The FRSO Cover-Ups: Sexual Misconduct and the Pattern of Protection

Epigraph #

Executive Summary #

In May 2025, more than half of the roughly thirty members of the Dallas District of Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) resigned. We left the Freedom Road Socialist Organization because the organization is led by a clique who refuse to address chauvinism in a timely and principled manner. When we raised concerns, they treated us as “wreckers” to be isolated and discredited.

We began by confronting the conduct of our former District Organizer, Daniel Sullivan. As we pushed for accountability, we discovered the problem was not limited to one person. The same leadership clique who protected Dan had, for over a decade, used the same tactics to shield other chauvinists and abusers in multiple cities, across multiple cases.

While these cases vary in severity, they reveal FRSO leadership consistently chooses organizational convenience over safety by protecting abusive members who they feel do “good work” - repeating the same playbook of cover-ups and victim-blaming that destroyed the ISO, SWP-UK, and others. We were under the mistaken impression that FRSO was an exception to this trend.

If you read only one section, read about how current members of FRSO’s national leadership protected Dustin Ponder through three alleged sexual assaults, and promoted those who defended him to national leadership positions.

The following national leaders were involved in covering for Dustin Ponder:

• Mick Kelly – Political Secretary (highest leadership position)
• Tom Burke – Organizational Secretary (second in command)
• Steff Yorek – Central Committee member, former Political Secretary
• Chrisley Carpio – Standing Committee member
• Fernando Figueroa – Standing Committee member
• Michela Martinazzi – Central Committee member
• Marisol Marquez – Chicano Commission leader
• Jared Hamil – Labor Commission leader

The following members of Dallas leadership perpetuated the cover-up:

• Sydney Loving - Former member of the Dallas district, currently in Minneapolis, part of the Standing Committee as of 2022.
• Kyra - Sydney Loving’s partner, part of Dallas local leadership for the events described in this document, now in Minneapolis.
• Daniel Sullivan - DO of FRSO Dallas until he left in early 2025.
• Rick Majumdar - Current DO of FRSO Dallas.
• Jo Hargis - Dallas local leadership.
• Kai - Jo’s cousin, Dallas local leadership.
• Xavi Velasquez - Dallas local leadership.

Background #

About Us #

The information in this document was primarily gathered by Tequila Sunset and Alpharius.

Alpharius first interacted with FRSO when he was 15 years old, 15 years ago when he was in high school. He met Daniel Sullivan and Gregory Lucero online. He joined FRSO in {year} when he was an adult, and started FRSO’s student work in DFW. He stayed in school for eight years to stabilize his SDS chapter. After he graduated, he went to UPS to join the Teamsters as FRSO recommends. He was the most senior cadre of our District after Dan, and was part of the District Committee since its beginning.

Tequila Sunset was a part of FRSO for around four years. He was part of the Dallas District Committee for nearly a year, and leader of the Police Crimes unit, which eventually merged with the Immigration unit into the National Liberation unit, for around 2 years. He was the chair of the Dallas chapter of NAARPR for about as long until FRSO pushed him out after he left.

The rest of the comrades who left were just as invested in FRSO. They were committed cadre who sacrificed valuable time, labor, and money to FRSO.

Receipts #

Throughout this document, we link to receipts, and provide recordings and transcripts of meetings with leadership. There is a lot to talk about with these receipts, but for the sake of brevity we only go so deep in analyzing them in this document. We encourage you to read the transcripts, go through the evidence yourself after reading this document, and draw your own conclusions.

Receipts are provided in the margins, in footnotes, with the following annotation: I am a receipt!, and as collapsed sections:

Names of comrades whose identities we want to protect are anonymized.

Daniel Sullivan #

For over a decade, the Center allowed Daniel Sullivan to lead the Dallas district despite conduct that would disqualify any recruit. When we accepted his resignation in 2025, the Standing Committee overturned our decision without consultation.

Tom Burke, the Organizational Secretary, personally called Alpharius and Rick to threaten expulsions if we didn’t “struggle with” Dan.

Misconduct at the 9th Congress #

In 2022, Dan’s partner passed away weeks before the 9th Congress of FRSO. He was in a bad emotional state and drinking heavily. At the Congress, Dan pressured a young Black woman new to FRSO to drink with him one evening while others attended a social event. When we returned, she was unconscious. We carried her to bed. Hours later, she suffered a severe panic attack and we had to call an ambulance. She had alcohol poisoning. Several comrades spent the night at the hospital with her, missing Congress’s final day. Dan, blackout drunk, remembered none of it.

Rick Majumdar, the current DO of FRSO Dallas, recalled this situation when we confronted Dan about his conduct:

Dan revealed Tom Burke actually pushed him to attend the Congress:

Sexual Harassment #

Dan made comments sexualizing two trans cadres. Both students reported feeling objectified and unsafe. One of them brought the comments up privately to Chrisley Carpio , who expressed shock and encouraged the student to report Dan’s comments to the member of the SC who is the national coordinator for sexual misconduct, Sydney Loving .

Dan’s comments were part of a pattern of chauvinistic behavior. For example, Dan had messaged a comrade from another city who’d just left a relationship that he would pursue her if he were twenty years younger. Screenshots

Messages between Rick and the affected cadre:

Affected Cadre: Yeah he said he would pursue me if I wasn’t twenty years younger than him lol

Rick: Bro.. what

Rick: Yes Dan said this right?

Affected Cadre: About him saying he’d hit on me if I wasn’t so young

Affected Cadre: While trying to console me over Xavi

Affected Cadre: What’s in the water in Dallas

Affected Cadre: Yes

Rick: So I have to ask you know do you want us to raise this as a criticism,cus I see this as highly inappropriate behavior and I think it should be challenged Sydney Loving was part of local leadership when they confronted Dan about this comment. He was dismissive and deflective. Local leadership let it pass and kept it from the district.

FRSO’s sexual misconduct policy defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or written communication (using any format including social media) of a sexual nature that creates a hostile environment.” The policy requires even the lowest tier of harassment to result in “sanctions on participation in organizational events” and allows survivors to “request the perpetrator avoid activities that would bring them into contact for up to 6 months.”

The Standing Committee, through their sexual misconduct coordinator Sydney Loving , classified Dan’s actions as “gossip,” but not a violation of the policy. Dan was required to openly self-criticize before the District (though he didn’t even followt through, and was still protected by the leadership clique). Dan was allowed to remain District Organizer with no further sanctions.

The Tyranny of Structurelessness #

Over the years, Dallas members raised concerns about Dan’s conduct through proper channels. Nothing changed. The Center’s response was consistently to advise the district to “struggle with him.”

Struggling with him would not change the fundamental problem. FRSO has no defined structures to hold leadership accountable. There are no defined checks on the District Organizer. There are no systems to ensure that the DO is reporting accurate information to the Center - the criticisms we had lodged were filtered through Dan. We have no understanding of how he was representing things, or if he was even communicating criticisms at all. The structurelessness of FRSO was a concrete obstacle in addressing Dan’s conduct.

In late 2024, the District Committee took action. Tequila Sunset drafted a resolution proposing a system for elections for the District Organizer position, among other democratic mechanisms to ensure accountability on local leadership. Dan, in a desperate bid to preserve his position, claimed local elections aren’t allowed and his position was for life by mandate of the Center:

You know, of course, that the center’s view is that they appoint district organizers. Obviously it would be a violation of democratic centralism if we, as a district, adopted a policy that directly conflicted with the central leadership’s policy. If you want to change that policy, then you have to do that through the right processes, either by informal discussion with the center or through the upcoming congress process.

…

As to an elected DO, I have been told very directly that DOs are appointed by the center. Unless that has changed, then for us to elect a DO would be a straightforward violation of democratic centralism and a direct challenge to the center.(1) (1)Sent in the Dallas District Committee Signal chat on 12/31/24 as part of a debate over Tequila Sunset’s resolution.

Tequila Sunset pointed out this supposed policy isn’t documented in FRSO’s rules and demanded Dan substantiate its existence. Dan asked Andy Koch, who had to correct him (revealing the Center had never bothered to ensure basic democratic processes were happening):

He said that DOs ARE elected. So, presumably whatever I heard to the contrary is an old practice. I’ve been in the group a long time, and a lot of things have changed, and that’s fine.

The resolution was discussed by the District Committee and passed 6-2, endorsing it for presentation to the District for a vote, with only Dan and Jo opposing. During the same meeting, when Tequila Sunset openly called Dan a bad leader, Dan responded with a tirade of personal attacks. At the Criticism-Self-Criticism portion of the meeting, Dan escalated, hurling a litany of verbal abuse at Tequila Sunset which culminated in him calling for Tequila Sunset’s removal from both the District Committee and his position as Unit Leader.

After the meeting, Dan immediately proposed in the DC’s Signal chat to remove everyone who voted against him, except for Rick, from the District Committee and from their positions as unit leaders.

Then the Center supported Dan. They shut down the democratic process, overturned the Dallas DC’s decision to present the resolution to the District, and put a gag order on discussing the resolution with the broader District:

To be very clear, this process will not be taking the form of implementing the “Resolution on Democratization of District Leadership (Draft).” That resolution should not be distributed, discussed, or voted on by the District as a whole.(2) (2)Andy Koch’s Letter on behalf of the SC to the Dallas DC 1/10/25.

In a move mirroring Dan’s invocation of non-existent policy, the Center argued the resolution violated a hitherto undefined “national practice” to justify their intervention.(3) (3)Andy Koch’s Letter on behalf of the SC to the Dallas DC 1/5/25. FRSO’s rules explicitly state that amendments to the national rules require passage at Congress, or in extreme circumstances a three-quarters vote of the Central Committee.(4) (4)Rule 27 of the FRSO Rules. In the absence of any defined process, the leadership clique treated their word as tantamount to FRSO’s defining rules.

The Center’s negligence in addressing Dan’s long standing issues and their overturning of democratic mechanisms to hold Dan accountable left no “legitimate” channels available. Members of the Distict Committee organized for Dan’s removal outside of the “proper channels.”

Wrecking #

Days before he was scheduled to openly self-criticize for sexually harassing Nova and Seraphine, Dan distributed a detailed letter to the district and fled all FRSO Dallas group chats.

The letter, titled “Problems in the district,” presents Dan’s account of what he views as the root cause of problems in the district. Rather than offering a systemic, materialist analysis of structural issues within FRSO Dallas, the letter attributes the district’s problems to individuals - specifically, those members of the District Committee who had challenged his conduct. This pattern of flattening systemic failures into individual blame will recur throughout FRSO leadership’s response to these events. The letter also includes a quote attributed to Lenin that actually came from Protestant clergyman and self-help author Norman Vincent Peale, known for his best selling self-help book The Power of Positive Thinking, who officiated Donald Trump’s first wedding in 1977.

We provide the letter in full, annotated with our corrections and analysis.

Dan distributed this letter not to the District Committee or to the Center, but to the entire district - a calculated move to divide the membership against the leadership that had held him accountable. He then immediately withdrew from all Dallas group chats, abandoning any pretense of collective struggle or unity. The letter’s effect was to isolate specific critics, undermine district unity, and create divisions that would make his eventual return possible. This is actual wrecking.

The letter achieved its divisive effect. In subsequent District Committee meetings, members with close personal relationships to Dan - predominantly white cadre from the anti-war unit where Dan had worked for years - expressed concern about “negative emotions” created by references to Dan’s letter. When Tequila Sunset, leader of the unit Dan had systematically attacked in his letter, jokingly referenced Dan’s own derogatory terminology - “the sick unit” - in a unit report, these cadre characterized it as inappropriate and hurtful. The focus shifted from Dan’s documented misconduct and character assassination to tone-policing and centering the “sadness and confusion” of Dan’s friends.

