Rescuing Baby Goats is a Felony?: Attorney Taj Uppal on Facing Prison for Saving Two Lives

uh, you know, we said on the, on the interview that the reason we couldn't record after the hearing was because the hearing was on the recording date, the scheduled recording date.

We had to record it before. So the hearing has been held, and you'll understand what I'm talking about once you listen to the episode. And there's just a big update, and I didn't wanna leave, uh, people unaware of what happened. So we're giv- I'm giving you the news fir- the outcome first. Uh, it's a little bit of a spoiler if you think of this as fiction, but if, if you think of it as reality, it's just a lot of good news.

So, uh, the, the, the case wasn't dismissed. I'm not even sure that was o- uh, on the table, but the judge reduced all the felonies to misdemeanors. This is huge. This is huge. A felony conviction, I mean, especially for a young budding lawyer, which you will see Taj is, uh, once you listen to the, uh, to, to the interview, uh, i- is a disaster.

I mean, you can lose your, your law license. Um, the judge also ordered the DA to disclose information about a potential conflict of interest, and I think you will understand a lot more about what that means once you listen to the interview, and expressed openness to diversion for all defendants, i.e., diversion from the criminal justice system, so looking for a different outcome.

This is all really good news. It's not done. It's not done. It's not over till it's over. Things can go wrong, but this is really good news. I think the, the judge really saw some of the things that you will be seeing Taj talking about, uh, about how this all played out, uh, at, at, at the time these goats were rescued.

So listen up. You're really gonna love this interview, and, and I'll see you soon.

Mariann Sullivan: Welcome to The Animal Law Podcast. I- I'm so excited about this week's interview, or this month's interview, I should say. Our guest is Taj Uppal, and this i- this interview is different than almost any of the other interviews I've done because although Taj is indeed a lawyer, he is actually one of the defendants in this case, not one of the lawyers.

And, and like many of our interviews, uh, this is really early days in this case. Um, and so many of the issues have not yet been really developed and refined in the way they usually have been when we're talking about a case. So I... Th- that's part of an advanced apology from me that, that sometimes I'm having a little trouble figuring out, uh, what's going on, but fortunately, Taj is going to tell us.

So, um, we will be watching things unfold kind of in real time because, uh, we actually had to change the possible date of the interview because there's a hearing coming up and, um, then, uh, so there's lots going on. Uh, and it's all pretty, uh, and frightening and inspiring. So welcome to The Animal Law Podcast, Taj.

Taj Uppal: Thank you, Mariann. Yeah, happy to be here

Mariann Sullivan: Uh, before we start, just a quick reminder, The Our Hen House podcast, Rising Anxieties Tuesdays, Hen Report on Thursdays, and Long Form Interview, which is this, uh, on Fridays, and bonus for flock members comes out on Mondays. And now let's get into it. Taj, let's get a bit of the backstory for people who aren't familiar with you. You only fairly recently graduated from law school, I think. Uh, and when did you get involved in animal activism and with the work of Direct Action Everywhere? How did this all develop?

Taj Uppal: Yeah. So I just graduated from Berkeley Law two years ago, back in 2024. Uh, Direct Action Everywhere, I got involved with them right when I got to law school at Berkeley, actually. So that would've been about five years ago, back in '21. And animal activism goes back another couple years for me when I was in college.

Mariann Sullivan: And it-- Alright, so that's a little bit of background on you. We, we'll might get into a little bit more detail. Um, but let's get a little bit of background on what the Vera Goat Dairy is, since that's the central in, uh, in this case. And then we'll get into the story of how you became entangled with each other.

Where is Via Vera? What is it? Who owns it? I know not a totally clear answer. Not- nothing in this case has a clear answer, but, but do your best just to familiarize people with, with what this outfit is that we're talking about.

Taj Uppal: Sure. So Vera Goat Dairy is the factory farm involved in this case. It's an industrial goat operation confining an estimated 9,000 goats on its site, and it produces milk, goat milk. Um, it sells, or I should say it supplies to Meyenberg Goat Milk, which is the largest goat milk supplier in America, and it's sold on shelves at major retailers like Whole Foods and Walmart.

So industrial goat operation, um, supplying to the largest goat milk producer. You can find it on-- at your grocery store. Um, where is it? It's in California's Central Valley. It's about an hour south of Fresno, three hours south of the Bay Area. Yeah.

Mariann Sullivan: So even though a lot of the, um, the DXE cases have taken place in Sonoma County, which has more of a reputation for being rep- a, a f- false reputation, but a reputation for being somewhat idyllic, you're talking about the Central Valley here, which really is factory farming central, right?

Taj Uppal: It is, yeah. Agriculture, big ag is very powerful in this region. Um, there's a lot of factory farms if you grow up there, and I've spent a lot of time there at this point because of my court case and actually even before then, one of my best friends lives there. Um, but if you drive through the Central Valley, like you are very used to seeing factory farms.

There's just, um, these industrial feedlots on your left and your right as you're driving through Central Valley all the time

Mariann Sullivan: I noticed in the papers that it's frequently referred to Whole Foods' Vera Goat Dairy, but Whole Foods does not own it. They, they just buy from it, is that right?

Taj Uppal: That's correct. Um, this farm produces milk which has been sold at Whole Foods. However, the owner is not Whole Foods itself. The owner is someone by the name of Robert Martins, and he's just someone who lives in the Central Valley

Mariann Sullivan: And it, this actually kind of, I mean, it gets into, I don't know whether it's a point of contention, but it sounds like it is, that he owns the land, but somebody else is purported to own and run the dairy. Is that right?

