Dallas District Committee Meeting Transcript

Tequila Sunset: Hey, y’all.

Rick: Morning.

Tequila Sunset: I don’t know if we’re expecting anybody else. Um, I know Xavi is at the conference, and, um, Alpharius’s at work. I think Kyra’s- I think Kyra’s going out of town today, I don’t know if we should expect Kyra either.

Rick: Yeah. We can just start, I suppose.

Okay. So.

A couple of thing. Who’s- so I suppose, like, Wizard has mentioned, somebody called Dustin Ponder or somebody, right? Did he reach out to you, Jo, or anybody else? I know it was briefly mentioned on the call yesterday.

Jo: He asked me about it and was very worried about it.

I was able to look into it more, and then I, uh, I wasn’t in Freedom Road at that time, but I’d heard a lot about it. And so. I kind of remembered what what that was all about, which, in short, it was two people who were removed from the organization.

Rick: Yeah

Tequila Sunset: So I feel like I should get some context here because so what happened was, um, Alpharius and I were talking after sort of, like, the, you know, decision came down that they’d be overturning our sort of view, our sort of decision regarding Dan, particular after Alpharius spoke to Tom. And Alpharius was pointing out that there seems to be a trend here of like, several people being given too many chances that really shouldn’t be, with the same sort of thinking that this person is useful to the movement and we ought to struggle with them. So, like, Dan’s one example. And Alpharius mentioned a couple of other examples of names that he was aware of, but, you know, I so I did some more digging.

So, like, some of those names were, like, Mantak Singh. I don’t know how much people know about Mantak Singh. And so there’s Mantak Singh. There is Gregory Lucero, and then there’s Dustin Ponder. So of those three, like, they’re all pretty bad.

Gregory Lucero, uh, you know, it was like a domestic violent situation. He was given one chance, and then he did something else bad. I don’t know exactly why he was expelled, but something something else that was similarly bad, and he was expelled. The- who’s the other person? Mantak Singh?

I think we’ve already talked about Mantak Singh a little bit, but, like, brocialist, like, misogynistic behavior. Tom, you know, told Alpharius, we just gotta struggle with him. And then Mantak Singh is also eventually expelled. It’s unclear why he was expelled. And then Dustin Ponder is sort of, Dustin Ponder is the one that, like, really sort of blew up on the Internet.

Right? And the sort of reason it was troubling me and so the way that Wizard found out about it essentially was that I was sort of, like, looking into it, and there’s a YouTube video by some dude. And the YouTube video itself is irrelevant, but, like, in the YouTube video, the description of the YouTube video, there’s screenshots of, like, conversation on Left Book that was talking about this. And Dan and Greg Lucero are, like, coming to Dustin’s defense in that situation, which I feel like are two people that you don’t wanna become into your defense whenever you’re accused of rape. That’s but but and, like, I found there I found Dan Dan sort of sort of the way that Dan was going about it and those messages very troubling and Greg too.

And so it was in my YouTube history and the issue that happened was that the office was logged into my YouTube account and so Wizard just happened to see it and called me up and was like, hey, what do you know about this? So that’s how Wizard sort of like found out. And that’s also how Wizard- so I sort of explained exactly what I just said to you. And so like the reason that Wizard knew about Tom was because of the context of this. I I’d like, but, so the reason that sort of the Dustin situation is particularly worrying is because two things.

One, Dustin, you know, after that situation was, like, moved to New York, moved to New York and then eventually moved to Jacksonville. And so in Jacksonville, there is somebody else that, um, there’s a comrade that that came to Dallas last year from Jacksonville who, um, mentioned that they were, uh, sexually assaulted. And Rick’s memory of it is that the person mentioned Dustin Ponder is the person that did it.

Rick: Oh, here’s here’s the thing. So what they said was that they were sexually assaulted, but, and they mentioned Dustin Ponder, but they didn’t say Dustin Ponder assaulted them. So…

Tequila Sunset: I mean, this is this is not what you’ve been telling me, Rick. No. So okay. Well, if you’re changing your memory a bit now, that’s fine. But that’s not really fine.

Rick: That’s not what they said. They said they mentioned that they were sexually assault- sexually assaulted, and they mentioned Dustin Ponder to have done, you know, sexual assault, but those two things are not connected. But, anyways.

Tequila Sunset: Okay.

Rick: Whatever we what we do know about the situation is that we have a YouTube video, and we know that there is a we know that there’s a YouTube video, and we know that there’s some stuff on somewhere on the Internet. The problem here is that I think that we have spent a lot of time treating the both the YouTube video and whatever other sources as verifiable information, whereas and also, like because this information was not verified, it also communicated some stuff to to Wizard regarding whatever has happened.

And, I mean, naturally, so if you’re not part of any of this conversation, you’ll naturally be afraid of this organization. So I did speak to Xavi in the morning. And then what Xavi told me is that, you know two things that Xavi told me. First thing that Xavi told me is that regarding Dan. And then what Dan said is that, uh, well, I mean, what he he communicated to Mick was basically the fact that, you know, we we didn’t feel like the SC did enough investigation into the situation and, you know, reversed our decision.