Yet the leadership clique does not label Dan a “wrecker.” Andy Koch was present in the Dallas District Committee group chat when Dan distributed it. He witnessed the district leadership’s response and saw the letter’s content. He was aware that Dan fled before he was supposed to self criticize for sexual harassment. Andy’s reaction was to counsel against rushing to judgment about Dan’s characterizations, treating obvious divisive behavior as potentially legitimate criticism requiring careful evaluation.

The term “wrecker” is reserved for those who challenge the leadership clique or their decisions.

Protection #

We formally accepted Dan’s actions as his resignation. The SC overturned our decision without any consultation, arguing Dan was on a “mental health break.” 2/9/25 Message between Andy Koch and Xavi Velasquez : 2/25/25 Message from Andy Koch to Rick Majumdar : They “just wanted to make sure he wasn’t expelled” and leave the door open for him to “rejoin eventually, maybe if he ever wants.” 2/25/25 Messages between Kyra and Tequila Sunset

The SC knew who they protected. They had been sent detailed notes from the meeting where we confronted Dan’s conduct. Tom Burke had been Dallas’s contact from the Center since the district’s founding until 2022, and was repeatedly informed of Dan’s problems. After Dan’s departure, Andy implored us to “remember [Dan’s] contributions” and argued “there is a role for him to play.” 2/7/25

Reading the notes, um, from the last meeting, you know, it sounded very sharp. And I understand that, you know, people have a lot of feelings about, you know, mistakes that Dan made.

But I think, you know, I think also that I would like people to, you know, to learn from those errors, but also remember his contributions. And, you know, I think there is there is a role for him to play and knowledge that he can offer going forward as well while also, you know, addressing the, you know, the issues.

The SC was informed of the Congress incident immediately after it happened in 2022. Tom Burke, as Dallas’ SC contact, knew the details. Sydney Loving witnessed it firsthand. The leadership clique had the information to justify intervention, and the authority to do so. They chose inaction. Only when Dallas challenged Dan did the leadership clique determine that it’s necessary to intervene. Not to address his misconduct, but override our decision.

Tom Burke went beyond the rest of the SC, personally calling Alpharius and Rick Majumdar , to threaten expulsions if we didn’t “struggle with” Dan. He argued there were “problems on both sides” of the incident at the Congress - one side being the man whose actions led to the hospitilazation of a comrade, and the other side being the cadre who were simply present and had to deal with the consequences. He claimed that there were people who were trying to subvert the rules of FRSO in Dallas leadership, and insisted Dan has a “role to play in building the party.“FRSO rules dictate expulsions need to be approved by a member’s unit. Tom had no authority to follow through on his threat of expulsion. The Organizational Secretary was invoking the rules while displaying a clear lack of understanding them.

The Center assumed off the bat that we were challenging Dan in bad faith. They assumed Tequila Sunset, who was leading the push against Dan, was “going about things the way [he was] because [he was] going to leave the org. As a way to blame the org rather than just leaving.“ Kyra (2:12 PM): Are you gonna tell Andy you’re taking a break

Tequila Sunset: Do I need to?

Tequila Sunset (2:15 PM): I mean I might either be leaving or be expelled after this meeting so it might not be relevant

Kyra: Nobody is getting expelled

Kyra (2:20 PM): I was gonna say i wouldn’t mention it

Tequila Sunset reacted 👍

Tequila Sunset (2:20 PM): > [Replying to: Nobody is getting expelled]

Why do you say that

Kyra (2:22 PM): I think from the jump they assumed you were going about things the way you were because you were going to leave the org

As a way to blame the org rather than just leaving

Tequila Sunset: Wym?

Tequila Sunset (2:22 PM): Like with Gainesville specifically or?

Kyra (2:23 PM): Like lets overthrow Dan because i don’t wanna be here so i will antagonize so i can blame the conflict for leaving

Yeah that too

Tequila Sunset: > [Replying to: Like lets overthrow Dan because i don’t wanna be here so i will antagonize so i …]

Do they want us to struggle with Dan or not 😭

There is a kernel of truth to that ig cause I had been debating whether to leave and just say “not my circus not my clowns” or stay and try to struggle to improve things

So I chose the latter and the most immediate thing to rectify is that Dan needed to be rectified out of his leadership position

Tequila Sunset (2:26 PM): If I wanted to leave I’d just leave, staying is way more stressful

Tequila Sunset (2:31 PM): If that’s their view they also give me way too much credit cause people really despised Dan already and that has nothing to do with me

Kyra (2:42 PM): Yeah i know why im just saying if you care how it would look

Tequila Sunset (2:43 PM): How what would look

Kyra: they know Dan is bad and probably had to go, they just wanted to do it differently

Tequila Sunset: > [Replying to: How what would look]

wym

Kyra (2:43 PM): > [Replying to: Like lets overthrow Dan because i don’t wanna be here so i will antagonize so i …]

this

Tequila Sunset reacted 👍

Tequila Sunset (2:46 PM): > [Replying to: they know Dan is bad and probably had to go, they just wanted to do it …]

Idk I mean Tom very explicitly told Alpharius that he felt Dan had a role to play in building the party and that he needs to be struggled with. When things were still going down with Dan, you were telling me Syd was saying similar, in Andy’s letters he reaffirmed his view that Dan’s role as DO is principally positive

They never lifted a finger wrt Dan’s past problems and have attempted to block us when we took the initiative to deal with it

Tequila Sunset: > [Replying to: Idk I mean Tom very explicitly told Mark that he felt Dan had a role to play in …]

You available to talk on the phone

Tequila Sunset (3:53 PM): You want me to fill you in on what’s going on wrt Andy or do you want the debrief after the dust settles

Kyra (5:48 PM): > [Replying to: Idk I mean Tom very explicitly told Mark that he felt Dan had a role to play in …]

Yes the people closest to us have the most sympathetic view of him, and they said those things which made us fear the worst

Tequila Sunset reacted ❓ This predetermined conclusion shaped their response. They didn’t investigate whether the criticism was legitimate. They assumed it was a pretext and acted accordingly, just as they did when we started asking questions about Dustin Ponder.

No Investigation, No Right to Speak #

The Dallas district was not pleased with the Center’s decision and Tom Burke’s comments. We raised criticism of Tom Burke for threatening expulsions if we didn’t “struggle with” Dan. He refused it. The Center initially offered to sit down with the Dallas Distict Committee to discuss Dan. After hearing about Dallas’ discontent over Tom’s comments and the Center’s decision, they backtracked, saying they “don’t have time” to speak with us.

The SC never self-criticized for protecting Dan, overturning our decision, or Tom’s threats. Not a single iota of accountability - the SC scapegoated Andy Koch, their messenger. 4/10/25 Thursday

Tequila Sunset (10:34 PM): When you said Syd has crits of the Center regarding not dealing with Dan, what does that mean exactly

4/12/25 Saturday

Kyra (10:57 AM): [Replying to Tequila Sunset’s message about Syd’s crits of the Center] nvm if its apparently worse the center is self critical than not bro

Tequila Sunset (11:03 AM): ?

Tequila Sunset (11:03 AM): is the center self critical or is syd critical of the center?

Kyra: por que no los dos

Kyra: and if its only bad if syd was critical id be confused too

Tequila Sunset (11:12 AM): it’s not “bad”, it’s just that syd has historically taken a position that is defensive towards dan. it’s very easy now to take the opposite view after dan is gone cause it costs nothing

Tequila Sunset (11:12 AM): if the center more broadly is self critical i’d like them to self crit in an ib, until then it’s performative as far as I am concerned

Tequila Sunset (11:15 AM): and that self criticism needs to come with concrete plans to avoid dan like situations in the future, for example methods to make sure that they have a clearer understanding of what is going on in districts so they don’t make subjectivist errors, cause more broadly than just acknowledging that dan was bad, we need to catch any fetus dans that exist in other districts and abort them instead of letting them grow up and we have to do a post natal abortion

Tequila Sunset (8:43 PM): Ok, things are afoot rn and I feel like it’s important that I fill you in

Tequila Sunset: Xavi brought up gainesville to mick at the conference and also told mick that people were really pissed about how the center has handled dan and that there was no serious investigation

regarding gainesville mick says that they investigated thoroughly and that dustin ponder is innocent, but he didn’t give any details yet, xavi is gonna talk to him again about it tomorrow. he also says that dustin ponder left for political disagreements, but rick is adamant that sara said specifically it was dustin ponder that assaulted her

regarding dan, apparently mick felt that the way dan left and dan’s document were immature and childish, and mick feels if we don’t want to work with him we shouldn’t be forced to - which directly contradicts what we’ve been hearing from tom and andy

Tequila Sunset (Edited 10:41 PM): that’s actually a relief to hear that the problem might just be tom, cause I think mick is a swell guy on a personal level

Tequila Sunset (10:42 PM): but it also sounds like tom/andy are not clearly communicating what they are doing to the rest of the sc if mick is not aware that tom and andy both alluded to consequences if we don’t struggle with dan

Tequila Sunset (10:47 PM): This is gonna be brought up at tomorrow’s meeting

Kyra (11:06 PM): damn this is a lot, but glad mick feels that way

[Tequila Sunset reaction: 👍]

Kyra: Curious how the [Jacksonville comrade] stuff will play out

Kyra (11:07 PM): Why did she never reply

Tequila Sunset: I think it is because she hates me

Tequila Sunset: I’m also not sure how to square this with the center potentially being self critical or syd being critical of the center because in this case it doesn’t sound like the center has a unified view on the matter

Tequila Sunset (11:11 PM): like maybe the center being self critical really means people are critical of tom and/or andy but also it seems like what xavi was saying was the first time mick was hearing some stuff

4/13/25

Kyra (1:41 PM): [Replying to Tequila Sunset’s message about the center being self critical] They are definitely critical of Andy, haven’t heard about tom

Tequila Sunset (1:41 PM): 👀

Tequila Sunset (1:41 PM): I feel like if they’re critical of Andy they kind of have to be critical of Tom

Kyra: [Replying to Tequila Sunset’s message about the center being self critical] who said they haven’t made plans? grovelling is not the same as implementing changes, tho both are often needed but just because the latter hasn’t happened doesn’t make it performative

Tequila Sunset (1:42 PM): My gut feeling is Andy has more or less been Tom’s mouthpiece for this but idk more information is needed

Kyra (1:43 PM): [Replying to Tequila Sunset’s message about being critical of Andy and Tom] Maybe so, i am not on the SC and syd probably doesn’t know i know about tom specifically

Kyra: She used strong words to describe how terrible Andy’s watch over us was, and i had the same thought you did but i actually asked instead of assuming

Tequila Sunset: [Replying to Kyra’s message about grovelling vs implementing changes] If there are plans I think they should communicate them

Tequila Sunset: [Replying to Kyra’s message about Syd’s criticism of Andy] Which thought?

Tequila Sunset (1:45 PM): How am I supposed to ask? I don’t have anyone to ask about these things

Kyra (1:46 PM): What do they actually think they did poorly other than the results [explosive DO departure] speaking for themselves and then how will they avoid all of that.

Kyra: It was a conversation with me, where i may have had relevant info, but you felt you already knew enough

Tequila Sunset (1:47 PM): Remind me about the conversation you’re referring to, I’m drawing a blank

Kyra (1:48 PM): [Replying to Tequila Sunset’s original message asking about Syd’s crits] Outside the NAARPR office

Kyra: Sounded like it was worse that the center was critical than if they weren’t

Tequila Sunset (1:48 PM): I asked that question cause I wanted to know more

Kyra: Yeah, before that

Kyra (1:49 PM): She said there is plenty they could do to but much more familiar with the real conditions here and the perspectives of our cadre. Even wrt to Dan funneling info, there are ways to force him to call votes so the center can see that there is not unity here

[Tequila Sunset reaction: 👍]

Kyra (1:50 PM): It was also recognized that this is not a Dallas specific issue and Andy needs to be in closer familiarity with all of his cities

[Tequila Sunset reaction: 👍]

Tequila Sunset: Okay, fair enough. I think I reacted very strongly to you saying Syd was critical of the center, because leading up to his removal you had mentioned to me that Syd had been taking the opposite position, and my first reaction was that it sounds very hypocritical to now be critical after the dust has cleared and it’s become obvious that the Center was handling things wrong.