Taj Uppal: That's correct. So it is a little complicated, the ownership structure, and we've-- and we've only just begun to uncover this like kind of complex leasing situation. So there's someone who owns the farm's property, the land, right? Um, that's a man by the name of Robert Martins. And then there's a separate person who owns the goats, and that person's name is David Vera, of whom the farm is named after, Vera Goat Dairy.

Mariann Sullivan: But the, there used to be a, a dairy on the same property where the goats were actually owned by Martin, right? Like, it used to be

Taj Uppal: Yes

Mariann Sullivan: and then, and then it kind of split off in this way

Taj Uppal: That's correct. They like, they bifurcated the ownership at some point in time.

Mariann Sullivan: Uh-huh. Um, I mean, one of the reasons I'm asking that is because one of the issues here is whether it has a history of legal violations regarding the goats or, or anything else, environmental or whatever. And, and I, that, that, I guess that issue becomes relevant into whether it's still the same dairy or it's now a different dairy.

Is that right? 'Cause it does have such a history, right?

Taj Uppal: That's correct. So, um, you're referring to a 2021 violation listed by the California Water Board, where this farm was cited for hosting an illegal dead pile on its site. You can just imagine like a large feedlot where a bunch of live animals are confined, and then upon the same facility, maybe a couple hundred feet over, it's just a large pile of all these dead goats who died from some combination of disease, starvation, neglect, whatever it may be.

Yeah. And, and so then, yeah, getting back to the ownership question, it is somewhat relevant, I'd say. Like, is it the same owner this entire time?

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah

Taj Uppal: but again, we're, we're still like uncovering these facts, and we actually have a motion to compel pending to like really like get to the heart of this. But we actually recently discovered there is a letter sent by the California Water Board to this farm this very year, and that letter identifies Robert Martins as the current owner of the operation.

Yeah. And so it does, does appear that actually like Robert Martins is still very involved in the operations at this farm.

Mariann Sullivan: as, as it tends to do at this point in litigation. All right, so I mean, that's the background. How did DXE first become involved? I mean, there're many choices I'm sure in the Central Valley of what to look at. Um, so how did DXE become involved in looking at this particular, uh, uh, quote-unquote, farm, dairy? Um, what did they do? And is that how you first became aware of it? Because you mentioned that you had been working with them for a while.

Taj Uppal: Yes, that is how I first became aware of this farm. Um, DXE, actually one of the investigators was just looking through government websites, and they found that there was this 2021 citation for hosting an illegal dead pile. Um, that piqued his interest, and then, um, some investigators from DXE actually flew drones over the operation, and they found that the dead pile, um, and violation was ongoing.

And then the, the investigation continued, and, uh, one of the DXE investigators, his name's, uh, Lewis, he called the water board, and he was like, "Hey, what's going on here with this dead pile? I see that it was listed back in 2021 as violating the law. It, it still appears to be ongoing." And then, um, the water board staff actually confirmed to him over the phone that this was a known ongoing violation.

Mariann Sullivan: All right, so I guess you can, you can actually find out some stuff just by, just by calling and asking. Uh, it's good to remember that. Sometimes you don't have to go look.

Taj Uppal: Right.

Mariann Sullivan: So let's get to the events. First of April and then May of 2025, unless there's anything in between there that, that you wanna cov- cover about, uh, about anything m- else they found out before decided to take actual physical a- uh, action.

Is, is there anything else that

Taj Uppal: Get into it.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay.

Taj Uppal: most of that happens within the months of April. There's maybe some back in March as well, but yeah

Mariann Sullivan: All right, let's get to that. Um, can you just recount what happened in like, like, like in order? Um, there-- Let's start with there was an event, and I had trouble understanding exactly how this, this played out. There was an event that predated the one that is the subject of the charges, I think, uh, and that had to do with some carcasses, maybe some live goats.

Can you just tell, tell us what that was about?

Taj Uppal: Yeah. So it is a bit confusing. Um, I am charged for a rescue that was conducted, um, openly and in daylight in May,

Mariann Sullivan: Right

Taj Uppal: that is what precipitated these charges. But before those charges came down, before that rescue was conducted, there was an investigation that preceded, um, the rescue operation. And so that investigation involved drone footage, which revealed that there's this massive ongoing dead pile that remains on the facility.

It also included some ground level cameras, which revealed these industrial tractors just dropping dead bodies of animals into the dead pile. Uh, we found dogs, um, herd dogs on the farm that were actually, like, consuming the flesh of the dead animals. Um, and there was also a nighttime rescue that was conducted by DxE investigators, um, and this was also published previously, um, where they rescued two baby goats, as well as the mother of one of those baby goats who they found suffering upon the farm.

So that's everything that preceded the daytime rescue in May.

Mariann Sullivan: Alright, so that wa- that, that was what I suspected, that that was done surreptitiously but now

public

Taj Uppal: Not exactly

Mariann Sullivan: N- no? Tell me

Taj Uppal: No. So a- actually the nighttime rescue was also done openly in the sense that, um, the rescuers who were involved in that, like, do have their faces showing and, uh, the rescue was published on the internet prior to the May rescue.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay, but no, no charges were filed at r- they just ignored

Taj Uppal: No charges from that day. Yeah. They just haven't filed anything on that. But you can easily identify, um, the rescuers' faces from that rescue. In fact, um, one of the rescuers at the nighttime rescue, Karla Cabral, is also my co-defendant from the daytime rescue in May.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay. all right, so after that event, they gathered a lot of evidence, so there were additional reports to authorities, right?