Of course, I mean, however expulsion was handled was handled. But problem here is that because the SC did not investigate fully, you know, Tom also mentioned that, you know, there could have been consequences to me and to Alpharius apparently said that there was expulsion or whatever. Mick was more sympathetic to our to what we were saying. And then Mick said that he was going to raise this point very seriously to the SC, you know, in addition to what I had already communicated to Andy. And Mick said that, basically, there would be no promises, but they would he would propose an investigation, and that would involve either someone coming down from the center to our local district to investigate or there being a series of phone calls from DSC to variety of people here locally to get more information.

That’s number one. Number two is Mick Mick, you know, was basically asked by Xavi about the Dustin Ponder situation. And then what Xavi was communicated is that what Xavi was communicated is that, you know, Mick was very straightforward and said that there was political issues as to why Dustin left and that the people accusing I mean, you know, of course, didn’t give every single detail, but was very straightforward and said that you could ask anybody there at the conference who was there from the time, and they would say the same thing that the people accusing Dustin were essentially trying to harm the organization as well as the YouTube video. This the site itself is connected to to some Reddit pages, which essentially try to destroy organizations as well. And that, you know, it wasn’t a case of what they’re actually purporting.

And so I spoke to Wizard yesterday, and, basically, I said that, listen. I mean, I’ve I’ve I’ve heard a few things. I’ve heard about Dustin Ponder. I’ve heard about sexual assault from Dustin Ponder, but I don’t I actually don’t know what has gone on. And then and that, you know, these these sources that are being cited are I mean

Tequila Sunset: So the sources that are being cited that we’re talking about are, like, firsthand sources. It’s not, like, an unverifiable source. It’s people in our organization

Jo: My hand was up first.

Rick: Hold on. Hold on. Hold Hold

Tequila Sunset: I mean, Rick Rick, you’re straight up, like, misrepresenting. Like, we’ve talked about this extensively.

Rick: Yeah.

Tequila Sunset: You’re very much misrepresenting what’s going on here.

Rick: I know.

Tequila Sunset: Like, intentionally. I don’t know what the fuck you’re doing right now.

Rick: What do you mean? I’m I’m giving you I’m I’m-

Tequila Sunset: So you’re saying this is unverifiable information. The two things that- the videos that we’re talking about are a video of Steff arguing with the with the people that are accusing things.

Rick: Sure.

Tequila Sunset: And, like, comments directly from, like, Gregory Lucero and Dan. Like, this is, like this unless you’re suggesting this is like a deepfake.

Rick: Yeah. Okay. Okay. Let’s hold on.

Jo: My my hand was up first.

Rick: Go ahead. Go ahead, Jo.

Jo: So I wasn’t in the organization when this happened, but I was aware of the situation. So my understanding of it is that third party came forward saying that Dustin had assaulted someone and, like, appointed herself as a representative of the person who was assaulted. And we attempted to follow our process which is to speak with the person in question to get a basic understanding of what happened. Like, that’s in our harassment policy. That’s how we figure out what happened.

And this third party wouldn’t wouldn’t say who it was, wouldn’t say what had happened, said something bad had happened. And Steff Yorek did go down there to try and figure out what happened and nobody would talk to her. And our policy isn’t to remove people based on “something bad happened”. We have different policies based on different things that take place.

And my understanding is Dustin went on to, like, mistreat a partner and was expelled over that.

Rick: Yeah

Jo: And another complicating factor was the person who had appointed herself as the representative was someone who came from, like, a strain of feminism that saw, like, for instance, anal sex is raped every time. So it’s difficult to determine if this person’s concept of assault is the same as ours when, like, she she’s from this, like, a political ideology that, like, sees sex as assault. So, like and the second one who was it? Gregory Lucero? Yeah. That was the one who like, he was in Gainesville and…

Tequila Sunset: He was in Utah.

Jo: Right? Was it in-

Rick: Utah. Yeah.

Jo: Hang on. Actually, I might be thinking of somebody else. I don’t think I know Gregory Lucero.

Tequila Sunset: I can give a little bit of con I mean, I can tell you a little bit about who Gregory Lucero was. I don’t I don’t know the details of that, like, the allegations against him, but if that would be useful.

Rick: Uh, okay. Uh, go ahead, Tequila Sunset.

Tequila Sunset: I mean, so I mean, so Gregory Lucero was somebody who’s, um, this is all stuff that I’ve heard from Alpharius. Alpharius couldn’t be here, so he told me just repeat what he’s told me. Um, so, um, Gregory Lucero was a was like the DO of, like, the Salt Lake City chapter, who was pretty, like, instrumental in building that- building that district. He I think he was part of, like, the leadership of the student commission. Alpharius knows him pretty well.