Tequila Sunset: But like, I’m glad to hear they are taking actionable steps from this

Tequila Sunset (1:58 PM): I’m sorry for reacting the way I did, I should have taken a beat and heard out what you were going to say

Kyra (1:59 PM): [Replying to Tequila Sunset’s apology] Right plus you’ve taken on the burden of doing SOMETHING even if it was not perfect and you’re burnt out and a bit bitter about having had to handle it all, so its natural

[Tequila Sunset reaction: ❤️]

Kyra: But i think that has made you close off more possible scenarios in your head than you need to, because of these sorts of jumping to conclusions

Kyra (2:00 PM): I am writing my note to the center

[Tequila Sunset reaction: 👍]

Tequila Sunset: [Replying to Kyra’s message about taking on the burden] Ty for recognizing that, I am honestly very bitter Tom Burke, the Organizational Secretary, had been Dallas’s SC contact since the district’s founding until 2022. He personally threatened expulsions to protect Dan. Yet they blamed Andy, who had only been our contact for a couple of years and doesn’t even have a vote on the SC, for their collective mishandling of Dan Sullivan.

Only after half the district resigned, when Mick Kelly and Steff Yorek addressed the Dallas District in person, did Mick performatively admit that the SC may have done wrong - he admitted he didn’t seriously investigate the situation with Dan because he viewed Dan as a friend. Even then, Mick tried to make the excuse that as the Political Secretary he “didn’t have time” to investigate.

Self-criticism #

When the Center discovered we’d organized to remove Dan outside official channels - after most of us had already left - they acknowledged it was “understandable” given how bad things were with Dan, yet demanded self-criticisms for “factionalism” from those who remained that organized against Dan: Rick, Kyra, and Xavi. 6/4/25

Rick (9:11pm): The SC just had their meeting, and Andy just relayed the conversation and decisions made regarding the criticisms that were raised by Jo earlier today

Their analysis is that it was an error for the DC members to have a separate chat and discuss things separately, and in fact it was factionalism, and members who participated in that should thoroughly self-criticize for making those errors

But, the center also understands conditions at the time were not conducive to healthy self Criticism

The center has also said that overall trajectory for the district has not changed, that there will not be snap elections or replacements, without several collective processes. The general, overall process is that problems in the district must be addressed in a step by step manner. I told Andy about the proposal and appreciated that I made one, I sent it to him as well, and he will read it and we will discuss it tomorrow morning, we should find the time to engage with it soon.

Jo can verify any part of this conversation and I encouraged Andy to reach out to Jo about this as well

Months earlier, after the leadership clique had overturned our decision, Kyra had asked Tequila Sunset for his documentation of Dan’s patterns of behavior - he kept detailed notes from conversations with affected comrades. She said she’d turn it into something for the Center. She never wrote it. But when leadership demanded self-criticisms, she immediately produced one. 6/8/25 Dallas District Committee Signal Chat

Kyra: I have written a self criticism, but since this was not just me, i don’t know how this sh..(5) (5)We don’t have the screenshot of Kyra’s original message in full. This is transcribed from what’s visible in the screenshot.

Rick (6:07pm): And we could spend sometime at this meeting to flesh out the reasons as to why we were wrong about having isolated discussions too.

Jo (10:57pm): I’m working Sunday morning but could meet in the afternoon

Jo (11:09pm): I’m trying very hard to find a way through this that doesn’t destroy my unit and the district.

I am immensely angry and hurt. It is difficult to see how I can trust you in the future, or if I should. I feel taken for granted and sidelined and underestimated.

I am telling you this for the purpose of finding a way forward, even though I cam currently consumed by negative feelings towards you.

Rick (11:10pm): understandably so, let’s talk on Sunday Rick and Xavi also recanted their involvement in the “faction.”

The Center created conditions where documenting abuse felt pointless, but apologizing for opposing abuse felt necessary. They built a system where “factionalism” - organizing with comrades to solve problems - is worse than protecting someone like Daniel Sullivan.

They recognized their system had failed so completely that working outside it was “understandable”, then punished cadre for doing exactly that while refusing any accountability themselves.

“Struggle with him” #

The “struggle” language comes from Mao’s concept of unity-struggle-unity: engaging in principled struggle with a comrade who has erred to correct issues and achieve higher unity. For Tom Burke , it meant “I’m not going to do anything about it, tolerate his bullshit.”

After Tom used this same phrase with Alpharius to justify keeping Dan, Alpharius remembered Tom told him to “struggle with” Mantak Singh, a student FRSO cadre and SDS member from Seattle who had a trend of chauvinistic behavior, and had exposed his genitals at a conference. “During my tenure, I bore witness to a chronic tolerance for male chauvinism, in which offenders’ acts would be overlooked because of their standing or perceived importance to the work. The first of which I bore witness to during the National SDS convention in Chicago, an event with a higher than average concentration of young, impressionable organizers within SDS. What was an otherwise fine event was sullied by the actions of one Mantak, with the complicity of Chrisley , the president of SDS at the time, who was there to witness alongside other senior members of the organization.

On the eve of our first day, most of the leadership decided to visit an Irish pub, already a questionable decision as, naturally, most students opted to follow. With our collective party of 20+, we made ourselves at home. As we were eating, we heard murmurs of a fight going on outside. Said murmurs eventually evolved to people wrestling outside, not only that, they were SDS members. Coming outside, we saw Mantak and one other person wrestling with some of the younger students watching and filming.

The more responsible of us broke up the fight, notably missing from the peacekeepers was Chrisley, who seemed to find the whole affair amusing. After coming back inside and resuming what we were up to for 20 minutes, I took to milling about. Only then did I run into Mantak, whose pant leg I only now noticed had been ripped during his wrestling bout, from lower crotch to about his mid-thigh. For 20 minutes, until I alongside other concerned students made him tie a jacket around his waist, was allowed by leadership to walk around with his pants exposing him in such a way. When confronted, he seemed almost hesitant to cover himself up, as if he embraced the exposure as a means to show off what he perceived to be a notable physique.

[…]

Mantak, despite repeated complaints of chauvinism, was allowed to work and basically run the mass end of the organization for months until his chauvinism reached the point in which it halted to the work in his local chapter as women would refuse to work with him, a common occurrence with male chauvinists in the org.” Alpharius confronted Tom about Mantak’s behavior on behalf of his unit. Tom refused to remove Mantak as cadre or discipline him in any way on the basis that the student was a “good organizer who does good work.” Tom told Alpharius that they need to “struggle with him.” The circumstances of Mantak’s departure from FRSO are unclear to us. Tom lamented to Rick that the student was a good organizer, but “you know how young men are with women.”

Tom also protected Gregory Lucero, who was the DO of the Salt Lake City district, and a leader of FRSO’s internal Student Commission. Lucero and a partner made serious allegations against each other involving domestic violence and sexual misconduct. Tom Burke investigated and kept both in the organization. Only after a second incident involving abusive behavior did FRSO expel him.

Tom Burke’s district in Grand Rapids, Michigan shows the same pattern. Former SDS members report misogyny, homophobia, and public attacks by leadership for raising concerns. These members don’t specify Grand Rapids, however their bios mention Grand Valley State University, near Grand Rapids. Their usernames have been obscured for privacy.

Comments made on 10/12/25.

Michigan Ex-SDS Member 1: I am an Ex SDSer and there is the exact same issues with leadership being very misogynistic and homophobic. I was ostracized for standing up for myself because I was constantly being put down by leadership and being bullied in front of the entire group.

instead of coming to me with the supposed issues they did it in front of the entire group acting like I was a monster and aggressive when in reality I was just asking not to be cut off when I talked and not to have my ideas be put down without any reasoning

Michigan Ex-SDS Member 2: thank you all for sharing this, and as a former SDSer from michigan can confirm these issues are endemic to both SDS and FRSO. most local groups that aren’t FRSO fronts themselves aren’t willing to work with them either for the exact reasions laid out here

Michigan Ex-SDS Member 3: I can’t wait for the fall of FRSO so we can make room to actually help our communities. Community member from Michigan and I’ve experiences nothing but abuse and racism involved in their ‘communities’ Screenhots: Tom protected abusers. His district mirrored those protections structurally.

Dustin Ponder #

After Alpharius had become a cadre of FRSO in 2014, members of the SDS chapter at USF in Tampa publicly accused Dustin Ponder of sexual assault. Dan fed Alpharius a specific narrative: people in Tampa were raising allegations, and someone who was claiming to be an appointed advocate of the victim, who we will refer to as the VA, was actively obstructing FRSO’s investigation by telling the victim not to cooperate. FRSO leadership circulated the narrative internally that the VA and others raising the allegations against Dustin were wreckers who were trying to destroy FRSO.

Alpharius believed this story for years, but the SC’s defense of Dan , Tom Burke’s threats, and the trend of leadership protecting other problematic FRSO members made him ask: what really happened with Dustin Ponder?

Information about the Dustin Ponder case is scarce thanks to FRSO’s strict “need to know” policy.“All information is shared only on a need to know basis and confidentiality is maintained.” - Page 8 of FRSO’s Policy on Handling Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence in the Organization. Also see the “Compartmentalization and the Need to Know” section of the FRSO Security Guidelines. This is a rare instance of FRSO mishandling sexual misconduct that’s escaped containment; multiple FRSO districts and SDS chapters have left FRSO, suffered crises, or collapsed after finding out about Dustin Ponder:

• Tampa, FL
• Gainesville, FL
• Tallahasee, FL
• Ann Arbor, MI
• Arlington, TX

Primary Documents #

The following primary documents relate to the Dustin Ponder case and FRSO leadership’s reaction, organized chronologically. We encourage you to review them independently:

• September 2013 - Dustin Ponder Sanctions Email Exchange
• November 5, 2014 - Facebook Communism 101 Transcript
• November 16, 2014 - Email Exchange between VA and Political Secretary Steff Yorek
• November 18, 2014 - Facebook Messages between Alpharius and Dan Sullivan
• November 17, 2015 - Gainesville SDS News Article
• March 13, 2016 - Steff Yorek Confrontation Video at IWD 2016
• March 23, 2016 - Reportback from protestors of IWD 2016
• December 31, 2024 - DC Private Conversations
• February 25, 2025 - Kyra and Tequila Sunset Messages
• March 14, 2025 - Rick Voice Note and Messages
• April 13, 2025 - Dallas District Committee Meeting Transcript
• May 8, 2025 - Political Secretary Mick Kelly Meeting Transcript
• May 15, 2025 - Student Unit Resignation Letter
• May 15, 2025 - SC Talking Points
• May 15, 2025 - Kyra and Sparrow Messages
• May 15, 2025 - DC Response to Student Resignation

1. Gainesville #

Tampa wasn’t the first accusation against Dustin Ponder. In 2013, he was accused of sexually assaulting someone at University of Florida in Gainesville, and found guilty by FRSO’s internal process.

We reached out to someone who was part of the UF SDS in Gainesville to find out more about what happened:

A few months after joining SDS, some friends also in SDS told me about how a rapist (Dustin Ponder was his name, I think) was being allowed to continue on in FRSO and how they were choosing to leave FRSO as a result. Basically there was a vote to kick this guy out of the group and it was vetoed by the head of Florida FRSO (or their “honorable chairman” or whatever he goes by…) named Fern . At this point most UF SDS members were aware of and not cool with this, so we released a statement denouncing FRSO. FRSO responded by using a weak link in our group to seize control over the SDS social media page, so then we (the actual UF SDS members at that time) responded by doubling down on our critique of FRSO and changing out name to UF Radical Student Alliance (a group that sadly fizzled a few years later and no longer is active). At one point, FRSO tried to respond by doing entryism into UF SJP (basically to replace SDS), which resulted in Gainesville activists secretly banding together and ambushing Fern to declare that FRSO could either leave Gainesville or else we’d make their lives hell for the abusers they protect and the predatory things that they do. Ever since then FRSO has been less active in Gainesville, as far as I know, although I think they still have some (relative) strongholds in Tampa and Tallahassee.