Taj Uppal: That's correct. So we gathered all this evidence that we had found on the farm, um, the ongoing dead pile, um, the neglect, the disease, including salmonella and E. coli and pneumonia, and just the fact that all these animals keep dying on this farm. Um, we gathered it and we sent it to state and local authorities, um, anyone who had any sort of jurisdiction over farming and agriculture in the area.

And, um, interestingly, we actually did receive one response. Um, Kings County, that is the name of the county where this farm lies. Uh, Kings County Animal Services, uh, responded and said, "Actually, we did go out to the farm and we conducted a site inspection, but we didn't find any dead animals." And that was super curious to us because we'd flown drones over the facility a half dozen times, and every single time you see dead animals.

On top of that, there's literal mounds containing the skulls and skeletons of what appears to amount to thousands of animals. So it's like, how did you not find any dead animals here? And so actually, the very next day after Animal Services sent that email, a DXE investigator once again went out to the farm, um, flew a drone over.

We found dead animals. We sent that email back to Animal Services and then crickets, radio silence. And so, uh, yeah, no remedial action was taken.

Mariann Sullivan: And, and you, you also, I mean, you fi- did you file a, well, a complaint, like a complaint with the authorities seeking prosecution or?

Taj Uppal: That was not filed in this case. It was, it, it was conducted via email to the extent that it was.

Mariann Sullivan: And there's a, I, I have reference to the report by, um, Dr. Castillo, who's been on the

podcast. That name, that

Taj Uppal: Oh, really?

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, long time ago. Um, was that after that investigation or, or after the rescue of the three goats when they went in? I'm sorry to be so, like, pinning this down, but I, I, I just wanna get it straight.

I'd

Taj Uppal: No, it's good to get the facts straight. No, I appreciate that.

Mariann Sullivan: not

relevant

it is

Taj Uppal: Dr. Castillo's veterinary report was, um, was given to the authorities after the May rescue, so not before.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay. Okay. Alright,

Taj Uppal: Although the evidence contained in her report was previously disclosed

Mariann Sullivan: All right. So then I feel... I'm forgiving myself for being confused by that. All right. Um, okay, so basically we're up to May 27th, which is, you know, the big date, um, at issue. So tell us what happened. I understand it was basically a protest.

Taj Uppal: Yes, of sorts. So, um, initially what happened is myself and my co-defendants, um, we entered the farm, and that was actually quite a simple and not a very dramatic experience at all. Um, you can imagine just like a big sprawling feedlot. Um, we walked right on, um, peacefully, openly, non-violently. Um, the workers didn't really see alarm-- seem alarmed by us at all.

I remember, like, we actually waved at them. I think they waved back and went back to their work. Um, we entered the confinement area, um, where all the babies are confined. You can imagine, like, ten foot by ten foot pens or so with about a dozen baby goats confined in each pen, and then just pen after pen after pen, and hundreds of these babies confined, um, within this single barn.

Um, we find these two baby goats. Um, I was actually... Also, I mentioned earlier, I was accompanied by my co-investigator, Karla Cabral, who has been a veterinary technician for nearly a decade. And so she recognizes that both of these baby goats, uh, are demonstrating signs of respiratory infection, that they're both quite thin, and we're worried that they're going to end up in the dead pile right next door.

And so we rescue them, we walk out, and we send the baby goats to receive veterinary care. And the story goes on from that day, but, uh, that, that's the events of the rescue itself. It was honestly, like, not very dramatic at all. We were in and out within about ten minutes of the confinement area.

Mariann Sullivan: Well, so it's really interesting 'cause in, in a lot of these cases, it's, it's more challenging to refute an accusation of trespass than, you know, there, there are defenses that don't necessarily apply to... It doesn't sound like you were trespassing at all. I mean, were, were there signs like no admittance to unauthorized personnel or anything?

Nobody... You- people saw you, didn't tell you to stop?

Taj Uppal: Yeah. Um, there were no signs that we observed, and yeah, no one told us to leave, and it was a quick on and off. And so the, the story goes on, um, from that day. So we re- we send Phoebe and Celia, the two baby goats, to receive veterinary care, and then we return to the farm. And at this point, um, that's where the protest comes in that you were referencing.

Mariann Sullivan: Understand. It wa- that was on a different, a totally different day. Was it a different day? Or later that day?

Taj Uppal: It was hour-- it was later that day. It was about an hour or so later that day. Um, so we returned to the farm. At this point, our group of investigators is joined by a larger group of protesters who have congregated outside of the farm. And as a result of those protesters, the police have also been called.

And so now there's like the farm right here, there's, uh, police, and then on the other side is a large group of 50 protesters. And what actually happens there is, uh, quite interesting. I'd never really done anything like this before, but I, I'm negotiating with, um, the lead officer on site, um, to ask him to let us back on the farm because we saw animals who were suffering, and we have veterinary supplies with us, and we want to help those animals who are still suffering.

Um, he says, "No, you're not allowed back on the farm." Um, and he also, um, asked me about what happened earlier that day. I'm completely transparent with him. I told him that we were on the farm earlier. I told him that, um, there's this ongoing dead pile that we're concerned about for public health and animal welfare reasons.

And I told him that we rescued these two baby goats who we found suffering. Um, he wasn't concerned with any of that. All he cared about was that we had been on the farm earlier that day. He tells me, "Put your arms behind your back. You're under arrest." And I was taken to a cop car for the next two hours, and then they just let me go.

And I didn't hear anything else about this case for about another year.

Mariann Sullivan: And you, you and three other people were arrested, right? Were they all arrested on site at the same time?

Taj Uppal: So there was actually five of us arrested and then four of us who were later charged. All of us were arrested at the same time.