He was sort of like a notorious alcoholic. I don’t know. Like, Alpharius’s mentioned, like, Gregory Lucero calling him up, like, late at night and, like, you know, sort of going on drunken, you know, rants about various things and not really appropriate. The particular thing that Alpharius knows is that Gregory Lucero and Gregory Lucero’s partner at the time got into some kind of, like, domestic violence, like, altercation. And the the the organization’s sort of solution to that was, okay.

Well, the two of you can still be in the work, but just separate, which I don’t know. It seems like a problem to me. Um, I feel like we didn’t we shouldn’t- we should just boot people who are doing horrible things. So the circumstances of Gregory Lucero being expelled, Alpharius don’t know about, I don’t know about either.

That’s that’s sort of the lowdown on Gregory Lucero. And, I mean, I think for me, the sort of like like, Gregory Lucero is one bad example, and Mantak Singh is one bad example. I think what makes the Dustin Ponder example particularly sort of, like, um, troubling is that, um, with Dustin, uh, it seems like he did something else after Gainesville, and then he was expelled for that. And then he also did something prior to Gainesville. That one that that that we the organization credibly found to be true according to Steff.

Um, and also, like, but the particularly troubling thing is that a lot of the people that were in the Gainesville district are part of our national leadership now.

Rick: Mhmm. Yeah. So what I meant was by unverifiable is that, yeah, there’s a video where somebody goes up to Steff and asks that, you know, has, you know was Dustin moved to a different area and, you know, was there a prior charge? And Steff says, yes. Right?

Which, I mean, yeah, it could be true that, you know, that Dustin had a prior charge, but we don’t know exactly what happened. Uh, if the organization could explain that prior charge, I would be satisfied. But, again, like, the main two sources here is that the YouTube video, the comments the two comments, and then the other thing is the KiwiKi, which, again, I mean, like, I I don’t know if these are these are to be trusted. And so I’m I’m really on the on the side of the fact that we have really taken a lot of time to sort of investigate the situation from our own sort of means or whatever. And then, like, it has led to, like, I don’t know, our other comrades sort of, like, being very confused.

Newer comrades being very confused about the situation and questioning the organizational culture, which is, I mean, troubling for me. And I think that, you know, at some level, we should try to at some level, we should try to dispel some of the fears. It is encouraging for me that Mick is going to take the situation regarding Dan seriously, and he’s going to go to the SC and come back to us. And if it’s an if it’s the full investigation, I mean, I’m really in support of that. But, you know, I mean, I I don’t think that, you know, we should spend an inordinate amount of time discussing Dustin Ponder at our meeting today because it really does nothing when we can’t really, for example, know what happened or know why the organization took the decisions that they did without knowing all the facts.

But I see Jo and then Tequila Sunset.

Jo: So, I mean, like, I think that we should be communicating with the center about all of this, um, which we have to a certain extent but like I am far more interested in hearing from them about it than from a YouTube video or KiwiKi.

Rick: Yep.

Jo: I’m very concerned about the the situation where a call out post accusing Freedom Road wound up on a TV that we use with mass people.

Rick: Mhmm.

Jo: And I will say too that, like, I understand this from the Center’s perspective, like, the criticisms that were raised of Dan seem to all be raised at once and then Dan left. So there wasn’t a process of like bringing them up over time or like struggling with him over any of the individual things so I see from their perspective why it wouldn’t make sense to forego that process like that’s part of our responsibility with people And I I don’t really want to, like… I’ll let Tequila Sunset go and gather my thoughts.

Tequila Sunset: Uh, so a couple of things. I think I think it sounds like we’re trying to sort of, like, dismiss the information that’s out there on this on the basis that it’s, like, a YouTube video or Kiwiki. I mean, KiwiKi just pulls information from, like, from like Fight Back articles and like Facebook and stuff like that. So like the stuff that is on Kiwiki is like images of Dustin Ponder with members of our leadership well after Gainesville and well after Dustin has no longer been part of the organization. Like, you know, it’s not like these are these are unverifiable sources or, like, fabricated.

Like, these aren’t AI images. This is, like this is just information. So I I don’t really- I think that’s sort of trying to minimize what’s going on here. I think at least on the on the one point of unity that it sounds like we have is that we should get more information about this from the Center. I think that’s true.

Also, just to just to clarify, I wasn’t watching this video on the TV. I was watching it on my personal YouTube account, which I didn’t realize was logged in on the TV or still logged in on the TV. So that was a that was an oopsie on my part yeah, that’s a that’s a big fucking on my part, and, you know, I think I should have just never logged in to my personal account in the first place on that on that machine. But and it’s good that Wizard saw it before it’s good that Wizard saw saw it before anybody else did because that would have been really shitty if it ended up popping up in a mass meeting. So that was a big fucking oopsie on my part.

But but I also don’t fully I mean, sounds like from Jo, from what you your understanding of the situation that, like, the organization was, like, unable to talk to the victim. Is that accurate? Am I understanding that correctly? Or is it unable? Because what I’m hearing from Xavi what Mick said is that Mick insists that there was a thorough investigation. From what I’m hearing from you, it sounds like the investigation was sort of, like, obstructed, and they couldn’t really do anything with it, which is, like, two different narratives. And if it was obstructed and they didn’t do anything with it, then I’d have questions about I’d still have questions about, like, why they let Dustin Ponder stick around, especially if what you’re saying is true that Dustin then, like, there was another situation where he was expelled for for, like, for, um, some other, uh, situation with a partner.