…

Steff Yorek , the Political Secretary of FRSO at the time and currently a member of the Central Committee, confirmed the assault that the former student refered to on video:

VA: Is it or is it not his first time around with sexual assault accusations?

Steff: Nope, it’s not.

VA: It’s not his first time around, he’s been accused before.

Steff: Mhm.

VA: And those accusations were found to be truthful.

Steff: Uh… Yeah, well, yes.

Despite Steff’s recorded words, in 2025 when Alpharius asked Mick Kelly, the Political Secretary, about the prior assault, Mick flatly denied it:

No. Unequivocal no.

…

I don’t remember any sex case against Dustin. I would know too. That would be- that would be like a big fucking deal if there had been.

Because if there had been, it would have actually decided the second one. But that’s just not true that there was a previous case.

…

And I think [Steff] would tell you exactly what I’m telling you. No, there was no previous accusation, there just wasn’t.

Mick argued that Steff misspoke about the prior assault because she was ambushed:

You may or may not know Steff is actually my best friend, and I think what happened to her there was terrible. She was ambushed, she was embarrassed. She was, you know, whatever, being hit with motherfuckers on a, on a, doing a video hit on her … It was- it was a very, it was a very difficult experience, and it’s one that’s hard to handle with grace.

…

“Yeah” in that context, can have a lot of different meanings. So and, again, I’d have to go back and watch the video if I was gonna deconstruct it, but there wasn’t prior accusations against him. There’s problems. But, anyways there’s problems with a lot of the folks down there. They’re all young, and young people have problems.

In fact, Dustin himself acknowledged his guilt. FRSO sanctioned Dustin, barring him from interacting with the student movement and requiring proof of attending counseling. When Dustin refused to abide by the sanctions, an FRSO member from Tampa confronted him about it via email, where Dustin declared the sanctions “unprincipled”:

IMO this is a petty and sectarian political tactic. All furthers issues you can discuss with my unit leader, and I’ll be appealing any other issue to D.O and national. I believe this “lifelong ban” on any interaction with my friends in Gainesville, who happened to be students, or anykind of small interaction with political folks with no evaluation or consideration of progress or my actual real life attempts to correct contradictions is unprincipled. Especially when I have made every effort to comply with the terms.

I have been extremely proactive in tackling personal issues in my life and trying to make amends to the parties(6) (6)Plural. Are there more? affected.

2. Tampa #

FRSO didn’t penalize Dustin for violating the sanctions, and he was accused of assaulting another person in Tampa the following year. We reached out to the VA and were able to get her account.

The VA told us she brought up the allegations against Dustin Ponder in an SDS meeting. The victim was present at the meeting. After the meeting, Sol Marquez confronted the VA and the victim. Sol “screamed at [the victim] and told her she never should have dated the dude who assaulted her in the first place.”

FRSO members in Tampa responded to the accusations against Dustin by isolating the victim and those supporting her from the SDS chapter and removing them from all SDS communications. FRSO members accused them of being “wreckers”, and according to their testimony, told some to “kill themselves.” Members of Tampa FRSO who later resigned published a self criticism for their conduct, where they admitted to this behavior. These hostile tactics drove the victim away from FRSO’s investigation process, so the victim asked the VA to handle interactions with FRSO on her behalf.

Frustrated with FRSO’s inaction, the Tampa whistleblowers went public with the accusations against Dustin on November 5th. The VA called out FRSO on a left-wing Facebook group, with an article on how organizations cover up sexual assaults. Daniel Sullivan and Gregory Lucero lept to FRSO’s defense(7) (7)See Dan’s comments and Greg’s comments with the exact tactics the article describes.

On November 15th, Jason Unruhe posted a YouTube video called “FRSO Rape Cover Up” covering the discourse, calling out Dan Sullivan , Greg Lucero, and Dustin Ponder by name.

Only after the Jason Unruhe video, on November 16th, did FRSO make contact with the VA. Jared Hamil reached out to the VA via email, and connected her and Steff Yorek . Throughout the exchange, Steff expects to get a statement from the victim, but refused to address - or even discuss - the hostile behavior displayed by FRSO cadre which was turning the victim away. The VA repeatedly tried to break this circular logic. Each time, Steff deflected, wanting to “focus on the survivor”.

Steff concluded the emails by attacking the VA:

I am just going to be honest with you [the VA]. I have never seen an advocate behave in this manner, and try to make the situation center upon themselves rather than upon the survivor in this way. I have acted as an advocate several times and…..well I think you look at what you have done with the knowledge that the advocate is the voice of the survivor. The clarity and truthfulness that you conduct yourself with is placed by others onto the survivor. (Email 11: Steff Yorek’s Tampa Proposal)

She declared the accusations false without ever investigating or speaking to the victim:

After careful consideration, my evaluation is that statements have been made about the perpetrator on social media that are not true and and in some cases contradictory to what you have stated in individual correspondence. False statements are beyond the scope of providing support for the survivor and getting justice for her. (Email 11: Steff Yorek’s Tampa Proposal)

And attempted to downgrade the allegations from rape to abuse:

From careful parsing of your words on social media I take it to be the case that she is no longer charging rape but instead charging abuse. (Email 11: Steff Yorek’s Tampa Proposal)

The VA reports Steff’s handling of this exchange pushed the victim even further away.

The next interaction between Steff and the VA, and their first in person interaction, would be their recorded confrontation in 2016. Steff was defensive througout the interaction. She admitted Dustin Ponder is still in FRSO and that they won’t remove him. She defended Sol’s victim blaming rhetoric, and defended isolating the VA from SDS spaces:

Steff: You can talk about it anywhere you like.

VA: Except for multiple forums where your members have removed me.

Camera-person: Including tonight- today.

VA: FRSO members removed members who were talking about it there. What happened with that? How come other members of SDS chapters can’t talk about this?

Steff: Why would SDS talk about an issue that’s a Freedom Road issue?

VA: Maybe because an SDS member was the one who was assaulted? By a Freedom Road Socialist Organization member?

3. Jacksonville #

Steff argued it’s actually preferable to keep predators in FRSO:

I saw you think [Dustin Ponder] should be expelled on the basis of there being another charge with no need to know what the charge is. You understand of course that if he is no longer in the organization I have no ability to demand things from him. I have no special power over him besides what he gives to the organization voluntarily. It is the survivors interest and the interest of justice to keep him in the group through the end of a process rather than expel him. (Email 11: Steff Yorek’s Tampa Proposal)

Her logic enabled Dustin to commit an alleged third assault. An FRSO cadre from Jacksonville visited Dallas and confided in Kyra, Rick, and Tequila Sunset that Dustin sexually assaulted her. The solution of local Jacksonville leadership, which included Fern who was the DO at the time, was a mediation between the survivor and the perpetrator.

In March 2025, Rick and Tequila Sunset had been researching the Dustin Ponder case together. 3/4/25

Tequila Sunset: do you know who dustin ponder is (7:14 PM)

Rick: yeah

Rick: He’s the creep who got booted from Jax (Edited 7:19 PM)

Rick: Why (7:19 PM)

Tequila Sunset: was that the guy who assaulted [redacted]? (7:19 PM)

Rick: Yeah (7:19 PM)

Rick: Why

Tequila Sunset: I’ll explain later, learned some crazy frso lore from alpharius and I’m starting to connect some dots

Tequila Sunset: you’re certain? (7:20 PM)

Rick: Yeah (7:21 PM) 👍

Rick: Let’s talk in half an hour (8:39 PM)

Tequila Sunset: I’m free now just finished study with [a cadre](9:03 PM)

Rick: Free now (9:11 PM)

Outgoing voice call - 9:13 PM

Tequila Sunset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVHQ1ln4zr8

Tequila Sunset: links to screenshots are in the description (9:35 PM)

Incoming voice call - 9:41 PM

Rick: Bro Dustin Ponder actually responded in the YouTube video in the comments section (10:27 PM)

Tequila Sunset: I saw lol (10:31 PM)

Outgoing voice call - 10:31 PM

Rick: I remember more parts of this Dustin Ponder story now (11:45 PM)

Tequila Sunset: Spill (11:57 PM)

[Voice message - 2:16 duration] (11:59 PM) 😮

3/5/25

Tequila Sunset: Dan moment

Tequila Sunset: I think Steff gets some credit for expelling Dustin but also Dustin was a repeat offender and Steff was no doubt aware of Dustin’s previous offenses. she was on the SC until the 9th congress (Edited 9:42 AM)

Tequila Sunset: Also now that I’m learning that a lot of our organization comes from Florida it makes the dysfunction in Jacksonville even more damning IMO (9:43 AM)

Rick: As far as I know Steff was apparently unaware of the first instance but when the subsequent incidents happened she flew out and just booted him

Rick: But still yeah why was she unaware is the bigger question (9:54 AM) 👍

Tequila Sunset: yep, and also given that other people since then have been given too much leeway, like dan, it tells me that they individualized the issue to Dustin and did not analyze this as a larger trend

Tequila Sunset: also makes me wonder if other parts of the CC even know about this (9:56 AM)

Rick: What is even more egregious is that Dan wondering why Steff didn’t inform anyone of why Dustin was booted, dude this guy raped someone

Tequila Sunset: also makes me wonder if other parts of the CC even know about this

Rick: This is my question too like I think it was only Tom who was handling this (9:57 AM)

Tequila Sunset: I assume the SC at least had to know (9:57 AM)

Rick: You think so? I am not so sure (9:58 AM)

Tequila Sunset: No way Chrisley and Fern didn’t since they go way back with Dustin. Tom definitely knew (Edited 9:58 AM)

Tequila Sunset: I assume the SC at least had to know

Rick: This is probably true in the most perfect scenario of the SC’s functioning

Tequila Sunset: No way Chrisley and Fern didn’t since they go way back. Tom definitely knew

Rick: I agree

Rick: But doesn’t mean all of the SC were made aware (9:59 AM)

Tequila Sunset: No way Chrisley and Fern didn’t since they go way back with Dustin. Tom definitely knew

Tequila Sunset: If anyone didn’t know, maybe Mick and Masao (9:59 AM)

Rick: Yea (10:03 AM)

Tequila Sunset: I messaged some of the folks in the screenshots on facebook, we’ll see if we get any bites (10:06 AM)

Tequila Sunset: I am going insane man this shit is crazy (10:12 AM)

Rick: yeah lowkey it is (10:13 AM)

Tequila Sunset: wait you know who we could talk to (10:14 AM)

Rick: Who (10:14 AM)

Tequila Sunset: jessica schwartz

Tequila Sunset: she also got her start in gainesville (10:14 AM)

Rick: I was thinking about that last night (10:14 AM)

Tequila Sunset: that’s probably our best bet honestly (10:15 AM)

Rick: Problem is will she give me all the details (10:15 AM)

Tequila Sunset: who knows but it’s worth a shot (10:16 AM)

Tequila Sunset: don’t reach out yet but it’s a good lead potentially, gonna gather as much info as I can from alpharius and internet first, so we know what questions to ask (10:19 AM) 👍

Rick: Look up Dustin Ponder on keywiki (1:36 PM)

Tequila Sunset: I did

Tequila Sunset: What did you find (1:41 PM)

Rick: Article excerpt showing: Sean O’Brien, president of Teamsters Local 25 out of Boston, announced he will join the Teamsters United movement as candidate for general president. Fred Zuckerman, president of Teamsters Local 89 out of Louisville, Kentucky, will run with O’Brien for general secretary-treasurer.

