Take Yourself Seriously: Delete Shit & Worry Less

March 27, 2025

CLDC educates environmental and social justice activists, organizations and funders regarding law-related topics. We will be presenting a series of informational primers that are particularly important in times of heightened state repression and corporate attacks on dissent. This series, “Take Yourself Seriously” will provide best practices for individuals, nonprofits, activist groups, and funders, in order to prevent losses that could be caused by SLAPP suits, RICO cases, subpoenas, search warrants, and other attempts at derailing your work to protect the planet and its inhabitants.

Why should political activists engage in document hygiene?

When our movements are strong and effective, adversaries often double down on using their money to abuse the legal system by dragging activists and organizations into courts—whether by filing criminal charges or civil lawsuits.  There’s not a lot we can do to stop them from manipulating or weaponizing the law, but there are many things we can do to armor ourselves and our communities in order to reduce harms that may occur from these types of attacks.

Our first topic, document hygiene practices, encompasses both document retention and destruction policies and practices, as well as digital security practices that interplay.  This includes what documents, texts, photos, emails, calendar entries, or files you should maintain to protect yourself, and which you should delete or destroy (thus removing the threat of subpoenas, theft, hacking, etc.). We welcome your feedback and suggestions for future topics that we should cover.

Remember: Knowledge is Power. The State (which includes corporations and industry groups) is taking your activism seriously and is seriously attempting to undermine your work and drive folks from away from this important work.  Even if you are a volunteer or unpaid activist, it’s time to take your work seriously and CYA (cover your ass).

IF THE “DOCUMENT” DOESN’T EXIST, THERE IS NO THREAT OF IT BEING TURNED OVER TO THE ENEMY OR STOLEN/SEIZED

  • Do you need to write it down? Or would a phone call or convo be better?
  • How should you write it down (digital or paper)
  • Notetaking—what content needs to be recorded? What record is created?
  • Take yourself seriously=less worry

Step 1: Create a Written Document Retention and Destruction Policy

Everyone—Individuals, Organizations (and some professions), collectives, campaigns, coalitions and funders should create a written document retention and destruction policy so that in the worst case scenario, if your documents are subpoenaed, seized or stolen, you can produce this policy that establishes the reason you have nothing to hand over is because you have been engaged in document hygiene and have been deleting documents every 30 days (or whatever time period you choose).  Different professions and types of documents will have different time periods you may be required to retain them.  So, Document Retention and Destruction Policies (“DRD Policy”) will vary in order to ensure that organizations/individuals retain documents which could later be required for business or regulatory purposes. For example, maintaining tax documents in case of an audit or other investigation, employment records, contract or grant documents, or litigation documents each have mandatory time periods that you must maintain—those time periods should be included in your DRD.

A DRD Policy and program saves you time and money                                                           

In the event you and your documents become embroiled in litigation or governmental investigation, the fewer documents that exist, the less work you have to do to review, compile and produce those records. In fact, particularly in light of developments in electronic (or e-) discovery, the proper maintenance and timely destruction of electronic (as well as paper) documents could save a great deal of money for an organization forced to search unwieldy and voluminous records in the face of discovery requests.

IRS Form 990 instructs: “A document retention and destruction policy identifies the record retention responsibilities of staff, volunteers, board members, and outsiders for maintaining and documenting the storage and destruction of the organization’s documents and records.”

Step 2: Considerations and Procedures for Implementation of a DRD Policy

First, discuss the ways in which documents are created and where they are saved or exist.

Documents include both physical copies and electronically stored information (ESI).  Based on recent SLAPP and other lawfare cases CLDC has defended, here is a list of the forms of ESI from a subpoena:

Legal document on letterhead from Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, dated October 20, 2017. The letter is addressed 'Via FedEx' to an organization regarding 'Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., et al. v. Greenpeace International, et al.' The document is titled 'NOTICE OF DUTY TO MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE DOCUMENTS, MATERIALS AND INFORMATION' and informs the recipient of their legal obligation to preserve all potentially relevant documents related to a lawsuit filed on August 22, 2017. The lawsuit alleges violations under RICO laws, including tortious interference and defamation against Energy Transfer.Alt text for the image: "Screenshot of an email from Google with subject '[0-7208000038268] Notification From Google'. The email is from usernotice@google.com and explains that Google received and responded to a legal process from the FBI compelling the release of information related to the recipient's Google account. It mentions that Google was permitted to disclose the receipt of this legal process, provides reference numbers, and directs recipients to Google's transparency report for more information. The email is signed by Legal Investigations Support, Google LLC, and includes reply options at the bottom.