I don’t know. I feel like I feel like we’re focusing on procedure here a lot when, like, I think there’s a real problem that there’s that, you know, we could be we could be in an organization that, like, doesn’t take these things seriously. And, like, I I don’t I don’t want that to be the case, but, like, I’d like answers from the center, frankly.

Rick: Sure.

Tequila Sunset: That’s that’s the main thing for me. I’m okay with, like, this this not being brought up at the meeting today because I don’t want I don’t want this to, like, blow up the district. Like, I, like, I think we need I think we need answers. That’s the main thing.

Rick: Okay. I see Kai and then Nova.

Kai: Yeah. I I I agree with with both sentiments. The the I mean, the first actionable thing is we need to log out of accounts on that machine. It only use, like, maybe a official NAARPR account or official DAWC account or whatever and not have those be used for personal videos.

You know? Because I know Wizard goes up there a lot and, like, listens to music and stuff and, like, you know, so, like, I feel like if if he’s doing that, like, or if they’re doing that, like, you know, Wizard needs to, you know, not use that account, like, maybe use their phone or whatever to do that. The second point is, like, yeah, like, things are very, very precarious right now, I feel. And think, like, in the in the the the shitty part is, like, I don’t see another, like, group out there that, like, is like, I I have such high hopes in in in Freedom Road, you know, that, like, there’s not another group out there that, like, is doing the work that we’re doing. And, you know, if this blows up, like, the all like, I I would like, the amount of confidence in in being able to do what we’re doing is just like would would would kill a lot of people, you know, like, me personally, you know, like so I just we just really need to take care here and, like, make sure that we’re doing things correctly, you know, to not only, like, fix the problems, but also to, like, you know, continue this movement.

You know?

Rick: Nova, go ahead.

Nova: Yeah. I don’t know if what I’m wanting to say here, if this is necessarily, like, the exact right time in this conversation to say it, but I’ll go ahead anyways. I feel that to some extent we we’ve forgotten the process that that’s led up to Dan’s what we treated as a resignation, right? I think that we’ve I I think we’ve kind of jumped the gun a little bit and have become far too focused on like I don’t know. I feel like we’ve overcomplicated this situation vastly.

Because what this sounds like to me, and this is just trying to get everything back on track, right, is that: Okay. We treat this as a resignation. The center disagrees with us. I kinda get that, right? I can understand from their perspective why they would think that, especially being if they didn’t do a full- didn’t do as good of an investigation as they could have, and that’s something that they can be criticized on and we can recover from that.

We also I recall when we spoke about this prior that we discussed that, like, if for some reason, say, Dan appealed this, right, or was like, yeah, I’m not leaving. We literally discussed the fact that, oh, we have them, we would totally expel them. And it seems to me like the simplest thing to say here before we go off and start talking to all of the people who are not privy to all the conversations that are happening, right? Like all of our other comrades. We should just get together a response, which I believe, like, get together a line from the DC, which I believe should consist of just simply, yeah, they disagree a bit with our- the center disagrees a bit with our methods as to how they’re, how we’re doing this, how we move forward.

And I think what we recommended there would just be,

<garbled>

And we are working to address that, and I appreciate that. But I don’t think that this is as dire of a situation as we’re making it. I feel like we’re making it a lot worse by introducing other elements that really don’t need to be involved right now. When I think it’s just a simple we can just simply, like, talk to people and tell them, Hey, yeah, the center disagrees because of these factors, you know.

Um, and I think that most people, including me even, I find some of them reasonable to say like, from an outside perspective, yeah, it looks a little odd that you that, uh, the DC brings up all criticisms, and then the and then the DO just fucking leaves and drops the document. And I disagree with some of the notions that some folks from the center put forward, but that’s besides the point. I can understand a little bit of where they’re coming from, and I think most comrades will understand that. So if we just explain a little bit of what’s going on, and then and then open it up for discussion and ask people what do they wanna do about the situation, I don’t think that this is gonna blow up because yeah. Sure.

We could I don’t know. I mean, I think that this is being we’ve grossly overcomplicated this as by by treating this with a little more, like feel like it’s not I feel like it’s it’s not that it it it’s not all that, basically. But, yeah, that’s kind of that that’s my point, basically.

Rick: Yeah. I’ll just respond to that and say that, you know, that my intention of just putting of having that discussion was just to relay the decisions of what the DC has taken and the SC has taken and just leave it at that, which is, first off, we have we took the decision as treating as resignation. The SC took that and said that, you know, we are you know, we we can’t just have resignations of this nature. Any any other further expulsions must be conferred with the center before anything goes through and essentially reversing our decision and saying that we should struggle with Dan. We take that decision from SC and say that SC is unclear on several facts.