Mariann Sullivan: And one thing I really couldn't figure out is that, all right, in a lot of the papers it says, it talks about these two baby goats, and then in a lot of the papers it talks about three goats, they're all referring to the same date. So could you, can you clarify where this, the, where the mystery goat came from?

Taj Uppal: That is because they-- the farm doesn't know how many goats they have. That, that's the answer. I mean, this is a sprawling operation that has thousands of them. They have no way of keeping track of their goats. There's actually body cam footage, um, from an officer that I clipped where you hear him speaking.

He's like, "Yeah, the farm says they're missing a few goats. Have no idea how they'd be able to tell." Like, that's just the nature of factory farming, right? Like, each individual animal is like they don't keep track of them at all. And so they just misidentified and said that we took three. We only ever rescued two.

Mariann Sullivan: That's crazy. Well, no wonder I couldn't figure that out. I'm, I'm, I'm being much more forgiving of myself now that you're telling me this story 'cause I understand why I was confused. Did you immediately get a veterinary report on those goats, on the babies?

Taj Uppal: We did. Um, and that veterinary report, um, concluded that both of these goats were emaciated, suffering from a respiratory infection as well, uh, possible pneumonia.

Mariann Sullivan: And I assume they were taken to a sanctuary and cared for there.

Taj Uppal: Exactly. Yeah. So they're living happily at a sanctuary.

Mariann Sullivan: So, so going back a little bit. Was this, was this this, this Sergeant Fausnett who, who was the person who arrested you? I saw him referred to in the materials, like in, in the most, in the most unbelievable video I've ever seen.

Like, but we'll get to that in a second. Like, unbelievable. Um, all right, so you mentioned that he refused your request to investigate animal cruelty or let you go in and show him evidence of animal cruelty, but he also stated he was not in charge of enforcing animal cruelty law, didn't he? And that was the job of the Rural Crimes Task Force. Do you know what that is, and is that, like, true in any way? Because, I mean, animal cruelty is a criminal offense, and I would think the sheriff would have some jurisdiction over it.

Taj Uppal: That's totally correct. I mean, the sheriff has the ability to enforce the criminal laws of the state of California. Um, criminal animal cruelty is, um, enshrined in Penal Code 597, and very much the sheriff's office does have the ability to enforce that law if they choose to do so, um, if they have probable cause to do so, as they did on that day.

We literally supplied it to them with video and photo evidence. Um, yeah, the Rural Crimes Task Force. So this is a specific unit within the Central Valley law enforcement that is dedicated to the purposes of mitigating rural crimes. And so there's, there's a lot of really interesting stuff that happens.

There, there... It's like true rural crimes, like people stealing tractors, people stealing copper wires, and then the other thing they do is they try and crack down on animal advocates such as myself, people who are trying to investigate and aid the animals who are suffering upon these facilities. So that's the job of that task force.

Mariann Sullivan: If they were actually tracking down animal cruelty in the Central Valley, they would have a very big job to do. Like if that

Taj Uppal: Yeah, they don't do that. That's, that's a very important point that I didn't say. They, they really, um-- truthfully, they, they exist to support the factory farm industry. They're not there to protect the animals.

Mariann Sullivan: Um, all right, so let's get back to this line from Sergeant Fausnett. Can you t- can you give us when this video was taken? Uh, it wasn't taken by you. Uh, uh, well, just tell the story 'cause it's such a good story.

Taj Uppal: Yeah. So this is about an hour or so after I was arrested the very same day. Um, we received body cam footage of Sergeant Fausnaught ordering his deputy to, quote, "Get an exact amount for those goats. Make sure it's a fucking felony." And so the context here is Sergeant Fausnett is the lead investigating officer, and he's in charge of investigating what happened here, um, and building the factual record against us, whatever it may be.

And this quote is just like very smoking gun evidence of like how vindictive and motivated he was in that investigation. He is literally ordining-- ordering his subordinate that, "I want you to investigate this, but make sure that your conclusion is that it's a fucking felony."

Mariann Sullivan: Which presumably, I don't think he didn't actually say that, it had to do with the am- the amount that, um, that it, it would, it would be, it, the, the harm would amount to a certain amount of damages that it would, uh, entail a felony charge. That's probably what he meant. We don't know. Yeah. But what else would he

have meant?

Taj Uppal: W- w- yeah, we know with like decent certainty at least that like

Mariann Sullivan: issue. Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I

Taj Uppal: when he said get an exact amount for those goats, yeah. You have to steal a certain amount of property. Exactly

Mariann Sullivan: I totally think you left out one of the best parts though, because... All right, so one of his, I guess, one of his deputies, whatever, is coming up to him, and they have this conversation, and in the, right after he says this, he said to his deputy, "Is your rec- are you recording?" 'Cause he c- clearly had his body cam on. Then they frantically grab his body cam and turn, turn off the sound. It was,

Taj Uppal: it's an admission in that moment that

Mariann Sullivan: hilarious.

Taj Uppal: This. "Turn off your body cam right now."

Mariann Sullivan: G- it, there was a panic sound in his voice. I mean, I'm just interpreting it, but, uh, people are welcome to listen to it themselves, because you have written a Substack about that, that issue, that people can actually see the video, right?

Taj Uppal: That's right. It's embedded.

Mariann Sullivan: It's worth watching. All right, so, uh, so that all happened, and then a criminal complaint got filed, but not the next day, right?

Taj Uppal: Right. So it actually took nearly a year for them to file charges on this, uh, 10 months or so to be more precise. And, um, the timing of the filing of that complaint is also very interesting. Um, why did they wait almost a year? Um, well, coincidentally, uh, these charges were filed just four days after the mass rescue of dogs from Ridglan Farms, a beagle laboratory out in Wisconsin.