We supported Fred Zuckerman in 2016 because he ran on the Teamsters United platform of fighting for better contracts, opposing concessions, reviving the strike weapon, organizing in core industries and protecting our pensions, said Dustin Ponder, a UPS shop steward in Teamsters Local 512 out of Jacksonville, Florida.

Rick: This confirms Dustin was in Jacksonville in 2016 (1:43 PM)

Tequila Sunset: Oh yeah

Tequila Sunset: I’ve been doing some digging and found a lot of facts (1:44 PM)

Rick: [redacted] joined Freedom Road in 2016

Rick: When she was 17 (Edited 1:44 PM)

Tequila Sunset: True (1:45 PM)

Rick: Which confirms that he was allowed to move from Gainesville to Jacksonville (1:45 PM)

Tequila Sunset: He actually moved from Gainesville to NY to Jax (1:48 PM)

Rick: I see (1:49 PM)

Tequila Sunset: I am wondering if Dustin, Michaela, and/or Jessica moved around the same time (1:49 PM)

Rick: Jessica did (1:50 PM) 😮

Tequila Sunset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9u5I9tiOAU

Tequila Sunset: steff confirms that dustin ponder had a rape allegation prior to the gainesville incident (3:48 PM) 😮 (8) (8)This is really prior to the Tampa incident. We were under the impression at this stage that the offense was in Gainesville, something happened prior to Gainesville, and the issue was being re-raised in Tampa. In fact, the prior allegation Steff refers to is the incident in Gainesville, prior to the Tampa incident.

Tequila Sunset: timestamp at 13 min into the video (3:50 PM) 👍 Rick shared this confirmation of his memory from the conversation with the Jacksonville comrade: (9) (9)Rick says something about Dan’s understanding that Steff expelled Dustin. This contradicts what national leadership told us, that Dustin wasn’t expelled but left for political reasons. It’s not clear which is true.

This wasn’t actually about “justice”, as Steff claims. Dustin Ponder had practical value to FRSO. According to Greg Lucero, in 2014 FRSO was eager to build a presence in New York, and also needed Teamsters. Dustin Ponder was going to be their entry into NYC, and in 2014, he started a new district there. Tom Burke told Greg Lucero that if Dustin wasn’t a Teamster, they would have just expelled him.

Promotion #

Mick Kelly, the current Political Secretary, proclaimed pride in how FRSO handled Dustin Ponder:

On the issue of Dustin in Florida, I’m actually proud of that too. We did the principled thing even at great loss.

…

We looked into it. We know what happened. And I believe to this day that had we sanctioned him, threw him out, really, that it would have been an injustice.

FRSO leadership sees no issue with protecting someone accused of sexually assaulting at least three people. Whether they understand their actions as a “cover-up” or believe they were doing “the principled thing” doesn’t change the material consequence: this stance filters FRSO’s membership and leadership.

Each time leadership protects an alleged abuser, those who see the problem clearly either leave or are pushed out, while those who can rationalize leadership’s decisions remain. Over successive incidents, the organization becomes progressively composed of people who have demonstrated willingness to defend leadership’s protection of alleged abusers. Leadership advances from this filtered pool.

Chrisley Carpio , Fern Figueroa , and Michela Martinazzi were present for the Tampa and Gainesville incidents, and defended Dustin both times. Jared Hamil was the Tampa District Organizer in 2014. Fern was the DO of Gainesville in 2013 and Jacksonville in 2016. Sol Marquez defended Dustin in Tampa. They’ve all since been promoted to national leadership positions in FRSO.

Defense Through Attack #

We raised questions about Dustin Ponder. A good-faith organization would have responded with transparency. They could have called us, shared documentation, explained what happened, and answered questions.

That’s not what FRSO did.

They Had No Evidence #

FRSO’s sexual misconduct policy states: “All information is shared only on a need to know basis and confidentiality is maintained.“(10) (10)Page 8 of FRSO’s Policy on Handling Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence in the Organization. But as Lenin asked, “Who stands to gain?” The policy obstensibly protects the victim’s privacy, but functionally protects leadership from membership scrutiny and perpetrators from exposure.

When we met about Dustin Ponder, Mick Kelly , the Political Secretary of FRSO, outright denied there was any sexual assault. He immediately invoked the policy’s privacy provisions, warning there would be “limits to what [he’s] gonna say” before we had asked for anything specific. Instead of explaining the situation, he attacked the VA as a “wrecker” and “piece of trash” and deflected to allusions to “covert relationships.” All in the first five minutes of the meeting:

Tequila Sunset asked Mick for any documentation to validate FRSO’s narrative. He asked specifically for the email exchange between the VA and Steff Yorek that both parties reference in their confrontation video. Mick doubted the emails existed:

I strongly doubt that would exist or I actually feel though absolutely certain they wouldn’t establish what happened in that room that night.

He raised the privacy shield again:

Now I think you do have a choice to believe me or not. […] One thing I have actually have no intention of doing though is violating the privacy of those involved.

After Tequila Sunset persisted, explaining that any correspondence would help provide context and the emails could be redacted, Mick was direct:

Well, I don’t think that’s gonna happen. I’m just being direct. There’s no way it can happen. […] You’re not gonna carry out your own investigation there with me assisting you.

The VA has since shared the emails with us directly. The emails don’t violate the victim’s privacy; they do reveal that Daniel Sullivan actually violated the victim’s privacy, and FRSO leadership waved it off. Daniel Sullivan leaked the victim’s name. The victim was trying to remain anonymous to avoid retaliation. When the VA raised this privacy breach with Steff, she deflected responsibility for investigating it, “Since I do not know what non-FRSO person knows the identity of the survivor I have no way to find out how that occurred or if someone from the organization is responsible.” Email 6: Steff Yorek Response reporting that Dan “isn’t certain that he did but is also not certain that he did not” “He said he honestly doesn’t know if he disclosed the information. He spoke to Adele as a friend several times looking for her counsel and thinks it is possible that he slipped and used the victims name. He is not certain that he did but is also not certain that he did not. He did not do so intentionally and understands at this point that it is being made anonymously and that doing so was inappropriate.” Email 9: Steff Yorek Response - Long Investigation Details share the victim’s name.

FRSO imposed no consequences on Dan for this privacy violation. The VA brought this up to Steff in their 2016 confrontation. Steff attacked the VA with the same privacy rhetoric:

VA: But you know who does know her name? Somebody in the UK because your member leaked her name to someone in the UK.

Steff Yorek: I didn’t even know her- I didn’t even know her name when that happened.

VA: Yeah? That doesn’t make any difference. Did anything ever happen to him for that? Violating the victims, anonymous, you know?

Steff Yorek: I don’t know. Did anything ever happen to you for all of the things that you posted that, in my opinion, violated the victim’s privacy a lot?

These 2014 emails predate any policy, but they show FRSO using the same privacy rhetoric to shield perpetrators. When the VA asked about Dustin’s prior assault in Gainesville - where FRSO found him guilty - Steff replied: “Due to privacy concerns, at this time I am not able to discuss with you any previous incident.” In the same email, Steff revealed she didn’t actually know anything about Dustin violating sanctions.(11) (11)Email 3: Steff Yorek Response - November 23, 2014

Four years later, FRSO formalized this exact weaponization of privacy as policy. The 2018 sexual misconduct policy was adopted after the Florida cover-ups, with Florida “looming very large” in leadership’s minds. Mick explained the policy was needed not from a principled commitment to protecting survivors, but because FRSO has “a lot of young people” and “people partying” which creates “potentials for problems” - the young people being FRSO members, and the potential problems being incidents of sexual violence by those members. “So I don’t recall the policy coming from a particular incident other than the fact that the whole thing with Florida had loomed very large in our minds. And we also realized that, you know, we had… so again, we have a lot of young people. We have a lot of people partying and that kind of thing and lot of potentials for problems.” Mick now invokes that policy to block investigation of the very failures that prompted its creation.

We saw Dallas leadership deploy the policy to the same effect. During a Dallas District meeting, Alpharius criticized Rick for arguing to keep Cassandra Swart, who was leading FRSO’s anti-war work in Dallas, after she had confessed to a Category 3 offense because Rick felt she is too important to the work. He argued Cassandra should get some slack because she is autistic and didn’t know what she was doing. Jo interrupted Alpharius’ criticism, claiming they couldn’t mention Cassandra’s name because it violated the privacy policy. When Alpharius pointed out that Cassandra was the perpetrator, not the victim, Kyra - who is married to the coordinator for sexual misconduct and member of the SC Sydney Loving - insisted the policy protects both victim and accused equally.

The policy is effective at concealing the reality of sexual misconduct in FRSO. In July 2025, an FRSO member tweeted there are “zero allegations of any kind of ‘sexual assault’ done by any ’leader’ in FRSO by anyone ever.” They understood Dustin Ponder as just “a random member who was kicked out” from “15 years ago.“(12) (12)https://x.com/OldManTankie101/status/1947348521918644609?t=x0P2AKoDPr0kpKzclERyhw&s=19

This member genuinely doesn’t know Dustin was found guilty of assault in Gainesville, then protected through two more allegations. They don’t know current national leadership defended him. The policy has created an alternate history where members believe no leadership misconduct ever occurred.

So They Responded With Hostility #

Instead of providing evidence, FRSO chose to attack those asking questions. The Center flew Andy Koch, the national organizer, out to Dallas as soon as they learned we were discussing Dustin Ponder. Before he arrived, Andy called Jo and Xavi - not to provide an explanation on Dustin Ponder, but to ask questions about Tequila Sunset as preliminary investigation.

In the meeting with Andy, he accused Tequila Sunset of digging up information on Dustin Ponder as revenge against the Standing Committee for their handling of Dan. He insinuated Tequila Sunset was a “wrecker” because another comrade stumbled on a video about Dustin Ponder on his YouTube watch history - he’d accidentally left his account logged in at the local NAARPR office. Andy argued that if Tequila Sunset was a wrecker who wanted to spread the video, that would be the perfect way to do it. If Tequila Sunset was trying to “wreck”, leaving the video on the TV with his YouTube account with his real name attached would not be sneaky.

Andy repeatedly insisted there is “no equal sign” between the SC’s handling of Dan and handling of Dustin Ponder. He chastised us for discussing our greivances regarding the Center’s handling of Dan with the broader district, characterizing it as a violation of democratic centralism and a “campaign” against the Center. He insisted that the Center makes overwhelmingly correct decisions and we need to follow the Center’s dictates. Andy told us the Dustin Ponder case is a toxic topic which has destroyed districts in the past, and that we aren’t to discuss it further.

When we pressed Andy for information about the Dustin Ponder case, he admitted he only had second hand information and couldn’t answer any of our questions about it.

Andy became the leadership clique’s fall guy. The SC sent him to to act on their behalf without even giving him complete information. When Tequila Sunset communicated clearly during the meeting that he found the wrecker accusations inappropriate and disrespectful, Andy later sent a self-criticism acknowledging this. However, the self-criticism was necessarily limited to his personal conduct—that he had been too harsh. Andy’s Self-criticism: It could not examine the leadership clique’s directive he was carrying out, or their predetermined assumption that those raising Dustin Ponder concerns were acting in bad faith. Andy alone apologized. As with Dan, Andy was made responsible for the leadership clique’s failures.

And Demanded Blind Faith #

Without evidence, FRSO demanded we simply trust them.

When Tequila Sunset told Mick he wasn’t willing to go off trust or faith alone and needed concrete evidence, Mick said “Well, you’re going to have to.” Mick called asking for documentation “unreasonable” and said “that’s not how a democratic centralist group works.“(13) (13)See the video or transcript of Mick refusing to provide evidence above.