We have not presented a lot of criticisms regarding Dan, and we are afraid that several members of our district will leave. And so we took that decision and said that we’re we want a sit down conversation with the SC. And so we presented that back to Andy, and the answer that we got is that they would, uh, have a discussion and they would get back to us. That’s all that I was going to relay today and keep it as simple as that. For for for one, like, as Nova said, like, the matter is regarding Dan and and our local district here.

Yes. There might there can or cannot be patterns of how this organization is function. And we can point to some examples, maybe. But, again, not knowing everything on all of the details on these particular cases gives us an incomplete picture about how decisions have been made by our organization. So it’s better to focus on things that have happened here locally and things that we can verify, which is here are local conditions, and operate on based on that.

And the other stuff regarding Gregory Lucero and and Dustin Ponder, I I don’t necessarily think these are germane to the conversation today. We definitely should investigate through the center’s information, but we shouldn’t be taking decisions or having discussions further than just Dan today. But then Jo and then Kai and then Tequila Sunset.

Jo: So, I mean, I don’t really think you can I anticipate Wizard will bring it up? So I think we should be prepared to respond to that. And, I mean, the response I would make would be that I the we should get more information from the center about what actually happened and not just assume that what happened in these whatever, like, Facebook comments and this YouTube video is, like, representative of everything that happened.

Rick: Mhmm.

Jo: And that we should understand it more before jumping to some kind of conclusion. But, yeah, I don’t really think we have a choice about it coming up or not.

Rick: K. Kai?

Kai: Yeah. It’s gonna come up regardless. So we should be prepared, like Jo said. The one the one thing I will also say is, like, maybe a request is we nip the calling the Natlib unit the sick unit anymore going forward because, like, happened last district meeting, and I feel like it’s gotta become, like, an inside joke, and I just don’t think it’s really helpful to the situation at all. And it’s, like, you know, creating a rev, you know.

So I I just I just don’t think it’s correct to, like, continue that as a joke. Like, we if it comes up again, if somebody says it, like, we should really, like, get there, you know.

Rick: I don’t know how okay. Oh, go ahead, Tequila Sunset.

Tequila Sunset: Well, I have something else to say, but first, why does that joke create a rift? Like, who’s offended by that and why?

Kai: Well, I mean, it’s it’s just like like, Dan said it, and it brings back up those feelings of Dan leaving in this whole situation. And, like, it’s also, like I don’t I don’t I guess I don’t really know how to articulate this well, but, like, if it it feels to me that, like, the the whole reason that people bring it up is because, you know, Dan said it and, you know, I don’t know. It just it just seems like in in bad taste. Like

Tequila Sunset: So, I mean, my unit is the one that was, like I don’t I’m very confused by this because, like, my unit is the one that was being, like, trashed in that document. I I don’t see the issue with, like I’m confused on why other people are offended about about that. Like, can can you explain that more?

Kai: Well, like I said, you know, it’s not it’s I mean, it’s not necessarily, like, you know, I’m gonna clutch pearls or whatever, but, like, at the

Tequila Sunset: It sounds like it’s a little bit of pearl clutching, frankly.

Kai: Okay. What I’m saying-

Jo: Tequila Sunset, can you stop interrupting people, please?

Rick: Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Kai: What I’m say what I’m saying is is that you’re like, the nat lib unit was the one being talked about and he used he used the term that I don’t agree with, but at the same time, like, I don’t like how it’s been turned into a joke because it trivializes the situation and not only trivialize trivializes the situation, but also, like, perpetuates it. You know? So, like and it brings up these negative emotions of Dan leaving in this whole situation. And so what I’m saying is, like, we should just not continue saying it in the future.

Rick: Okay. Can we move past this point? Tequila Sunset, can you make the point that you were making?

Tequila Sunset: Okay. I I I don’t remember actually what I was gonna say, but I think one thing that I that was, you know, building off Nova’s point, I do feel like I mean, I’m in Unity that I feel like I feel like the sort of broader details of, like, you know, broader points of the general trend that seems to be the case in the center does not need to be gone into in detail at this meeting. However, I I I do feel that, like, you know, like I I don’t necessarily agree with the notion that, like, this is, like, a super, like, simple situation either. I I don’t know if I’m representing what Nova was saying accurately, so please correct me if I’m wrong. But, like, I do feel there is a real problem here that, like, needs to be pointed out that the center didn’t, like, take the sort of due diligence to investigate things and and they were willing to threaten expulsions over it.

It’s that is it’s not a simp that’s not a simple situation. Right? That points to a lot of problems. But, like, I’m not I mean, I don’t really have strong feelings on how much that needs to be gone into in this meeting, but, like, but, like, I I do think this is a very serious situation that that we’re dealing with here.

Rick: I think we are in agreeance that the I mean, the SC didn’t do an much investigation on the local scenario. Think we’re in agreeance on that.

Nova: May I respond briefly to that?

Rick: Let let me finish, and then you can.