And so I can't prove this with 100% certainty, but, um, the, the timing is certainly, uh, curious that you wait a whole year and then just a few days after this massively successful rescue effort in a state in Wisconsin, the charges come down. And then the, the further evidence to support this theory that the Ridglan Farms rescue is what triggered the charging of my charges is that at my initial arraignment, the prosecution actually explicitly asked for ankle monitors to be put on my leg.

And the justification for that ankle monitor was that I was involved in similar activities in other states. And so, um, that, that's why they wanted to put an ankle monitor on my leg. The judge thankfully, uh, declined that, so I- I'm not lugging around an ankle monitor at the moment. Um, but yeah, it was this entirely separate political event in another state that triggered my charges.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah. No, it, it, l- like as you said, there's no way to prove it, but you can imagine that there was maybe some conflict within the DA's office about whether to do, do this. Like, just thinking this is a can of worms, let's not open this. Like, this is, we're, we're... This isn't, this is a mess. And, and then Ridglan happened, and it tipped the argument in the other, in the other favor.

Can't prove it but it sure sounds like it.

Taj Uppal: Yeah, definitely. And you can actually see that the complaint is signed in October. So they had this locked and loaded, um, for like from October till March when the charges are actually filed. So like five months previously, they had like written the complaint. They decided to pull the trigger on it five months later. Why is that?

Mariann Sullivan: Alright, so what were the charges?

Taj Uppal: Um, so there's two felonies, uh, felony grand theft and felony conspiracy to commit grand theft, and then there's also misdemeanor trespass.

Mariann Sullivan: So the misdemeanor trespass, well, I mean, we already went through the fact, which I hadn't realized, that this, it's be hard to prove trespass, I think, with absolutely no- nobody telling you not to go inside. But, uh, okay. But, um, we're not gonna focus on the trespass anyway. And so all right. So you had a preliminary hearing, which seems very preliminary.

Like, the charges are filed and, and you go in. But, and, and that was where you mentioned there was this request for the ankle monitor. um, and, but the, a lot of the issues that came up in that, and, you know, that, that's basically, like, is there enough to hold these people or to charge these people? The issues that came up in that probably are still going to be re-litigated perhaps in your hearing that's coming up next week, which I might add, I'm, I'm, I apologize for this, but there's nothing we can do about it, will already have happened when people are listening to this, so you can just go right to the news and see what happened. Um, so before we get to that, I just wanted to ask one more question, which I kinda left out. The discovery, is it... Did it start, did, did, did discovery start? I don't know how much discovery you're allowed in a criminal case in California, but are, is there information being sought and, and, and responses being given that will be relevant to, to what comes up in your hearing on, um, on next week?

Taj Uppal: We hope so. Um, and the main discovery we're concerned with receiving right now is discovery relating to the relationship between the county prosecutor and this very farm.

Mariann Sullivan: L- let's get the, let's get 'em in order, um, uh, but we'll definitely deal with that issue, 'cause I know that's one of the issues that's going to be, going to be coming up at the hearing, at the hearing. Um, and there right. So the first argument... And are, are all the defendants, um, joining each other's arguments?

I wasn't sure what... 'Cause there are different lawyers filing different, um, different motions and, uh, they seemed like they were all relevant to all the defendants. So are they all... Is that... Am I right?

Taj Uppal: So practically, yes. Yeah. We haven't filed like an official joinder for all the motions, but the lawyers are coordinating.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay, okay. Um, all right. The first is to reverse this decision at the preliminary hearing that there was probable cause for the arrest and, and, and to dismiss, um, at least as far as the felonies are concerned. this is, w- as we intimated before, this is based on the value of the goats. Can you explain this, how even though it's not in the statute, there is a strong argument that there has to be a minimum value of $950 in order to constitute a felony. Um, and so, and you've got plenty of evidence that nobody is gonna be able to prove $950.

Did I say that right? And, and can you explain why that's the case? 'Cause it is not in the statute that you have to have $950.

Taj Uppal: Right. Yeah. So to just back up a little bit there. In California, there's two types of theft. There's felony grand theft, and then there's misdemeanor petty theft. And the distinction between those two types rests upon the value of the property that you steal. Specifically, you have to steal more than $950 worth of property in order to be charged with a felony, right?

And so, um, it never made a whole lot of sense in my case why we were charged with a felony because these two baby goats we rescued, they were only valued at $150 by the farm owner himself. And so if we take the farm owner at his word, then at most we took $300 worth of property, well under the $950 threshold.

Mariann Sullivan: Which if assuming the mystery goat is also worth $150.

Taj Uppal: Right. And even if the mystery goat exists, which,

Mariann Sullivan: at $950. Yeah.

Taj Uppal: Which she doesn't, that's still, like, less than half of the threshold. Um, so, um, why were we charged with felony grand theft despite not reaching the $950 threshold? Well, um, it's because California actually has this special statute called Penal Code 487a, felony grand theft of livestock.

And if you read that statute, it does not outline any value threshold. It just says anyone who feloniously carries away a cow or a goat is guilty of a felony. That's, that's essentially the language of it. And so, uh, the prosecution charged us under this thinking that there is no value threshold and there's a carve-out.

If you just-- if you take a goat, you're automatically guilty of a felony. That theory is incorrect. Um, there actually is another statute, uh, Penal Code 490.2, which overwrites all these other statutes. And it says, uh, uh, for the most part what it says is notwithstanding, um, all other provisions, any theft less than $950 must be charged as a misdemeanor.