When arranging a follow-up meeting with Mick after the meeting with Andy, Rick told Alpharius that Mick would speak only to Tequila Sunset and not him, because “your [Alpharius’] loyalty is not in question.” He told Alpharius further attempts to raise the Dustin Ponder case would be “ruthlessly crushed.” When Alpharius contacted Andy directly, Andy clarified anyone concerned could speak with Mick. Messages between Alpharius and Andy:

Alpharius (8:52 AM): Hey Andy. I was originally informed by my DO that there would be a member of the SC potentially speaking with me over the concerns I raised prior. I was just informed yesterday that is not happening.

I would really appreciate this being readdressed

Andy Koch (9:42 AM): That was not what I discussed with the DO. Mick is planning on speaking with anyone in the district who has concerns/questions around that matter. I had asked the DO when would be good, and he said after may day. If you’d like to speak with mick sooner, let me know when some good times for you are and I can set it up with mick

Alpharius (9:43 AM): Ok. I am headed to work rn but can it be possible to schedule for this Sat evening? CST Most of the District Committee expressed interest. The Center then rescinded the invitation and limited the call to just Tequila Sunset and Alpharius.

Nova wanted to join the call with Mick. Rick said she shouldn’t want to because her “loyalty is not in question.” He questioned why she believed people on the internet who want to destroy FRSO rather than trusting the FRSO women who supported Dustin. Rick told Nova he lives in the real world where rape is a fact of life, and the organization can only respond after it happens. He asked her if she would prefer to be in an organization with only one sexual assault scandal or several.

After the meeting with Mick, Rick asked Alpharius if he felt satisfied with Mick’s answers. Alpharius said it depends on what he means by “satisfied.” Rick clarified: “Do you still trust the Center?” When Alpharius asked why that was being questioned, Rick said he as DO has the authority to ask any DC members what they think and if they trust the center, that Alpharius should be grateful Mick took his valuable time to have a meeting to address his questions, and if Alpharius does not trust the Center then he shouldn’t be part of the District Committee. (14) (14)Rick admitted both his comments to Alpharius and to Nova.

Kyra, married to Standing Committee member Sydney Loving, offered to provide Tequila Sunset some “useful perspective” on Dustin Ponder before the meeting with Mick. Her perspective consisted of:

• “Do you really think our leadership would do a cover up?”
• “Not to do identity politics, but are you a woman? Have you been raped?”
• “You’re paranoid and don’t have a lot of trust in the Center.”

Kyra characterized Andy’s visit as evidence that the Center is “taking our concerns seriously,” and insisted that Steff’s words in the confrontation video didn’t imply Dustin Ponder had a prior assault. When pressed, she admitted she had not even watched the video. 5/4/25

Annotations from Tequila Sunset.

Tequila Sunset (6:10 PM): were you suggesting you’ve been informed more info about gainesville or am i misinterpreting what you said?

Kyra (6:15 PM): not exactly but i can still offer hopefully useful perspective

Tequila Sunset (6:23 PM): sure i’d be interested

Tequila Sunset (8:02 PM): you available to talk tn?

Tequila Sunset (11:17 PM): Rick is a fucking snake(15) (15)I had just found out about Rick’s comments to Nova.

Kyra (11:20 PM): What happened

[Missed voice call - 11:20 PM] (16) (16)I was still on the phone with Alpharius who was relaying what Nova told him about Rick’s comments, which is why I didn’t pick up.

Tequila Sunset (11:20 PM): I’ll call back in a min

[Outgoing voice call - 11:29 PM]

[Outgoing voice call - 11:31 PM]

Tequila Sunset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9u5I9tiQAU (17) (17)I sent her the video after she told me she hadn’t seen it.

Tequila Sunset (11:35 PM): 13minish in

While Local Leadership Closed Ranks #

Local leadership, without access to any more evidence than we had, defended FRSO by deflecting and, in Rick’s case, actively gaslighting those raising concerns.

During a District Commitee meeting where we discussed Dustin Ponder before Andy arrived, Jo minimized the issue as involving “people who were removed from the organization.” They said the VA subscribed to “a strain of feminism that saw, like, for instance, anal sex is rape every time,” making it “difficult to determine if this person’s concept of assault is the same as ours.” They were more concerned about the video being on the TV than they were about the cover-up.

In the same meeting, Rick , who had previously asserted a comrade from Jacksonville said Dustin Ponder assaulted them, changed his story during a meeting of the District Committee: “They mentioned that they were sexually assaulted, and they mentioned Dustin Ponder to have done, you know, sexual assault, but those two things are not connected.”

After the meeting, Tequila Sunset called Rick to hash out his denial. Rick reiterated he’d never said Dustin assaulted the Jacksonville comrade, and convinced Tequila Sunset that his memory was incorrect.

Weeks after he left FRSO, Tequila Sunset found messages and a voice note where Rick explicitly stated that Dustin Ponder assaulted the Jacksonville comrade.

The Exodus #

After the meeting with Mick Kelly, the student unit unanimously voted to leave FRSO. A week later, they posted their resignation letter(18) (18)See the epigraph of this document. in the district’s group chat and left. More quickly followed.

Not once did leadership examine their protection of Dan Sullivan, their handling of the Dustin Ponder case, or why an entire unit voted unanimously to leave. FRSO’s response focused on control: eliminate district group chats, restrict communication between units, force everything through unit leaders, make people too invested to leave. They blamed a single “wrecker” - Tequila Sunset - for manipulating everyone who left.

After Tequila Sunset and the student unit resigned, Alpharius remained in FRSO for several additional weeks to monitor the internal response. This is how we obtained the information documented in the rest of this section.

Damage Control #

Local leadership immediately moved to damage control in the District’s group chat following the students’ resignation. Notably absent was any reflection on why the students resigned:

• Jo insisted FRSO had “responded appropriately and decisively in matters of abuse” and dismissed the students’ resignation as a failure “in training people in how to conduct criticism.”
• Xavi opened with “The truth is,” then claimed the Center “bent over backwards” to address our concerns, when they really threatened expulsions to protect Dan and refuse to provide evidence on Dustin Ponder.
• Kyra minimized Tom’s threats, dismissed the Gainesville evidence as “speculation” from “ten plus years ago,” and validated the Center’s paranoid theory that Tequila Sunset “left the video up on purpose.” She claimed FRSO has “expelled people for much less” than what Dustin Ponder did, as though the Center hadn’t just gone out of their way to protect Daniel Sullivan .
• Kai falsely claimed “there are very few people left over from that time period” in FRSO leadership. As stated at the beginning of this document, several members of FRSO national leadership defended Dustin in 2013-2014.
• Rick insisted students were “never blocked from raising criticisms” and when Tequila Sunset pointed out the Center forbade discussion of Dustin Ponder, Rick lied: “This is not true.”

Every response deflected responsibility outward.

Character Assassination #

Rather than examine why so many committed cadre left, FRSO created a simple narrative that Tequila Sunset was a “wrecker” who manipulated everyone else.

The Center distributed talking points to the District Committee which characterized the exodus as a consequence of Tequila Sunset’s “wrecking campaign.” Rick designated Tequila Sunset an “enemy of this organization,” District Committee Chat 5/22/25

Rick: Also got word that someone from anti war spoke to Tequila Sunset after the unit meeting on Monday I don’t know what was said to him tho

Kai: Wasn’t me

Kyra: similar to my unit meeting where he said “i heard your meeting today was kind of a shitshow”

[Our records are missing part of the conversation. From context clues, we would guess Rick is saying leaks shouldn’t happen.]

Rick: …doesn’t matter, it shouldn’t happen period.

Tequila Sunset is an enemy of this organization

Like everyone of us here have eaten shit by the state, mental, physical, emotional, financial, for this organization and for the revolution, we are not gonna allow what we’ve built to get taken away anymore. Screenshot taken 5/23/25: recast legitimate criticisms of the Center that Tequila Sunset had while in FRSO as evidence that he was a bad faith actor, and fabricated additional transgressions.

The paranoia went so far that they genuinely feared Tequila Sunset wiretapped the local NAARPR office. Screenshots

Rick Majumdar: It was Wizard that reached out to us when we took his laptop he sent me this message

“Hey so I’m trying to respond to a concern of the DC in an appropriate way while I have the thought written out and saw that you were commenting – I want to be transparent here and raise it directly so that the DC can just talk about it, and it seems far better than everyone being paranoid with enough on our plates. I will post my response to Jo here so that yall have ample time to fairly respond here or at a district meeting:

@Jo (OUT May 12-18) @Rick @Kai (they/them) I apologize for late response but I want to clarify/respond here while I am wrapping up, as yall have inevitably brought this up amongst yourselves in your own chat with enough else going on, and I have no issue addressing this concern –

The other week our devices were taken out of the office and ended up on the road home with Kai, in response to Tequila Sunset making the stupid choice to record Mick without his consent, and an allegation of Tequila Sunset bugging the office had been brought up between Jo and myself after the meeting at Dinner.

To start: I found this allegation from the DC ridiculous, as screen recording and phone voice memo apps are free and do not require Tequila Sunset to drive from [town], and it was my belief that in this paranoia cooler heads in the DC did not prevail and the DC made a deeply inappropriate, invasive choice that led to our property being taken home. In hindsight this was likely an accident under stress, but I want to make clear that I still found this reaction deeply inappropriate at the time and decided to just ask Tequila Sunset directly anyway to get to the bottom of it. He told me very clearly that he used a screen recording option to get a transcript of Mick, and that he got joy out of the ensuing chaos this paranoia caused us.

It is, again, my belief that this paranoia was reflexive and inappropriate, that cooler heads should have realized Tequila Sunset would LOVE for the DC to play into this reflexive behavior, and that he would be laughing all the way to the bank at their expense. I told Jo this in no uncertain terms, that it seemed he truly hated former colleagues enough that the effort required to do what they were accusing Tequila Sunset of was simply not realistic.

This is intended purely for transparency and clarification. I know that formal criticisms are not good for chats and have little interest in struggling this through outside of proper channels or until the next meeting, as Jo has apologized for this incident and I believe Tequila Sunset’s reaction to this to be a sufficiently petty answer unto itself. I hope that this clears this up.

I believe that this may be what Jo was referring to in antiwar chat as Tequila Sunset did ask me how the unit meeting went. It should be noted that nothing was told to Tequila Sunset in this beyond “It is what it is” and that Tequila Sunset is well aware of the problems these situations have caused. I do not know who else he is talking to and I do not care for conversations with Tequila Sunset the way any of this has gone either at this point, and for my own part wanted to be immediately transparent about my own inquiry and reaction into this before risking more paranoia”

Kyra: Thanks. That’s interesting and maybe this is defensive but we were technically just following the rules (but he’s right that we did so more carefully because of tequila sunset)

Kyra: But also, “it seemed he truly hated former colleagues enough that the effort required to do what they were accusing Tequila Sunset of was simply not realistic.” ..does it not seem he got joy out of not having to lift a finger but the level of hatred means he would be more willing to not less?

Rick Majumdar: We just moved the devices out of the room for our meeting then forgot to put it back in the office once we left

Jo: We weren’t accusing tequila sunset of anything but we acknowledged the possibility that the office was not secure.

Jo: I think Wizard meant he was going to send that comment to our unit chat and chose to send it to Rick instead, I hadn’t received it before

Jo: Gonna talk with Wizard on the phone asap

Kai: I apologize in advance for this brief rant but like…

Again, this is a game of fucking telephone bc his laptop never “went to Richardson” .. afaik Josh took it back to the office that night.

I’m sorry but don’t leave your laptop in the office fully open for weeks on end for anyone (Tequila Sunset included) to walk in and plug in a usb device to do god knows what to it or to the organization etc when you’re not there … and then be shocked and surprised when it gets removed as a precaution.

Don’t use your own personal property for organizational operations; like everything that I’ve left up there has been donated to the organization and like what is he gonna say next? … that the printer is his? … Like I think that if we need a computer to print from and can’t remote print then naarpr or the org should find a computer to do that task and not rely on someone’s personal property that they can decide to remove at any moment and for reason … Either donate it or remove it …

Josh understood the stakes for why their device was removed; why can’t Wizard?