Nova: Sorry. I’m sorry. My bad.

Rick: Yeah. And so I think yeah. I mean, I I I think we’re all in agreement that, you know, the SC did not do much investigation. But again, what we also know is that they were relying primarily on Dan’s narrative of how things were going down in in our local district. And the other portion of it is that we have raised criticisms against Dan in the past.

How much those criticisms were related to the center? How much of those criticisms were taken to heart? That is a different thing. I don’t think a lot of those were done fairly by Dan. So and it did come to a boil at the end, but that was also because of a series of events that culminated in Dan leaving.

So I think that, yes, it is true that a lot of this portion is not germane to our conversation. For example, Dustin Ponder and Gregory Lucero. But in the eventuality that it does come up, we should formulate a line. And I’m proposing that, as as people have said here, that we say that we are we are we are going to ask the center about these details, and information is going to be coming directly from the center from from sources that we can verify because what we have now is partially incredulous sources, some sources that you can’t really rely on to make a fair decision on. And then when we do have information from the center regarding these particular cases, we will relay them to the district in the full manner that we have been communicated it from the center.

Is that does that seem like a good line? But before that, Nova had a point.

Nova: Yeah. All I was gonna say was that when I talk about overcomplicating it, I mean directly in relation to in relation to this in in this meeting and how we’re and how we’re going about this. I feel that, like, this situation definitely deserves, you know it definitely deserves some of the the gravitas we’re giving it, but that more specifically, I was talking in relation to like the immediate future. Like this is definitely going to come up in the future, I guess I’m just thinking in terms of how can we make everything stable, how can we stop the district from blowing up, I think that it’s not a super complicated solution. That was my main point in saying that.

Not really, like, long term. I think that this is definitely gonna come up in the future.

Rick: Yeah. In agreeance with that. Jo, go ahead.

Jo: Yeah. I like, I was the one who’d initially said that, like, you know, maybe we can, you know, pursue other methods of expulsion. Like, at this point, my understanding is what our obligation would be is to attempt to struggle with Dan and if we can’t then we could expel him. And maybe that will shift over the course of the conversations with National, but that’s what my understanding is at the moment.

Rick: That’s what the center has asked. Yes. Any further point, Jo? You still have your hand up.

Jo: I lost it. Don’t worry about it.

Rick: Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. So are we okay with with the line going forward today if Dustin Ponder, Gregory Lucero comes up? We mentioned that we will- we will ask the center about these particular cases, try to get enough information about it, and relate to the district as it as it as it when it comes up.

Are we good with that? If we are, then if I could get a thumbs up I got a thumbs up from Nova. Tequila Sunset, for the point.

Tequila Sunset: I I’m good with that, but just one one thing I wanna mention is I feel like if, cause in this meeting, it sounds like we’re still sort of trying to discredit, like, the information that exists that’s out there, which is, like, documented sources of, like, people in the organization talking about this. I feel like if that’s how we talk about it in this meeting, we’re gonna look really shitty. Like, if we’re, yeah. I mean, these people are, um, kinda crazy, and also, like, we don’t know if these sources are real, then, like, it’s gonna sound like a rape apologism. So I think if we just if we don’t, like I feel like, we shouldn’t, like, try to argue about it.

Just, like, these are serious. Like, this is serious, and we’re going to inquire to the center about, like, what’s going on. Right. I feel like we’re gonna look really bad if we try to we try to sort of, like, push. That’s but, you know, but beyond that, I’m in I’m in agreement about sort of how we’re approaching this.

Rick: There is, I mean, a fine line. Right? We we can’t lean too heavily on the sources, but we can’t also fully discredit it. I think we should walk thread the line very carefully and say, this exists on the internet. We will further get we we will get further information, and and I think go from there.

Jo, you got your hand up for a second.

Jo: Just, you know, I it doesn’t it doesn’t matter. I agree with what Tequila Sunset is saying is that as far as we shouldn’t insult the people in these videos which I hope isn’t how I was coming across. But yeah, I mean, I haven’t seen it, so I don’t know what’s in it to comment on it at all.

Rick: One, just criticism. Tequila Sunset, if you if you can if it’s possible, do not act flippantly, it would be good. I mean, you know, I started speaking, and you’re over here saying what the fuck, etcetera, etcetera. I mean, like, I’m trying to explain myself. And, also, you’re cutting Kai off as well.

You’re speaking over people. If you could present a self criticism regarding this, it would be good.

Tequila Sunset: Do you want me to, like, self criticize for this, like, here or, like, at the district meeting?

Rick: You can do it here. I mean, we we brought it up here.

Tequila Sunset: Okay. I mean, that’s that’s fair. You know, I think that’s fair. But, I mean, I I feel like yeah. Okay.

If that’s fair fair enough. I I don’t think it’s correct for me to be be interrupting and and treating these things flippantly. But I I I mean, the the the things that were being said are also, like, frankly, like, worthy of criticism. Like, I’m I’m I’m very troubled by the idea that, like, that, like, you know, like frankly, I think this that Dan’s document is extremely silly. And like, if if people are like if people are like uncomfortable with the fact that the document is silly.