And it's con- it's like a confusing California Penal Code. The reason 490.2 exists, the statute I just, uh, described, is because back in 2014, California passed what's called Proposition 47, and that rewrote a lot of California's laws. Um, it was kind of like an anti-carceral provision. It's like we don't want, like, petty shoplifters getting locked up in prison on felony charges.

Let's rewrite this. And so, um, that's the whole felony grand theft issue.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, no, it, it is a little... It took me a while to figure this out, but, um, I think, I think I did. There, there're a couple arguments that they made which I thought were interesting. They said that, um, uh, they were s- talking about carcasses, because it also applies to carcasses, and they said, well, this, th- their argument is that it makes no sense to, to apply this provision, this $950 limit, to th- set- theft of livestock or carcasses, because the carcass is never gonna have a value over $950. But isn't it true that if you, it's, like, you can aggregate. Like, if you stole 500 goats, it would be over 105 not just I have to count each single carcass or goat separately and it has to equal, it's how much you, you steal all together would, would equal $950, right?

Taj Uppal: Exactly. And you can imagine like a cow's carcass, I imagine that would sell for quite a bit of money for the meat that you could sell on the market. Like if you stole a few of those, you could certainly...

Mariann Sullivan: And if it wasn't, then if you stole two cow carc- I mean, it's not like stealing carcas- carcasses could never be a crime because of this, which is kind of, I think, their argument. So yeah.

Taj Uppal: Right

Mariann Sullivan: Was this argument made at the preliminary hearing or w- was it not yet, uh, th- was this not brought to bear?

And is it the same judge at the preliminary hearing as the second he- in the second hearing?

Taj Uppal: Same judge the whole time.

Mariann Sullivan: Alright

Taj Uppal: argument was not identified at the preliminary hearing. It was only after that, and we expect it to be fully litigated here on Tuesday.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay, so i- it's not his fault and he's not gonna feel bad about it, always good not to make the judge feel bad.

Taj Uppal: Right

Mariann Sullivan: all right, so, uh Then we, I, I guess we can get to the wobbling thing, 'cause I just don't understand this at all. Like, like, there's, th- there's something about these crimes, I guess according to the discretion of the judge, could either be charged as a wobbler or a not, and a wobbler just means that you can either charge it as a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances. This has something to do with the 950 requirement, but I just couldn't figure this out. So, so just play through through, Taj.

Taj Uppal: Okay. So I'm charged with two felonies, right? Um, the felony grand theft, it appears it's just straight up unlawful for the reasons I just described. The nine hundred and fifty dollar threshold was not met. But there's actually another mechanism by which to reduce my two felonies to misdemeanors, and that is what's called, um, a 17b motion.

That is maybe a statute that's not too helpful to cite here. But basically, um, this gives, um, the legis- the California Legislature gave power to judges to reduce certain felony charges to misdemeanors upon the judge's discretion.

Mariann Sullivan: That's fair.

Taj Uppal: Yeah, i- it's the idea that like, okay, like the prosecution charged someone, um, with a felony, um, because they stole like nine hundred... they stole like a TV worth nine hundred and fifty dollars, and it's like a kid who did it, and the judge thinks like, "This isn't fair." Um, the judge in their discretion, um, can reduce, um, that felony grand theft charge to a misdemeanor. And so that is the other mechanism that we're attempting here.

Um, we're asking the judge, um, given that we're well under the, uh, threshold, um, for felony grand theft typically, given the fact that this was non-violent, open, peaceful, we have no criminal records, we didn't harm any people or any property, um, could you reduce this to a misdemeanor in your discretion?

And the judge will be reconsidering, uh, that motion on Tuesday as well.

Mariann Sullivan: Right. Okay. So they have both, the judge will have both a legal reason and a discretionary reason to reduce to misdemeanors. What, is it, is that true of the conspiracy charge too? I noticed that they were arguing that, uh, even if, even if the $950 threshold applies, it wouldn't prevent the conspiracy charge because at the point that you were entering into the conspiracy and making the plan to steal goats, you could have been meeting the $950 threshold. Is that their argument? I think it was, and does that make sense?

Taj Uppal: I honestly wasn't entirely clear what the prosecution's argument was, but that, that that certainly is like an argument they can make that we, we, we agreed to steal more than $950 worth of property. But the thing is, at the preliminary hearing, they never even alleged that.

Mariann Sullivan: Mm-hmm.

Taj Uppal: They didn't offer any evidence of such an agreement being made.

And so, uh, in my view, like they have not met the probable cause standard that we formed such an agreement. They, they never, they never alleged as such.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay. All right. Well, we- we'll be following to see what happens at the hearing, 'cause like I said to everybody at the beginning, this is early days and not everything has been sorted out. So, uh, it's not like reading appellate briefs. Uh, there's a lot to be figured out at this point. All right. Does that pretty much cover the, um, the, the motion to dismiss for, you know, bas- it's basically failure to, uh, to allege, uh,

Taj Uppal: probable cause

Mariann Sullivan: to, yeah, to

Taj Uppal: Exactly.

Mariann Sullivan: Um, you had also mentioned there's this motion to compel discovery from the district attorney, and this opens up a whole new can of worms. Can you talk about the situation?

Taj Uppal: Yeah. So that's the other really interesting thing going on here. Um, we have discovered, um, not through the prosecution's own disclosures but through our own investigation, that there's actually like, um, pretty significant ties between the district attorney in this county and this exact farm. And so, uh, the first thing we uncovered is that this farm donated thousands of dollars to the district attorney's electoral campaign back when she ran in 2022.

