For the context of this blog entry, first check these prior entries:
Now, here’s an email that somebody forwarded to me that apparently emanated from an exchange that Kevin D. Akin had on the subject of convicted sex-offender Steven Bruce Orcutt aka Frank Runninghorse:
Subject: RE: Peace and Freedom Party: Frank Runningmouth
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:25:24 -0700
Dear anonymous e-mailer,
Please do not be offended if I doubt your actual existence. If you are a real person, do you have an actual name, and where are you registered to vote?
Please let me assure you that I, personally, have no intention of allowing Frank to join the State Central Committee. If he asks to be voted on, I will vote against him. But this has not happened yet.
As a member of the State Executive Committee and the State Central Committee, I have no control over anything done by the Contra Costa County Central Committee. So when you ask “how dare the party have frank runninghorse, the child rapist as an officer in contra costa” you are asking a meaningless question. “The party” is not doing any such thing. The Contra Costa County Central Committee appointed Frank as its co-chair, without consulting anyone else, and no other body can veto that decision. Instead of harassing the State Central Committee about something that neither the party bylaws nor state law permit us to control, have you brought this up with the Contra Costa CCC?
Someone appears to have decided that this is the perfect issue to use with which to attempt to discredit our party. After all, no matter what the SCC thinks about it, we can’t do anything, and we can thus be accused of – well, of not doing anything. More than a little unfair, but someone who has no interest in fairness or accuracy would not let that concern him. -Kevin Akin, South State Organizer
Well, actually Kevin, the PFP’s SCC leadership really doesn’t need any help to discredit itself. Since you and the leadership can’t think of what to do about this unsatisfactory state of affairs, maybe you should remember that PFP members proposed quite some time ago a resolution that I authored which the SCC could pass. In fact, if PFP was actually still a feminist party, as it pretends to be, the resolution would be a no-brainer:
Proposed Resolution for the Reform of
Sex Offender Registration Laws
And Efforts to Combat Human Trafficking
By Jan B. Tucker1
Whereas, the California Peace & Freedom Party (PFP) became the first political party to declare itself to be a feminist party in 1974;
And whereas, beginning with its 1970 “Long Beach Platform,” PFP dedicated itself to full support for the decriminalization of consenting adult sexual acts and relationships and to full equality for LGBT people;
And whereas, in 1972, the People’s Party adopted the first political party plank on Ageism1 committing the party to fight discrimination against and victimization of the young and the old alike;
And whereas, in 1974 PFP elected Kayren Hudiburgh as the first woman to head the State Central Committee of a California political party and subsequently voted to expel a member for sexually harassing and assaulting her in PFP’s first and only expulsion;2
And whereas, up until the past few years, the FBI’s civil rights squad in Los Angeles devoted only two individuals to combating human trafficking, neither of which spoke Spanish, and that when the supervising special agent of that squad demanded and finally receiving more personnel including bilingual agents, he was rewarded by being forced out of the FBI;
And whereas, an impediment to efforts to combat human trafficking is the exemption from sex offender registration requirements of Section 290 of the California Penal Code of pimps and panderers who traffick adults rather than juveniles;
And whereas, a since corrected loophole in California law, i.e., mandatory probation for family members who molested children, created a Hobbes choice for falsely accused defendants in which a significant number pleaded guilty to avoid imprisonment who have no legal recourse to clear their names;
And whereas, defendants who entered into plea agreements with a promise that they would not be subject to public scrutiny through California’s initial “1-900” telephone access number were later subjected to public scrutiny of their status due to the unexpected development of public internet access to sex offender records;
And whereas, those convicted of certain misdemeanor sex offenses are exempt from public scrutiny for no rational reason while persons convicted of offenses that are no longer crimes (such as LGBT sex) and otherwise irrelevant offenses such as urinating in public (as opposed to intentional “flashing”) are required to register as sex offenders;
And whereas, no political organization that purports to be feminist should tolerate within its ranks any person who objectifies, manipulates, mistreats, or in any way abuses women and/or girls;
Therefore be it resolved that California PFP calls for:
- Vigorous, positive, and fully funded efforts by law enforcement to combat human trafficking;
- Amendment to Section 290 of the California Penal Code to require the registration of all convicted pimps and panderers;
- Decriminalization of consenting adult sex, whether or not it is commercial in nature, with strict and vigorous regulation to prevent the exploitation of voluntary sex workers;
- Vigorous, positive, and fully funded efforts to provide alternatives to financially stressed people to prevent them from being forced to engage in sex work by poverty;
- Creation under the auspices of the California Department of Justice of a commission or study group or task force to study and recommend reforms for the mitigation of the above outlined problems in the statutory schemes and enforcement of laws that deal with sex crimes, to include representatives of prosecutor and law enforcement agencies, criminal defense attorneys and investigators, and academicians;
- Adoption of a bylaw of the PFP to create a rebut-table presumption that conviction for a non-victimless sex crime renders a person ineligible for membership in PFP organizational bodies.
1Principle author: Jan B. Tucker
2Bill Callison, with only a single vote cast against the expulsion