If the criticism is don’t bring it up at district meetings, don’t make fun of it in a professional setting, fair enough. Fair enough. But it does sort of concern me that people are sort of viewing this like, it it just makes me have questions about how people are viewing the situation. So I apologize for being sort of, like, sharp or direct about it, but, like, you know, that that question comes to mind now. That like, what what it like, how are like, like, don’t I don’t I’m not I’m not following sort of where people are at on the situation to where, like, you know, sort of making a comment about the sick unit would be something that people are uncomfortable with.

If people are uncomfortable with, I don’t wanna invalidate that, but it does sort of confuse me. And then with regards to sort of me getting a little bit riled up with what Rick was saying, that was very confusing to me because in conversations that I’ve had with Rick, I mean, it it this what you’re what you’re saying seem to be, like, the opposite of what we’ve talked about. Like, in particular with, you know, Dustin Ponder, it sounds like you’re changing your sort of you’re changing your story as far as to what you heard. And, like so okay. The criticism that I was handling it poorly in this meeting, I I can accept that.

But, like, the the situation what what what I’ve been hearing in this meeting is incredibly, like, confusing. Like, it’s very yeah.

Rick: Yeah. And so I mean, yes. We we have discussed it. But I did speak to Xavi and in in conversation with Xavi and in light of new information and also what what Jo just told me, you know, I mean, we can hold opinions about certain things, but those opinions can change. And so when those opinions change, I mean, I think we should be given the opportunity to present them, not sharply attack them when they’re being presented.

Jo, you already hand up for for a second, and then Tequila Sunset.

Jo: I’m okay. Thank you.

Rick: Tequila Sunset, go ahead.

Tequila Sunset: So opinions can change, but what I’m talking about in particular is is your recollection of the conversation, from the conversation from the comrade from Jacksonville where

Rick: Yeah.

Tequila Sunset: Prior, what you had told me is that is that your recollection was that the comrade mentioned that Dustin Ponder is the person who had sexually assaulted them.

Rick: No. No. So you asked me-

Tequila Sunset: This is what I mean. This is this is exactly what I’m saying.

Rick: Okay. Then then that was a, then that was an incorrect thing.

Tequila Sunset: Okay.

Rick: You asked me-

Tequila Sunset: We can hash this part out later. But that’s what I was so pissed about is there seems to be discrepancy.

Rick: Right. Right. You asked me, did [Jacksonville comrade] mention Dustin Ponder assaulted someone? I said yes. Now did [Jacksonville comrade] say Dustin Ponder assaulted her?

No. That’s not what happened. Uh, but, um, yeah. Okay. Is there any further deliberation that we need today?

If not, then we can adjourn. We have a line. We know what we’re gonna do. Anything else, guys? Kai, go ahead.

Kai: Yeah. Can can I can I just quickly respond

Rick: Sure?

Kai: To Tequila Sunset’s point? Like, I I I mean, I don’t necessarily, I don’t necessarily, like, agree with the statement about how the entire document was silly. I feel like most like, parts of it were parts of it were like, probably most of it was incorrect. Like, obviously, the the way that it came about came to light was incorrect. Parts of it were inaccurate.

Parts of it were his misunderstandings of situations that were happening. Parts of it were fabrications maybe. But there were some parts that, you know, were valid criticisms of, like, decisions that were made and not follow through on, you know, particularly about, like, during I mean, I wasn’t part of the organization at the time, but, like, the the failings of the of the police crimes unit at the time during George Floyd to not, you know, uh, capture the movement during that time. I feel like that’s a valid criticism. And I brought this to you, Tequila Sunset, before, like, when they had the immigration rally at the bridge saying, like, hey.

Like, this is your opportunity now to, you know, to to capture the movement in a way that, like, we can make it sustainable for the future. And, you know, so, like, the fact that, like, the entire document is not silly, you know, like, there are some points that I feel, like, are accurate, you know. And also, like, there there are people in my unit who, you know, have come to me and, you know, potentially, Jo, I’m not sure, who have expressed, you know, that it like, the like, obvi like, just looking at people’s reactions to different things, like, in talking with them outside of the meeting, like, in myself personally, like, it just it just brings up a lot of negative emotions of this whole situation when, people are are using that as a as a joke, you know, and not taking it seriously, you know, and so that that’s why like that’s why I brought it up because I just don’t feel like it’s helpful to the conversation at all. And and, you know, to your point, like, in a in a professional setting, like, it it shouldn’t be used as a joke going forward.

That’s that’s all my point was.

Rick: I’m gonna respond and then let Tequila Sunset respond.

Tequila Sunset: I think I was on stack first.

Rick: Let me respond and then I’ll let you go.

Tequila Sunset: Okay.

Rick: Yeah.

Tequila Sunset: I don’t- No, I actually, I don’t like that. I mean, so the-

Rick: I’ll let you respond.