  1. Emails and other electronic communications
  2. Twitter/X messages; Instagram, Facebook, sock puppet accounts, What’s App, Telegram Signal, Wire; or any other social media platform/service messages, including all direct messages on any platform; and all other forms of communication
  3. Database
  4. Images, including PDFs, photos, videos, graphics
  5. Electronically stored files (e.g. files created in Microsoft Word, Pages, Google Docs, PowerPoint, Excel, Dropbox, Open Office, etc.)
  6. Computerized calendars
  7. Metadata, legacy data, and databases
  8. Cancelled checks, receipts for Venmo, Zelle, PayPal, CashApp, Patreon, ACH payments, wire transfers, Western Union MoneyGram, and receipts from any and all other methods of sending, receiving or transferring money.
  9. Memos
  10. Correspondence
  11. Spreadsheets
  12. Photographs and videos
  13. Decks
  14. Contracts (including amendments)
  15. Draft contracts
  16. Reports
  17. Notes (including handwritten notes)
  18. Drafts (of all of the above)
  19. Ledgers
  20. Texts
  21. Sales forms
  22. Receipts
  23. Invoices
  24. Appointment books
  25. Audio and video tapes
  26. Voice messages
  27. Diaries and journals

You may be required to preserve or produce this information regardless of where it is stored, including but not limited to:

  1. Workstation computers
  2. Laptops
  3. Tablets
  4. Portable devices (external drives, thumb drives)
  5. Cell phones
  6. Company network
  7. Cloud-based services
  8. Encrypted services
  9. Zoom and/or Microsoft Teams video conference recordings.

Second, are they saved or maintained in a segregated manner so that when it comes time to destroy (or retain) those documents, they can be easily culled from the others for disposition? Many groups we work with use a traditional color-coding system:  red for very sensitive records, green for documents of a significantly non-sensitive nature.  What types of records fall into each color can be included in the policy or procedures so that all members are ensuring compliance.  Make sure policy includes email, social media, internal comms channels, etc.

Third, Determine how privacy laws, attorney client privilege, or other privileges will apply to documents and data from and with respect to employees, work product, and members/ donors/ volunteers.

Fourth,  Carefully think through the record retention responsibilities of staff, volunteers, board members, and outsiders (including partner orgs and coalition partners) for maintaining and documenting the storage and destruction of the organization’s documents and records.

Although the IRS in its 990 instructions seems to imply that volunteers should have some responsibility with respect to document hygiene, volunteers should have as little responsibility as possible. Consider using platforms like Keybase.io or Cryptpad that securely allow administrators to destroy or maintain documents for all.  Anyone who is a volunteer (meaning that they are contributing their time, gratis) will think twice about continuing to volunteer if they are responsible for maintaining documents on their personal or business computers for some specified amount of time, for searching for documents on their computers and/or for destroying certain documents. These responsibilities should instead rest on org staff if possible.

Only include requirements that individuals/orgs know can be met within their capabilities If the org can’t follow the policy, don’t enact it. The worst thing that an organization, individual, coalition, etc., can do is to adopt policies which it does not follow, giving a false sense of security. (*keybase.io is great for ‘enforcing’ doc destruction across coalitions, etc. b/c it deletes for everyone)

Other tips:

Ensure that the policy includes standards for document integrity, including guidelines for handling electronic files, backup procedures, archiving of documents, and regular checkups of the reliability of the system.

For orgs and coalitions, provide for one specific policy administrator (with assistants, if necessary) who will be responsible for administration and compliance of the policy.  Responsibilities include periodic review of the policies for current relevance and compliance. If that administrator is not the ED/CEO, then the administrator should report to that person (since they are ultimately responsible for almost everything).

The policy must contain specific procedures for instituting a litigation hold where litigation, an audit, or a government investigation is reasonably anticipated. This is normally activated by a written notice from the bad guy. This is an area where liability could be significant if proper procedures are not instituted and followed.

For orgs: The DRD Policy should be carefully explained to and adopted by the Board of Directors. Staff should be onboarded and trained on their mandatory duties as well.

Document retention policies apply equally to documents saved in the cloud, on a server, or in a filing cabinet. If your nonprofit is using digital storage, make sure you have a back-up plan!

While having a document retention policy gives staff the green light to toss certain documents (on a schedule, preferably), as you are creating a policy specifically for your nonprofit, think about whether there are certain types of documents or specific documents that for the sake of history, or institutional memory, should be maintained permanently.

State laws relating to employment (such as those governing employment/payroll) vary state to state and often have implications for document retention policies.

Nonprofits serving minor children may need to retain records relating to minor children at least until the child reaches majority age, plus the time allowed by the state statute of limitations for the child-now-adult to bring a claim against the nonprofit.