At the same time, Kyra was characterizing Tequila Sunset to other FRSO members as “crazy.” She described him to other members as “fixating on a conspiracy theory” Friday May 16th. Message between an FRSO Dallas cadre and Tequila Sunset. , and “taking too much adderall.” We don’t have a receipt for this specific comment. Sparrow testifies that at a hangout with Rick, Kyra, and Syd, Kyra made the adderall comments. We do have receipts of Sparrow, who testifies she said it, confronting Kyra for these comments on May 15th, hours after Tequila Sunset and the Students resigned from Freedom Road.

Sparrow: Imma be real, the night all of you were talking about Tequila Sunset being crazy and all of that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I know I haven’t been in the org long but i couldn’t dismiss him based on that alone

Kyra: Fair enough. He’s just been stubbornly pursuing various things before this that fit into a trend. I hope the center is able to provide clarity for everyone’s doubts but it isn’t my place to do so

Kyra: Or actually i should be self critical for speaking uncomradely about him as i have done because it felt like he had done so to whoever but that doesn’t make it right. And also that is separate from the groundlessness of the speculation

Sparrow: Maybe I’m sensitive to being called crazy, but I had to look into the claims myself to make sure it was as circumstantial as everyone was saying it was. Regardless, the responses I’ve heard from Rick and others doesn’t make me feel confident in being able to raise criticism without being called insane

Sparrow: If it is a pattern with Tequila Sunset, and I’m not claiming it isn’t, I would have no idea, because I do think this district has a problem with transparency of information

Kyra: He was fixated on the remote work thing, some other stuff in various contexts not sure how the org would report that but its true the org isn’t fully transparent its ML. Time and resources are the main blockers to reporting more

Kyra: Yeah i am brash when talking with/about my friends, and crazy is a word i am close to so i throw it around inappropriately when i shouldn’t

Kyra: But its the fixation and aggressiveness over a long time and various things that comes off as not interested in unity

Kyra: Conclusion comes first, then everything else

See the full conversation transcript.

In a meeting with Sparrow and another member who was planning to leave, Rick, Kyra, and Xavi deployed the talking points. They didn’t work. When Sparrow pointed out Rick had vowed to “crush” any continued discussion of Dustin Ponder, Rick raised his voice at them, slammed the table and stormed out for a smoke break. The meeting ended with Rick asking, “Do we all agree Tequila Sunset is a wrecker?”

Mick Kelly and Steff Yorek visited Dallas to address percieved demoralization after people left. At this meeting, Mick referred to Tequila Sunset as a “wrecker” and “piece of shit”, casting him into FRSO’s rogues gallery of “wreckers” alongside the “piece of trash” (28) (28)See Mick Kelly’s comments above. VA in Tampa.

Isolation #

The Center coordinated with Rick to isolate Tequila Sunset from the NAARPR chapter he led, and isolate the students from national SDS:

This isolation playbook was established in Tampa in 2014. FRSO continues to isolate the VA in 2025 - when an Orlando abortion rights organization asked FRSO to discuss their handling of the Tampa allegations before sharing space for International Women’s Day organizing, FRSO refused, withdrew their financial support, and ended the collaboration. Comment from the PSU Instagram Statement on 10/11/25:

“Hi, I’m an organizer in Orlando. I feel like this is really full circle, because I followed you guys while my little sister was assisting with the encampments and didn’t know very many people because I wanted to make sure that they were safe. And I login today and see a video of one of my very dear comrades yelling at Stephanie Yorik from your page lmao. Small world. FRSO Orlando asked an abortion org that im affiliated with if they could raised funds for us for IWWD this last march and we said we were honored by the efforts but before we shared our mostly fem bodied spaces with their org we wanted to have a discussion on how their org handles allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct and cited the allegations in tampa fl. They told us they no longer wanted to work with us and took their money w them. Im glad FRSO and SDS chapters are seperating themselves with a top leadership that does nothing to protect activists from harm.” Screenshot:

Doubling Down #

Tom Burke reassured Rick that Dallas will bounce back. Email on 6/2 He compared the exodus to historical splits during the Soviet Union’s collapse, framing those who left FRSO as “rightists” or “ultraleftists” rather than cadre responding rationally to leadership failures. (29) (29)See this section of Rick’s proposal. This historical analogy allowed him to avoid the obvious question: What if people left because leadership protected abusers?

At the District Committee meeting following the exodus, leadership focused on preventing future departures through control:

• The Standing Committee recommended eliminating district-level group chats, restricting inter-unit communication, and forcing all communication through unit leaders - treating horizontal organizing as the problem rather than their own failures
• They discussed “consolidating” cadre - making them more invested so leaving would be harder - focusing on retention through sunk costs rather than addressing why people wanted to leave
• Some suggested banning time off, noting several who left had been on breaks - as if rest caused departures rather than their treatment of members

During this meeting, Rick said “we need to remind people this is a centralist organization.” No one thought it was weird that Rick forgot to precede “centralist” with “democratic.”

Not once did leadership ask: “What could we have done differently?” Every solution involved tightening control, limiting communication, and increasing surveillance. The problem, in their view, was never their protection of Dan Sullivan or their handling of the Dustin Ponder case - it was that members found out and talked to each other about it.

The Pattern Continues #

When Mick Kelly and Steff Yorek visited Dallas after the exodus, multiple cadre raised harsh criticism regarding Rick’s conduct toward femme-presenting comrades, aggressive behavior, and inability to take criticisms. Local membership wanted a re-election of Rick’s position as DO. The Center forbade it. (30) (30)See Rick’s two year plan.

Mick felt the criticisms against Rick were “not constructive.” He ordained Rick a “good comrade” who does “good work,” welcoming him into the ranks of “good comrades” like Daniel Sullivan and Mantak Singh. After losing Dan, FRSO transformed Rick into his replacement. The same person who fought against Dan’s misconduct and researched the Dustin Ponder cover ups transformed into the leadership clique’s loyal soldier.

Rick isn’t the only person who underwent such a transformation. Kyra was one of Dan’s harshest critics for years, and was initially sympathetic to our investigation into Dustin Ponder. She ended up self criticizing for organizing against Dan, and falling in line with the leadership clique’s wrecker narrative against us. Even Andy Koch was once a reformer who left Workers World Party (WWP) alongside the rest of his branch in 2018 when he and his branch’s efforts to establish democratic centralist norms were “frustrated at every turn by leadersip"(31) (31)See Andy’s bio from the 9th Congress. - during the same period WWP was facing a crisis that included it’s own sexual assault cover ups. WWP (Workers World Party) - 2018 crisis:

Baltimore Victim Testimony: https://archive.is/wGARf

DC Branch statement: https://web.archive.org/web/20200819005916/https://twitter.com/bratatouillle/status/1018930943451631618

Libcom forum discussion: https://libcom.org/forums/north-america/wwp-splitting-16072018 Now he serves as an enforcer for the FRSO leadership clique.

The Predictable Response #

Pay close attention to how FRSO responds to this document. They aren’t going to address any of the evidence presented because they can’t. Much like how Mick Kelly and members of Dallas local leadership tried to claim Steff Yorek misspoke when she admitted Dustin had a prior assault in Gainesville because she was “ambushed,” the leadership clique may try to claim we’ve taken their words that we’ve documented out of context.

We invite the FRSO leadership clique to provide any documentation contradicting these accounts. They will not do so because they have none. When we asked for such evidence, they refused. Mick Kelly doubted the existence of emails that we now publish here. If the leadership clique has exonerating evidence, they’ve had over a decade to produce it.

Watch how FRSO’s response to this document aligns with this pattern. Most likely, they’ll maintain public silence as they did in the case of Dustin Ponder. Internally, the leadership clique and their enforcers will spread rumors and attempt to create a narrative that we’re “wreckers” so that they can discredit what we say, in the same way they’ve done and continue to do with the VA in the Dustin Ponder case. They will fabricate narratives about our supposed ulterior motives, rally any loyalists, and tighten information control.

Former cadre from Tampa described FRSO’s playbook in their self-criticism:

Whenever people or organizations publicly disagree with FRSO’s handling of the allegations, the internal response is almost always to snitchjacket, denouncing them as either cops or wreckers. Additionally, the organization extends its policy of snitchjacketing into its mass organizations. Not only do FRSO cadre participate, they also dominate the discussion with mass activists by insisting that you either side with FRSO or are a cop. This is another expression of anti-people politics which views FRSO as the only thing that matters in the United States. As FRSO cadre organizing in the mass organization Students for a Democratic Society, we applied this reactionary political line. Whenever the accusations were mentioned, we insisted that they were designed to destroy the organization and were part of a plot against the FRSO.

FRSO has already validated this playbook in response to the former FRSO Dallas students’ announcement of the Arlington Progressive Student Union (PSU)’s disaffiliation from National SDS, which highlights Mick Kelly and Steff Yorek’s contradictory claims on Dustin Ponder’s alleged assault in Gainesville, and Rick’s coordination with FRSO national leadership to isolate the students.

Mick performed certainty while unable to provide any. Instead of addressing the contradiction, he cryptically postured on social media (violating FRSO’s own Social Media Guidelines). Mick Kelly liked the instagram post, then unliked it. First screenshot was taken on 10/11/25 at 12:42pm. Second was taken on 10/13/25 at 2:21pm. That evening he posted on Facebook: “Enjoying a beer following a busy day.” two hours later, vague-posted: “Throw a rock. Hide your hand ain’t going to work.” 10/11/25 He deleted the post less than ten minutes later - ironically throwing a rock and hiding his hand. The next evening, he posted on facebook “I’m old testament. An eye for an eye ,tooth for a tooth.“(32) (32)This is very unlike his regular posting style - pictures of cats and Fight Back News articles captioned “of interest” or “worth reading” Rick and Chrisley liked the post. 10/12/25: Likes screenshot taken 10/14/25 at 12:22pm CST:

National SDS responded to the PSU post quickly. In a message to other SDS chapters - likely sent by Chrisley Carpio , who leads both National SDS and FRSO’s Student Commission - they dismissed PSU’s allegation of FRSO covering up multiple assaults as “red-baiting” and insisted on FRSO’s right to organize within SDS. National SDS forgot to remove Alpharius from the social media portal. He took this screenshot on 10/20/25: They did not address the fact that Rick is documented coordinating with the leadership of FRSO to isolate PSU from National SDS, nor his admission of the relationship between FRSO and SDS: “Cities don’t have Freedom Road leadership in their SDS, but ultimately they do.”

An FRSO cadre framed the students who left FRSO Dallas as “unprincipled anti-communists” who are trying to “divide the movement”, without engaging with the fact that the statement documents Mick Kelly clearly lying.(33) (33)“Unprincipled anti-communists want to divide the movement and drive communists out of mass movements because they know they can’t out organize us. If you’ve worked with us in the movement you know how much work, discipline, and sacrifice we devote to building the movement and mass organizations. They can’t separate us from what we’ve worked tireless to build.” 10/11/25 This member isn’t part of the leadership clique and doesn’t benefit from these cover-ups. Their response demonstrates how effectively FRSO’s narrative control works: rank-and-file members reflexively defend the leadership clique against criticism without access to the information that would let them evaluate those criticisms. They’ve been trained to see any challenge to leadership as an attack on “the movement” itself.

We name specific individuals who protected sexual predators. These individuals are not “the movement.” The movement doesn’t need leaders who shield rapists.

Breaking the Silence #

FRSO’s “need to know” policy ensures abuse stays isolated within districts. Stories remain buried, patterns invisible. This report captures what escaped containment from Tampa, Gainesville, and Jacksonville, and gives our testimony of FRSO’s handling of Daniel Sullivan in Dallas. How many other Dustin Ponders and Daniel Sullivans hide behind the “need to know”?

