The Motion Behind the Exhibits: HSI Agent Desmond Garcia Told the Grand Jury No One Is Investigated for First Amendment Activity

Opening

We had all 31 exhibits and none of the motion. Doc. 212 itself — 26 pages, full text layer, archived locally (sha256 4e0480999f664c3c402e968eecd16900756f58698e3cd14cdd6284dba499258f) — is the defense’s actual argument, and it contains grand jury testimony the exhibits alone do not.

Two findings the exhibits could not give us

1. The “Conspiracy” chart was Grand Jury Exhibit 1A, page 5 — and an agent testified about it

The motion states the diagram was “prepared by HSI and presented to the grand jury.” It identifies the testifying agent: HSI Agent Desmond Garcia. Quoted at Ex. 4, 27:4-11:

Q. And can you tell us what you see on page 5 of Grand Jury Exhibit 1A?

A. This is kind of a breakdown. Like I mentioned earlier with members of DAMN being associated with other organizations through the course of the investigation this is just a snapshot of some of the other organizations that members are affiliated with that kind of comprise and make up DAMN.

The defense’s reading: “the government apparently believes – and certainly told the grand jury – that if any individual was connected to both DAMN and any of these entities, the government considers the entities to be conspiring.”

This resolves an open question in our corpus. We had flagged the grand-jury presentation as reported-but-not-documented and cautioned against asserting it. It is now documented in a filing, with the exhibit number, the page, and the testifying agent named.

2. Garcia told the grand jury the opposite of what the record shows

Quoted at Ex. 4, 214:23-215:8:

“One of the things that is abundantly clear not only in guidance but is just principles as far as this investigation is, no one is ever investigated or looked at or even researched on for First Amendment protected activities. Every single individual that we have investigated there is a criminal predicate to why we’re investigating them, either statements that they have made that are criminal to their actual participation in overt criminal acts.”

The defense’s response, in the motion: “Agent Garcia’s statement is simply not true.”

Set that against the record already in the corpus:

• A UCA attended a publicly advertised ICEWatch training in December 2025 and wrote that “there do not appear to be violations relating to 18 USC 111 or threats to public safety” (Doc. 212-12) — investigated, nothing found, surveillance continued.
• HSI took financial records from SEIU, CWA, IFPTE, Voices for Racial Justice and the Sunrise Movement Education Fund by warrantless administrative summons — organizations charged with nothing.
• A UCA sat in a church sanctuary in Ann Arbor and logged a Uganda hospital mission trip and a business card (Doc. 212-18).
• The motion cites surveillance at a “No Kings” protest (Ex. 24) and at a “Stop the War on Iran!” protest organized by 50501, Veterans for Peace, and the Sunrise Movement (Ex. 25).

Why It Matters

This is sworn testimony, not a press statement. An agency spokesperson denying wrongdoing is routine. An agent telling a grand jury that no one is investigated for First Amendment activity, in a case whose own discovery documents surveillance of publicly advertised trainings and protests, is a different order of claim — and it is the government’s own words, in the government’s own proceeding.

It also matters for the no-RFC posture: the corpus does not need to ask DHS what it thinks. Doc. 212 contains what a federal agent said under oath about exactly this question.

Judicial context the motion supplies: it cites Judge Menendez and Chief Judge Schiltz having confirmed that observing and recording law enforcement is not unlawful — In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, No. 26-mc-43 (PJS), Doc. 1 at 22: “As a general matter, any citizen who happens across law-enforcement activity has a constitutional right to observe it, to record it, and to mention it to anyone they like . . . .”

The motion’s own framing

Its opening line: “This case involves an unprecedented campaign by DHS to spy on Minnesotans.” It names the charted entities — AFL-CIO, Minneapolis Federation of Educators, Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Monarca, Veterans for Peace, “and the Grease Pit bicycle repair shop” — and calls the allegations “wild conspiracy allegations… born from the fantasies of political retribution.”

Note for drafting: that is advocacy by defense counsel, not a finding. Quote it as the defense’s characterization, never adopt it.

Open Questions

• Exhibits 4 (grand jury transcript excerpts), 21, 24 and 25 are cited in the motion; we hold the 31 attachments but should confirm which correspond to these exhibit numbers
• Whether the full Garcia transcript is obtainable — the motion quotes 27:4-11 and 214:23-215:8, implying a transcript of at least 215 pages
• Whether the government has responded to this motion, and how it addresses the Garcia testimony
• Desmond Garcia does not yet appear in the accountability roster built from the ROIs — his role relative to Marquis, Wespetal, Catalan and Schrank is unestablished

Cross-References

• 2026-01-28–puppet-master-accepted-under-cuc-op-keyhole
• 2026-02-15–project-whipple-shield-hsi-financial-surveillance-minnesota-unions
• 2026-04-08–hsi-undercover-operation-zion-lutheran-church-ann-arbor
• us-v-sant-0-26-cr-00115-doc-212-full-roi-set
• criminalizing-dissent-the-descending-gradient