Specific Consideration for Certain Groups:

Sarbanes-Oxley Requirements:  Section 802 (Criminal Penalties for Altering Documents) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (―SOX‖) Section 1519 of the federal criminal code, provides: Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

SOX Section 1102 (Tampering with a Record or Otherwise Impeding an Official Proceeding) subsection (c) added to Section 1512 of the federal criminal code, which states: (c) Whoever corruptly— (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

In addition to possible criminal liability, civil liability may result from the wrongful destruction of evidence, or ―spoliation if litigation has already been filed against you (or you have initiated a suit against others). See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 26; 37(e); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“An organization becomes subject to a duty to preserve (or halt the destruction of) records once litigation, an audit or a government investigation is reasonably anticipated.”); William T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., 593 F. Supp. 1443, 1455 (C.D. Calif. 1984) (“While a litigant is under no duty to keep or retain every document in its possession once a complaint is filed, it is under a duty to preserve what it knows, or reasonably should know, is relevant in the action, is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is reasonably likely to be requested during discovery and/or is the subject of a pending discovery request.”)

Resources

National Council of Nonprofits www.councilofnonprofits.org

Guide to Record Retention Requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations: Contact the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-9325 or from CCH, Inc. at www.onlinestore.cch.com

Black-and-white illustration of a barefoot person holding a flag reading “Support the Minnesota Fifteen.” Gardening tools, a guitar, books and black birds fill the foreground, with a city skyline behind them. Text below includes crimethinc.com and minnesota15.org.

This week, Lauren Regan heads to Minnesota to represent an organizer charged with federal conspiracy in connection with the Trump regime’s “metro surge” authoritarian propaganda in the Twin Cities. This Minneapolis 15  case is ongoing in federal court in Minneapolis this week.

In Prairieland, Texas, we represent a young activist charged in state court with hindering a terrorist prosecution for allegedly deleting Signal messages or users. They face a mandatory 15-year prison sentence.

We are also fighting the government’s demand to unmask an anonymous Reddit user who posted anti-ICE sentiments. The government has demanded our client’s identity, financial information and other confidential data. The judge denied our request to block the grand jury subpoena but paused that decision while we appeal. We submitted arguments on an expedited schedule and await the appeals court’s decision.

In New Jersey, we won dismissal of the claims against American Muslims for Palestine–NJ in USA v. PSL-NJ, AMP-NJ. The lawsuit, brought under the FACE Act, targets a street protest against illegal sales of Gaza land held partly at a synagogue. Zionists assaulted assaulted activists, but federal authorities went after the protesters and groups.

The claims against AMP are particularly frivolous: its only role was promoting the protest on social media. In September 2026, the court dismissed the claims against AMP but allowed the plaintiffs to revise them. We are confident they cannot repair the claims or that we will win dismissal again, with no further opportunity to revise.


These are among the cases CLDC is handling heading into November 2026.

Stop Cop City

The court dismissed the Georgia racketeering charges, but the state is appealing. Our client still faces a pending domestic terrorism allegation in DeKalb County.

Standing Rock

We are still grinding through our two Standing Rock police brutality cases, Wilansky and Poemoceah. After we overturned an earlier dismissal of Poemoceah’s case and found an excellent expert witness, the court dismissed it again. We have appealed, with arguments tentatively scheduled for early 2027. Meanwhile, an appeals court upheld the dismissal of Wilansky’s case. We are considering asking the Supreme Court to hear it. 

George Floyd protests in Eugene

Our longstanding case, Boudjerada, et al. v. City of Eugene, et al., challenges Eugene police’s brutal response to the May 2020 George Floyd protests.
In 2023, we won a ruling that the city’s curfew, announced with five minutes’ notice and followed by immediate arrests, was unconstitutional. An appeals court shielded the police chief and city manager from liability through “qualified immunity,” but the ruling against the city stands. We are headed to court-ordered settlement talks and, if necessary, a trial in 2027.

Defending Palestine solidarity organizing in Los Angeles and Michigan

We are defending People’s City Council, Los Angeles, against claims arising from an Instagram post supporting a protest against an Israeli weapons company’s presentation near a synagogue. After we challenged the lawsuit, the plaintiffs withdrew it, filed a revised version, and we moved to dismiss the case.

We are also challenging a sweeping Michigan grand jury demand for student employee union records dating back to January 2023, apparently connected to Palestine solidarity protests.

Oregon anti-ICE protest prosecutions

Of the 39 federal cases we have handled since September 2025, 32 have been dismissed and seven remain pending. We have also defended six activists in state and city courts; three of those cases have been dismissed.

Challenging the crackdown on protest outside Eugene’s federal building

Our clients in Longworth and Lardner v. Trump, et al. are outspoken anti-ICE activists who help lead protests several times a week outside Eugene’s federal building. The building houses ICE staff and handles immigration appointments, where many immigrants are taken into custody and sent to detention centers.