And so there's a very clear paper trail, um, between these two entities. But then about a month later, we discovered that it gets even worse than that. The district attorney, back when she was in private practice, was literally counsel of record for the farm's property owner. So she has an attorney-client relationship, or at least formerly had an attorney-client re-relationship with like the alleged victim of this case.

And that, um, poses like a, a pretty clear conflict of interest in my mind because she has two conflicting duties here. She has her duty of confidentiality to her former client, but she also has her duty of disclosure, um, to the defendants, um, that she must, uh, disclose exculpatory evidence. And so those two duties of, uh, disclosure, um, and, and, uh, and confidentiality are in tension here.

So we're gonna be litigating that here as well. Um, we have a motion to compel pending, um, to try and get the prosecution to really tell us like what exactly is the nature and scope of this relationship. They still haven't given us much information on that at all. Um, hopefully it comes out here soon. But it is possible that, uh, this like, um, district attorney is just kicked off the case entirely.

Mariann Sullivan: And, and it would, I mean, 'cause it's the district attorney and not a particular assistant, I mean, it would ha- it would be the whole office. They would have to find another entity. I guess the, the, um, the attorney general's office or who, who comes in when a district attorney can't do a case? It would, it would upend things a lot. Um, and also, I mean, that brings up the thing we were talking about before, why it kinda doesn't matter who owns this dairy. Like, like, is it still the same entity that always owned it, because they now, n- now somebody else owns the goats and not the land, like, is it a new, totally new entity? So it all, it all becomes more and more complicated. Is there anything else pending in this motion, um, that we should know about? What about, there was a subpoena served on the dairy, right? Uh, about, um, about past violations. Has that been complied with?

Taj Uppal: No. Um, we're still waiting on discovery.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay.

Taj Uppal: on that as well

Mariann Sullivan: And will that come up again at, at this hearing?

Taj Uppal: Yes, we expect it to

Mariann Sullivan: So there's no arguments that... I mean, if, if that's all that's going to be argued, there's no arguments that would result in the dismissal of the charges at this juncture, correct? Because you're looking for a reduction.

Taj Uppal: Well No, actually, like, um, according to, um, the motion we filed, it's called a 995 motion, um, which is saying that there was not probable cause to hold us to these felony charges. Um, the remedy set out, um, in Penal Code 995 is to, quote, "Set aside the information," essentially to dismiss the charges. And so I've been really trying to, like, nail down, like, what's gonna happen here.

Are the felonies just going to be dismissed or are they going to be reduced to misdemeanors? Um, I believe the answer is that they should be dismissed because that is the remedy for a 995 motion. Whereas the remedy for a 17B motion on the judge's discretion, that would be reduction to a misdemeanor.

Mariann Sullivan: Okay.

Taj Uppal: We-we'll see what happens. Tho-those are both possible outcomes, dismissal or reduction.

Mariann Sullivan: We don't know what will happen. Uh, we don't know whether this will go to trial. Hopefully it won't. Um, and we don't know what will happen if it does. But is there anything you want to say about your plans should it go to trial, or would you rather keep that sort of thing under wraps for the moment?

Do you have a- Have you thought about, like, how you, how you would want such a trial to play out?

Taj Uppal: A bit. Um, well, the first thing is that I don't want to go to trial . Um, it's definitely been like a hard and stressful experience and, um, I've, I've tried like very actively to negotiate a plea deal. Um, the prosecution has refused to offer anything less than a felony, which of course I just wouldn't plead to.

Um, and so I'm, I'm trying to get out of the case, but if I am, um, indeed forced to go to trial on these charges, I mean, how would I want that to play out? Um, I, I would very much like, um, want to tell the story of these goats, um, and tell the story of why I did what I did, um, and explain to the jury that, um, I was motivated by compassion and I found two babies who were suffering, so I took them to the vet.

Mariann Sullivan: And we have seen, uh, these, these cases go to trial and, you know, they've come out different ways. but it is...

Taj Uppal: Two out of five have been acquittals.

Mariann Sullivan: It's, it's sad that this is the only way we can get the story of these animals out, for people to risk their freedom. But, um,

Taj Uppal: Yeah

Mariann Sullivan: All right. One of the reasons I wanted to interview, even at this early juncture, though there's plenty of ta- plenty of legal stuff to talk about, but, uh, I also wanna just talk about, a little bit about, you know, that you write a lot of really passionate stuff on, on your Substack, and, I, I'm interested, and maybe, maybe the answer is it doesn't, I don't know, but clearly, you know, you, you come from a religious background and, and a strong, a really strong family background.

I'm just kind of... We've never inter- I interview a lot of people about various religions and how they affect their, have affected their consciousness about animals, but I've never interviewed anybody who is Sikh, and I was just wondering whether you could share some thoughts on that.

Taj Uppal: Yeah, for sure. Um, there's a lot of ways that I see my faith, um, overlapping with my animal protection advocacy. Um, but perhaps the number one is just this concept of oneness. Um, so actually, like the very first word in our religious scripture is Ik. Um, Ik mean translates to one, and this is like in a lot of ways, like the fundamental premise of Sikhism is that there is, uh, no distinction between me and you and everyone else and the animals and the plants and the inanimate objects of this world.

But everything is like truly encapsulated in oneness, um, that pervades everything. And, and I think this is like kind of distinct from perhaps like the Abrahamic conception of a God, which is like God is ab- above and beyond and exterior and good and perfect. Um, I feel like the Sikh conception of a God is basically that like collectively we are God.

We, we are all God together. And, um, that is, um, a concept I'm like deeply moved by and it, it brings me to tears, uh, when I think about it, um, a lot. And, uh, yeah, I f- I feel very moved by that concept.