Tequila Sunset: The criticism was given to me that I’m-

Rick: I’ll let you respond, Tequila Sunset.

Tequila Sunset: Yeah. Okay. I’m responding now, but the criticism was given to me interrupting, but now when I’m trying to speak in turn, I can’t like, I’d like to Okay. So I think, you know, the point regarding the police crimes unit not capitalizing on on the George Floyd rally and is valid, but also an important point, and this is sort of why I think the document is silly, is because Dan brings up that point as a means to discredit the people currently in the unit, but like the only person in the unit that was there back then is Kyra. Like everybody in the unit joined after that.

And he was trying to use it as a means to discredit like myself and like other people in the unit who have been around, you know, a little bit longer than some of the new people. So like I I think, you know, there are kernels of truth in there, but they’re brought up without context and explicitly in a way to to, you know, in in a way to, like, you know, like it it’s not good faith criticism. It’s it’s brought up in in a particular way to to cause division. It’s brought up in a particular way to draw a certain narrative. Like, there there are, like, nuggets of, like, facts in there that are then sort of weave like, wove into a broader narrative that is, like, not, like, not, like, accurate to reality at all.

So, you know, I’ll accept the criticism. I hink you’re correct that I shouldn’t be speaking like that at professional meetings. Please call me out if I do and criticize me again because it is important to sort of create a space that is people are comfortable and especially in meetings. But but I do still disagree with the notion that, like, like, there is merit to the documnet. It’s explicitly, like and it was explicitly an attempt to, like, um, create a narrative that would, um, that would draw this kind of division and, um, you know, an attempt to, like an attempt essentially to wreck on his way out.

Rick: Okay. No. I you know, I mean, he mentions particularly the police crimes’ failings. I mean, yes. I mean, sure.

I mean, you know, our our units at that time were new, and we were still learning, uh, how to mass organize. But a lot of the feelings that, you know, that happened during that time were also things that we utilized later during the Palestine, uh, movement, uh, that started, you know, pretty much from October third of twenty twenty four. And that those those failings helped us learn to essentially utilize and build our movement at a later time. Failings are aren’t just failings. I mean, there are opportunities for us to to grow and for have for Dan to utilize political errors as a way to discredit the unit was not correct.

I mean, sure. I mean, particular people at that time might have made mistakes, and things might have gone in a certain way at that particular point in time. But, I mean, I think it’s not I don’t think it’s correct to have, like, mentioned that I mean, what it was essentially a hit piece against many of us in the in the in that document. I mean and the what Tequila Sunset says is also true is that he combines facts from two different points in time to strengthen an argument. Like, for example, when I left so he mentioned the document about me that I so I left the police crimes unit in November of twenty twenty one due to burnout, and then he combines that fact with and I was burnt out because I was given so many tasks and I was also recruiting, given the role of recruitment at that point in time.

But he combines that fact with, you know, things in my personal relationship, My that happened literally two years later and says that I was in depression and I was burnt out, not because I was not because of what happened in 2021 with the burnout from the police crimes unit, but what happened in regards to my marriage two years later. This is he is combining facts to to to prove his points better. And this is this is you’re trying to malign someone when they’re presenting you with the with the criticism or a serious thing. Yes. So yeah, Jo, did you have a final point?

Jo: I mean, one thing is that, like, we never really engaged with this criticisms from Dan, and I think it would probably benefit us to go through it, if only to get on this page about some of these things. Because clearly there’s some outstanding, differing viewpoints.

Rick: People want, we could sit down with it. Not at a DC meeting, but I think in a more physical space, just the DC go through the document and then we can go through it point by point. But, Kai, go ahead.

Kai: Yeah. I mean, I I I and I and I and I mentioned this person not to, like, call them out or throw them under the bus or whatever, but, like, the main person who’s come to me with these, you know, concerns is Josh, you know. And I feel like Josh doesn’t have like, what you’re saying is, like, we never had this conversation fully to fully, like, talk about these incongruities of timelines and whatnot, you know, to fully understand the situation. And so yeah. Like, I I I and I completely agree that, like, it’s a narrative building, you know, like and, you know, that he’s, like, creating this grand argument, you know.

But, like yeah. So so that that’s all I’d say is maybe just, like, you know, in a in a yeah. So there there’s just a there’s a lot. You know? There’s there’s this going on, And then on top of that, there was, you know, a one stuff going on.

And so there’s just a lot that’s been going on that we need real we really, really, really need to go, you know you know, play by play, I guess, and fully examine it, you know, to solve these issues.

Rick: Go ahead, Jo.

Jo: Just a heads up. I’m gonna have to head out soon. But but yeah. The whole thing with Dan’s departure brings up a lot of feelings of, like, sadness and confusion among people in my unit. I think that’s part of what Kai’s been referring to.

And so, yeah, that’s all I wanted to say about that.

Rick: Alright. I I think let’s adjourn because I don’t think there’s anything else. I don’t know why my hand went up. Anyways, let’s talk about stuff at the meeting. See you all there.

Kai: Bye. Bye.