In November 2025, the Trump administration issued “emergency” rules making “loud or unusual noise” outside federal buildings a crime. Our clients were arrested and threatened with arrest for using megaphones to criticize the government and speak to passing drivers and pedestrians.

A federal judge blocked enforcement of the rules in December and extended that protection in March 2026 while the case continues. The judge found that our clients were likely to win and that the rules were causing lasting harm to protesters’ constitutional rights.

The government appealed, with arguments scheduled for November 2026. We are defending the court order and working to gather evidence and obtain a final ruling. In a separate case, we challenged the tall metal fence the federal government built around most of the building, blocking off much of Eugene’s Free Speech Plaza. The court granted us a preliminary injunction ordering the government to remove the fence.

In early September 2026, the government filed its record of how the decision was made. After reviewing it, we will ask the court to rule in our favor. In the meantime, we are exploring settlement options to obtain a long-term remedy. We are also reviewing potential claims for several people injured by ICE at the building, including protesters and people reporting for news media.

Challenging state surveillance of political activism

We represent longtime clients Rogue Climate and 350 Eugene in Rogue Climate and 350 Eugene, et al. v. State of Oregon. Oregon law bars law enforcement from collecting or keeping information about political activities without reasonable suspicion of a crime. Yet Oregon Department of Justice officials admitted under oath that they continue to monitor our clients’ social media and other activist activities without that basis.

The lower court dismissed our claims, on the perverse grounds that the only remedy available was to order the state to follow the law. We appealed, arguing that this is exactly the protection the court should provide. Arguments were heard in June 2026, and we remain optimistic about the outcome.

Big police settlements in small towns of the United States

We settled one of our oldest cases, Black Unity, et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., over this past summer. Filed in 2020, it challenged outrageous police behavior during a march responding to a skeleton hanging from a noose across from a Black person’s home in Springfield’s lily-white Thurston area.

Early this year, the judge allowed all our claims to proceed, strongly supporting our claims of retaliation for protected speech, excessive force, unlawful surveillance, and conspiracy to violate civil rights under the Ku Klux Klan Act. At long last, the defendants offered a meaningful settlement, allowing us to close the case.

In Gilliam v. Miller, we represented a Black man subjected to racial profiling in the very white small town of Coburg, Oregon. Police forced him to kneel at gunpoint, then held him handcuffed in a police car for nearly an hour without legal grounds.

The court rejected our racial profiling claim but allowed his challenge to the length and conditions of his detention to proceed. That finally convinced the city to settle in July 2026.

Stabbin’ Wagon

Stabbin’ Wagon serves unhoused people and people with addictions through needle exchanges, HIV testing and other harm reduction services. This raised the hackles of Medford, Oregon officials, police officers and a pro-police social media operator, who publicly lambasted our clients and urged the Oregon Health Authority to revoke their grant.

In September 2026, the court dismissed our First Amendment retaliation claims but allowed us to clarify claims of conspiracy to deprive civil rights. The ruling included a rare recognition that addiction-related disabilities are protected by federal laws prohibiting such conspiracies between government and private actors.

Cal Poly Humboldt and the Arcata Five

In People v. Toledo, our client, Rick Toledo, participated in a support rally for students occupying a building to pressure Cal Poly Humboldt to take a stronger position against the genocide in Palestine and ICE raids.

He was not a major participant in the takeover, but a brief interaction with a university staff member led to a late-night arrest warrant on suspicion of felony conspiracy, battery, false imprisonment and assault. After he made bail, a second warrant authorized a search of his home, where his phones and computers were seized.

Months later, he was charged with misdemeanor battery, false imprisonment and assault, a serious reduction from the initial felony accusations. The judge has agreed to a diversion whereby the charges are dismissed after six months.

We also secured an agreement for the Arcata Five, activists arrested during a mutual aid effort helping folks at an unpermitted campsite move their belongings prior to an eviction date. The judge has agreed to a diversion whereby the charges are dismissed after six months.

Animal rights defense

Presently, in California, we are defending Direct Action Everywhere activists engaged in open rescue liberations, with trial pending. In Portland, Oregon, we favorably resolved the case of an activist arrested at a foie gras protest at a restaurant.

Training and movement support

We help lead Protect the Protest, a coalition of 48 organizations opposing lawsuits used to silence organizing, and participate in networks tracking anti-protest legislation.

We are also working with Trans Alliance Lane County to reform jail housing and search practices for transgender people.

Join the Defenders Circle

Monthly donations fuel our fight for civil liberties.

And, they’re how we win.

Your recurring donation, even $20 a month, compounds over time to create transformative change. While one-time gifts help us respond to immediate staffing or programmatic needs, monthly donations provide stability and resources to plan for and take on long-term fights for lasting change.

Accessibility Toolbar