Mariann Sullivan: And, and you've also written about, uh, which I thought was fascinating, um, I mean, you're from Arizona, and apparently I guess you grew up in or are part of or have been part of a pretty strong Sikh community there, and you've kind of drawn parallels between what that has accomplished for you and, and i- in your life and what the animal protection movement could be, uh, if it moved more in that direction of community.

Um, is, is that something you would, you, you could just share a few thoughts on? 'Cause I think it's very very powerful and desperately needed.

Taj Uppal: Yeah. Thank you. Um, well, the basic idea there is like the Sikh community is like deeply united. Um, we have like these really powerful, um, historical narratives about struggle and overcoming struggle. Um, we have a strong physical identity that unites us. Um, we, um, are united like by our values and our faith.

It, it's just the idea that it's like a very like cohesive community and like I, I grew up in this community and like, it is like, um... It's hard, it's hard to fully explain the experience, I guess, but it's just the idea that someone always has your back, um, and like we're all here to support one another.

And I, I felt that also very much like through this felony prosecution, like in a lot of ways the Sikh community has come out to support me. Like just yesterday, um, I had a Sikh journalist who was reporting on this, um, and yeah, there, there is a real solidarity, um, in, in our faith. And so I feel like, um, it, it is because of like this unity and solidarity that like the Sikh people have been able to overcome such adversity, um, throughout history.

And I'll, I'll give like, just like one, um, example of that, and this is like going back 300 years, um, in Indian history. Um, but the Sikhs were like heavily persecuted by the Mughal Empire at the time. Um, there were like taxes on all non-Muslims. This is a, a ruling Muslim empire. Um, there were demolitions of non, uh, Muslim temples and actually ultimately, um, our spiritual religious leader, Guru Tegh Bahadur, was executed by the ruling empire.

And so like there's just like this ongoing like persecution of our people. Um, but we've always persisted and we've always triumphed over that and I, I think it is like the reason we've been able to overcome that struggle is because of our community. Um, and so now applying that sort of principle to animal advocacy, we also face what is a massive gargantuan struggle, the factory farm industry, which has so much political and financial influence and is quite literally every single year, um, eviscerating trillions of animals.

And this is a struggle of like the utmost moral gravity and proportion, and there's no words I can say on this podcast to capture that. But how, how are we supposed to overcome this great gargantuan struggle? I think we have to replicate, um, some of what the Sikh community has and we have to like be really united, um, in identity, in narrative, in grand narratives, in faith.

I, I, I don't have all the components, but I, I just, I feel like the animal rights movement does have to really, um, imitate aspects of the spiritual community if we're going to overcome this struggle.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, I, uh, I mean, I hear you, and I don't know what the answers are either. I mean, it's not a religion, and it's never going to be a religion, but there is something about it that I've always said that if you drop me down anywhere in the world, anywhere, and, uh, I manage to speak the language, there would be somebody there who gets it about animals.

Like, it, it is a universal th- well, not, it's definitely not universal, but it is everywhere. And we are all joined in some, in some way that we just... it's hard to explain to people who don't get it. I mean, we just get it, that, that this matters, and, uh, and get it very passionately and, and, and the, the more unity we can bring to that, even though, you know, I mean, inevitably we're gonna disagree about tactics and strategies and, and all sorts of things, but to be able to join on that one, to be as one on that, on that

basic principal. So powerful.

Taj Uppal: And I think this is actually like the greatest like, um, gap and like unsolved problem within the animal rights movement because like, like you're saying, like there's so many of us like vegans or just animal advocates out there who feel so very deeply about this issue. Like this matters so much to me.

I don't want to see these animals suffering. I don't want humanity to be relating to our fellow creatures in this way. Like we're better than this. Like this is such a strong feeling that we feel, but like we're not, we're not too coordinated, honestly. Um, we're organized, um, by like a loose collection of nonprofits and some grassroots groups.

But like if you just compare to like the Sikh community's like unity. Like any city you go to, you just go to the temple and you're automatically united. You know where to find your people and gather together and organize and do whatever it is you want to do. We don't have that same thing when it comes to the animal rights movement.

I would love to build that like physical and communal infrastructure that does allow us to, um, yeah, enhance our coordinating ability.

Mariann Sullivan: Yeah, no, I, I think it's a very powerful idea. I don't, you know, I don't understand the details of it any better than you do, but I think the idea is so important. Alright, I'm gonna have to let you go. Uh, we've talked a long time, but this is an ongoing case and it's going to be ongoing very soon, I'm sure people are gonna want to stay on top of it. Uh, how, how can people find out what's happening in real time and what can they do to help?

Taj Uppal: The best place to go is my Instagram. It says Taj_ _uppal. Um, and what can you do to help? Um, at this point in time, uh, the number one thing is just share my story. Um, the more people who see, um, what's happening here, um, that does put more pressure on the prosecution. Um, and more importantly, um, it tells the story of the baby goat who I rescued on this day and, um, the billions of other animals who are currently languishing within our food system.

Um, and that's a story that needs to be told. Um, and you know, one, one thing, Mariann, if I can leave it off here as well, is also like I just mentioned billions of animals languishing within our food system, which is indeed a great moral atrocity, but also one thing I really want to communicate through my story and my entire life really is just like this really like deep sense of hope.

Um, I, I believe that like humanity is like way better than what we're doing to these animals, and I'm just hopeful that, um, we'll be able to, we'll be able to create something much better.

Mariann Sullivan: Oh, that's really beautiful and a beautiful place to leave it. All right. Best of luck next week and, um, we will be in touch. Thank you, Mariann.

And thanks everybody out there for, for joining us. Remember to subscribe and like, and all of that stuff. See you next time.