you anywhere. It is the reason the Trump investigation didn't end up with anything - Biden and the DOJ were too fixated on decorum, and doing things as impartially as possible.
The Prairieland case is a direct product of Trump. They are terrorists because Trump has designated them as terrorists.
My hypothesis is that these two groups are mostly the same people.
Tad Stoermer, lecturer on American history and author of A Resistance History of the United States summed this up [1]. The person in question here wasn't even at the event. They moved a box of publications and from all this the Federal government created an domestic terrorist organization out of whole cloth (ie Antifa).
What people seem to refuse to accept is that "terrorist" is a political designation, nothing more. It's basically saying "we don't like this person or organization". Were the standards of today around in the 1960s, every civil rights organization would've been labelled domestic terrorists.
The comparisons to January 6 are apt because that was an attempted coup in which people died. The harshest sentences were Enrique Tarrio (ringleader, 22 years), Stewart Rhodes (seditious conspiracy, 18 years) and Ethan Nordean (seditious conspiracy, 18 years). All pardoned by the way.
Yet the people who want to defend 30 years for moving a box of zines by someone who wasn't at the event is astounding.
[1]: https://www.tiktok.com/@tadstoermer/video/765517473106636316...
Texas man sentenced to 30 years for transporting pamphlets
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48659703
Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48649884
The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation being sought under a federal warrant after being called by his wife and asking him to do so. The warrant was for documentation after the protesters shot fireworks to bring out first responders from the ICE facility, and allegedly one of the group shot a responder in the neck instead of the head.
A lot of stuff to scrutinize and complain about in the sentence, but it wasn't just "transporting Zines"
This case is crazy, but it's not insane for free speech reasons.
However, we can't afford to let the government's position dictate the particulars of all the facts here.
The theory that the fireworks were lit to "bring out first responders" is just that - a theory, from the government's lawyers.
The undisputed facts are that these people were working to disrupt an ICE facility, which is to say a facility of a lawless, criminal organization which, given its placement entirely outside any constitutional limitations, renders it, at least at a moral/ethical layer, ineligible for any sort of civic protections of its property or activities. A third party, who was employed by a police department, then aimed a firearm at these people, and one of them fired, in apparent self-defense at this person who was training a firearm on them. Again, I hate that they shot this dude who was just going his job. But it's certainly not tantamount to attempting a premeditated mruder.
All of this 'moving zines' business is downstream of this basic fact pattern. I'm not willing to buy the government's advocacy that this was a crime to society in the first place, so I certainly don't have any ruffled feathers about moving zines.
When the state brings its lawless armed kidnappers to heel and follows its own rules with the unrelenting strictness befitting a nation of laws and not of men, then we can talk about whether those same laws can be applied to persons attempting to disrupt its activities.
Inside the US though? No, clearly the state’s account is definitely accurate, the citizen is obviously guilty, it’s not only correct they are being jailed it is actually good, free speech - oh it’s not relevant because they committed unrelated crimes (we’re told. By the state’s account).
US propaganda/copaganda on its own citizens really is something else to behold
I’m sure Iran agrees.
You mean the ICE agents who've already chosen to respond with violence to any expression, lawful or otherwise, against them?
Ah no, you mean the people upset about them illegally acting as secret police.
- The group was designated as "Antifa cell", and thus this became a terrorist and aiding terrorism charges.
- The judge went above and beyond to hand out harsh punishments. There's been commentary from previous state prosecutors that the sentences, and how they were carried out, were much harsher than predicted. The speculation was that these sentences are being handed out to be served consecutively, not concurrently.
Would not surprise me if some of them could be appealed as "cruel and unusual punishments" / 8th amendment.
Can you cite a source to support the claim that the stuff he transported was being sought under a federal warrant at the time he transported it? And is there documentation showing that he was aware of the warrant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat
It's sickening how this could even possibly happen.
Prosecutors openly acknowledge strategically filing cases in his court for conservative causes.
It isn't a mistake that he was the judge here, and there is a very good chance the sentences will be overturned if not entire cases.
Of course, that doesn't matter to these defendants, some of whom probably do deserve punishment for what they did, and all of whom will suffer through years of appeals, stress, etc. because some prosecutor wanted to make their career on a big case, and will have moved on years before this is all resolved.
In short, the case was made for headlines, and after putting the defendants through hell, appeals will invalidate most of those headlines after incurring great expense on behalf of the taxpayers and defendants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor