Regarding the Grand Jury, Raids, and Anti-Repression in the Bay Area

In late April, some comrades were able to confirm an uptick in repression targeting the local anti-ICE scene. News of an East Bay house raid and FBI door knock, as well as two grand jury subpoenas, soon began circulating among concerned radicals in the area. Upon hearing of the grand jury summons, many comrades became eager to support the targeted individuals in their presumed noncompliance. People from other regions even asked if they could send money. But reassurance of noncooperation on the part of those who received the subpoenas never arrived.

What was a frustrating delay in spreading word appeared to transform into a policy of silence. This inertia remained until the release of an autonomous statement informing people about the recent events. The initial announcement, which circulated in multiple large and public Bay Area organizing group chats, also linked to a 2013 statement on grand juries, traditions of grand jury resistance, and how to deal with FBI visits. Many were surprised to receive such an alert from sources outside of the robust anti-repression infrastructure on which many have come to rely.

Within a day, however, an incomplete and generic mass message by the Bay Area Demo Legal Support Collaborative soon materialized in the same mass group chats. Never using the words “raid,” “subpoenas” or “grand jury,” and instead referring to nebulous “FBI visits and investigations,” it failed to equip people with knowledge of the ongoing fishing expedition. The difference is important because grand juries and subpoenas require different responses from mere FBI visits. If the purpose of this more “official” message was to control the flow of information about the grand jury, it was at least partly successful. The difference in the content of the messages may seem subtle at first glance, but it resulted in confusion. Consequently, some chose to spread the less informative, officially sanctioned message, leaving many in the dark about the grand jury.

The benefit of having a diverse anti-repression ecosystem is to make up for the weaknesses of attorneys who are bound to the rules and norms of their profession. There is important information pertaining to legal cases that often needs to get communicated that attorneys themselves are not able to communicate. Professionals have limitations and priorities that must preclude them from imposing norms upon or making political prescriptions on behalf of the movement. Political strategy must be discussed beyond the legal frames of attorney-client privilege and client-centered defense, or professional norms will delimit our political strategy to what is amenable to the state and capital.

Some comrades learned of this situation and were disturbed by the lack of transparency about the raid and subpoenas from both the Bay Area Demo Legal Support Collaborative and those summoned. These comrades attended a presentation on anti-repression organized as part of an Anti-Repression Block Party, a fundraiser event for anti-repression efforts organized by the Downtown Neighborhood Assembly, where they hoped to hear statements of support for grand jury resistance. A panel was scheduled at this event to discuss the ongoing Golden Gate 26 and Stanford 11 cases, with representatives from those collective defense efforts and a member of the Anti-Repression Committee present to answer questions. While these cases were discussed, as well as other examples of increasing repression such as the Prairieland case, no mention was made of grand juries or the need to resist them.

Since no questions were taken from attendees, at the end of the panel discussion a comrade stood up and asked, “What about the grand jury?” They were quickly joined by other voices who also wanted answers about this. The panel was turned into an inquiry about the grand jury situation, and members of the legal coalition were made to respond. One comrade emphasized the need to be public and seek broader support when summoned to testify in a grand jury. When asked about the grand jury and why there was no mention of this, representatives there referred to the two statements that had gone out, which they believed to have been basically the same, despite this clearly not being the case. The Anti-Repression Committee representative responded that they did not know much about it, other than the fact that there was a grand jury. Other representatives said that grand juries are confidential matters that they are not able to speak about, and at this stage they know very little. They said that they were glad the “unofficial” statement had gone out, despite this not being apparent from the legal coalition’s prior actions or any efforts being made to confirm the information from the “unofficial” statement. When pressed about whether or not collective movement resources would be used to support someone who cooperates with a grand jury, or anyone who cooperates with the state in general, a representative of the Anti-Repression Committee answered that no support would be given to them, and “fuck cooperators!” Comrades can respect this, but it should not have to be a position pressed out of anyone.

What became clear in this effort is that it is not enough to simply rely on official representatives to prioritize movement interests. We must all collectively struggle to maintain these standard of non-cooperation in our movement, and apply pressure when we notice that others are failing us in this regard. The fact that people have been raided and received subpoenas for a grand jury and chosen to not divulge that information publicly and express their intention to resist the summons puts many more people than just them at great risk. The fact that people within the coalition that organizes and maintains resources for anti-repression are themselves being guarded with this information and not publicly discussing grand jury resistance does not signal to others the imminent nature of such a threat. Grand juries can begin as an investigation into one case, but they may not stop there. In the recent raids and arrests of the Michigan 8 for their solidarity with Palestine, the indictments that were filed by a grand jury are filled with evidence taken from electronic devices seized in a raid from the year before. When people refuse to resist grand juries and to do so publicly, they make it easier for the state to take its time and build cases against others. And when others cover for individuals who are refusing to resist, they are themselves aiding the state. When people act as individuals by looking to protect themselves in such a way over others, they erode the solidarity necessary to overcome capital. There is no option when receiving a subpoena but to resist the grand jury and refuse to appear. Anyone that cannot do this, cannot be said to be a comrade.



(If any of the above turns out to be incorrect it is due to the inevitable errors that are bound to happen when instances of repression go unreported to the wider movement. We’ve attempted to corroborate this information to the best of our ability in spite of the lack of transparency by movement actors who are more in-the-know than us.)