If you have information about similar incidents, more information about the incidents we documented, questions about your own experiences, or want to reach out for any other reason: contact@frso-accountability.org. Your privacy will be protected.

What Is To Be Done? #

We don’t know what kind of impact this document will have. Maybe FRSO leadership successfully contains it internally and nothing changes.

But on the possibility that you’re a current member of FRSO reading this and considering your options: if you’re feeling torn, we understand. We were you. We invested years in FRSO. We built deep bonds with our former comrades. We wanted to believe it could be fixed.

We lost those comrades.

The choice ahead of you is genuinely difficult, and we won’t pretend otherwise. This document may push you into exactly the painful process we just went through. That’s not something we take lightly. But you’re going to face this choice eventually - the only question is when, and whether you’ll have to figure it out alone.

We left FRSO, and we believe you should too.

Leaving FRSO is not leaving the movement. The organizing work you do locally doesn’t depend on FRSO’s national structure. You can continue building power in your community without subordinating yourself to a leadership clique that covers up sexual assault.

But we understand many current members aren’t ready to accept that conclusion without testing it themselves. What follows is our advice to you.

Accountability #

If FRSO were serious about accountability, here’s the bare minimum they would need to do. We present these demands not because we expect FRSO leadership to meet them, but to establish what genuine accountability would require.

1. Take Responsibility for Protecting Abusers #

Leadership must publicly acknowledge these facts and accept responsibility for the harm inflicted by their choices:

Regarding Dustin Ponder:

• FRSO’s internal investigation found him guilty of sexual assault in Gainesville (2013).
• They did not enforce the sanctions on Dustin after violated them.
• After a second assault allegation in Tampa (2014), they kept him in the organization.
• They still allowed Dustin to form a District in New York, and allowed him to move to Jacksonville.
• They promoted members who defended him during these incidents to national leadership positions.
• They betrayed the trust of dedicated cadre, misleading members for over a decade about what actually happened, and turning them into unwitting defenders of their cover-up.

Regarding Dan Sullivan:

• At the 2022 Congress, his actions led to a cadre’s hospitalization with alcohol poisoning.
• Tom Burke encouraged him to attend Congress despite knowing his mental state.
• He sexually harassed two trans cadre in 2024.
• The Standing Committee overturned Dallas’s decision to accept his resignation without consulting the district.
• Tom Burke threatened expulsions if Dallas members didn’t “struggle with” Dan and claimed there were “problems on both sides” of the Congress incident.

Regarding FRSO’s Response to Those Who Raised Concerns:

• Multiple districts have left or faced crises after questioning the handling of sexual assault cases.
• Leadership consistently labels those who raise concerns as “wreckers.”
• Mick Kelly demanded trust while repeatedly making false statements, including denying Dustin had prior allegations.
• The Center sent Andy Koch to Dallas to investigate those asking questions, not to address the questions about misconduct.
• This hostile response pattern has repeated from 2014 to 2025.

Vague statements about “mistakes” or “missteps” are insufficient. Specific facts must be acknowledged.

2. Expel Those Who Actively Covered Up #

The following must be expelled from FRSO entirely for their direct role in protecting Dustin Ponder:

• Mick Kelly (Political Secretary)
• Tom Burke (Organizational Secretary)
• Steff Yorek (former Political Secretary, current CC)
• Chrisley Carpio (Standing Committee)
• Fernando Figueroa (Standing Committee)
• Marisol Marquez (Chicano Commission leader)
• Jared Hamil (Labor Commission leader)
• Michela Martinazzi (Central Committee)
• Any other FRSO cadre who were involved in covering up for Dustin Ponder who we may not be aware of.

These individuals actively participated in silencing victims, attacking advocates, and enabling a serial predator. They cannot remain in any capacity.

Recognizing these demands would remove most current leadership, those named must:

1. Document all organizational processes, passwords, contacts, and institutional knowledge
2. Prepare all assets and resources for transfer
3. Create transition documents for each leadership role outlining responsibilities and current projects

3. Resign All Complicit Leadership #

The following individuals perpetuated the cover-up and must permanently resign from all leadership positions and publish self-criticisms:

• Sydney Loving (Standing Committee)
• Andy Koch (National Organizer)
• Kyra (Dallas DC)(34) (34)At the time of the events documented. Kyra has since moved to Minneapolis.
• Rick Majumdar (Dallas DO)
• Xavi Velasquez (Dallas DC)
• Jo Hargis (Dallas DC)
• Kai (Dallas DC)
• Any other FRSO cadre who perpetuated the cover-up.

When given the opportunity to investigate the truth, these individuals chose instead to attack and isolate those raising concerns.

We recognize the difference between those who designed a system to shield predators and those who were molded by it to enforce those protections. Those in this category face a choice: continue defending a leadership clique that will sacrifice you the moment it’s convenient, or document how you were pressured into these actions. The difference between continuing as an enforcer and becoming a whistleblower is what you do once you understand the pattern. That choice remains available to anyone in intermediary positions.

Those who produce genuine self-criticisms may be considered for remaining as rank-and-file members; without such accountability, the membership would be justified in demanding their expulsion.

Given FRSO’s pattern of accepting performative accountability internally while maintaining public silence, self-criticisms must be made publicly accessible, not restricted to FRSO’s internal channels. We offer this website as one avenue for public accountability and documentation.

Genuine self-criticism must include:

• Specific incidents: Dates, names, and detailed accounts of specific actions taken - not generalized admissions of “mistakes were made”
• Specific harms: Identification of specific individuals harmed and the concrete nature of those harms
• Systemic analysis: Understanding of how FRSO’s organizational structure (factionalism rules, need-to-know policy, slate elections, compartmentalization) was designed to prevent accountability, and explanation of the specific mechanisms by which you were pressured
• Personal accountability: While acknowledging organizational pressure is appropriate context, self-criticisms that primarily deflect responsibility to “the system” are inadequate
• Ongoing accountability: Commitment to respond to follow-up questions from those documented as harmed

Those who wish to publish through this website may submit to contact@frso-accountability.org.

4. Accountability for Leadership Who Failed to Act #

All other Standing Committee and Central Committee members must resign from leadership positions and produce public self-criticisms examining their failure to hold the leadership clique accountable.

Given FRSO’s pattern of accepting performative accountability internally while maintaining public silence, self-criticisms must be made publicly accessible, not restricted to FRSO’s internal channels. We offer this website as one avenue for public accountability and documentation.

These self-criticisms must address:

• If you knew: What specific information did you have about these cases? Why did you choose not to act? What rationalization or organizational pressure prevented intervention? Be specific about your decision-making process.

• If you didn’t know: Why didn’t you know? What does it mean that the Center was so dysfunctional that major cover-ups occurred without your knowledge? What structural factors kept you uninformed? Why did you not investigate when districts collapsed or mass resignations occurred?

• Your role in the system: How did you participate in or benefit from the organizational structures (factionalism rules, need-to-know policies, slate elections) that enabled these cover-ups, even if you weren’t directly involved?

• Pattern recognition: When did you first become aware something was wrong? What warning signs did you ignore or rationalize away?

• Systemic analysis: Understanding of how FRSO’s organizational structure was designed to prevent accountability and concentrate power in the leadership clique

• Personal accountability: While acknowledging organizational pressure is appropriate context, self-criticisms that primarily deflect responsibility to “the system” are inadequate

Those who wish to publish through this website may submit to contact@frso-accountability.org.

5. Conduct a Stuctural Investigation #

Individual accountability is not enough. The documented pattern - Dustin Ponder protected through three alleged assaults across multiple districts, Dan Sullivan’s misconduct covered up, whistleblowers labeled “wreckers” in both 2014 and 2025 - demonstrates systemic failure, not isolated incidents.

FRSO must commission an investigation into the organizational structures and cultural practices that enabled these cover-ups. The policy that governs sexual misconduct should be reviewed. This cannot be conducted by current leadership or those complicit in these failures. The findings must be shared publicly.

Removing individuals without addressing the systemic issues that enabled them risks these patterns will repeat. We’ll attempt to address some of these structural questions in our own future writing.

They Will Not Take Accountability #

The entrenched FRSO leadership clique will not voluntarily meet these demands. Through their handling of Daniel Sullivan, they have demonstrated they will not hold those sympathetic to their faction accountable. They certainly will not expel themselves.

There is no mechanism in FRSO which allows the membership to hold the leadership to account. The “proper channels” you’re offered are incapable of challenging the leadership clique in any concrete way. In order to achieve the above demands, the membership of FRSO would need to organize with members from other Districts against the leadership clique itself.

The rule against “factionalism” stands in the way of organizing against the leadership faction, as it prevents cadre from communicating across districts.(35) (35)The rule on factionalism doesn’t state this explicitly, but the “Channels are important” section of the internal document “Some Points on Democratic Centralism”. TODO: link Kyra talking about factionalism from Syd. The purpose of this rule is precisely to frustrate attempts to organize against the leadership clique. We can look at the Socialist Workers Party as an example, where members concerned about the cover-up were expelled on charges of “factionalism”:

“There appears to be an attempt by the SWP Central Committee to silence party members’ grave concerns about how these serious charges were handled. In the run-up to the SWP conference, for example, four members were expelled on the charge of secret factionalism, adding to the view that there was some kind of cover up, and reinforcing the right-wing caricature of socialist organizations as top-down hierarchies that tolerate no deviation from their “line.” Leading SWP members have described these and other actions by the Central Committee as a breach of democracy.” - https://socialistworker.org/2013/01/30/the-crisis-in-the-swp That we had to organize what the Center labeled a “faction” to hold Daniel Sullivan accountable demonstrates how the rule concretely stands in the way of addressing problematic members in positions of power.

They may argue horizontal communication is encouraged through the Internal Bulletin - the rules profess to encourage “the horizontal communication and cross fertilization of ideas so crucial to the organization’s democratic internal life.“(36) (36)Rule 15, p.6 of the FRSO rules. . The leadership clique reserves the right to reject publishing documents which “compromise the organization’s security.“(37) (37)See rule 5 of the FRSO rules. They will either declare discussion which validates “wrecking narratives” a threat to FRSO’s security, or they will drop the pretense entirely and simply refuse to publish documents critical of their clique, as members of the SC have advocated for in the past. TODO: mention specific IB, link to actual document, and add Dan’s communique from Andy.

Those in FRSO may recall Tequila Sunset published a document in an IB criticizing the Center’s failure to follow through on several resolutions from the 9th Congress. Members of the SC debated whether they should refuse to publish it, according to Daniel Sullivan:

Members of the SC were advocating to violate their own rules.

Further, Congresses where leadership can be re-elected are once every three years, though the 10th congress in 2026 will be a year late.(38) (38)See rule 19 on page 7 of the FRSO rules: “The highest body of the organization is the National Congress which is convened by the Central Committee at least once every three years. Under special circumstances it may be postponed.” The 9th Congress was in 2022. The 10th Congress should have been in 2025. The Center quietly delayed the 10th Congress to 2026, without communicating the “special circumstances” which justify the delay. Elections to the Central Committee use a slate system, where the leadership nominates themselves plus any additional cadre they would like to co-opt to the slate.(39) (39)FRSO doesn’t lay this out in the rules, the closest in writing is this memo advising Districts on electing a slate of delegates to a conference. The slate is proposed to the Congress, which can vote for or against the slate as a whole. Because horizontal communication is “factionalism,” there is no way to organize an opposition slate.

Thus, with no opposition, and no way for meaningful opposition to form, the leadership perpetuates itself.

This anti-democratic principle pervades FRSO at all levels. When Dallas held DO elections after Dan’s departure, Andy Koch explained FRSO’s expectations:

[TODO: audio clip].

FRSO actively discourages contested elections, treating them as signs of disunity rather than healthy democratic process. Elections become rubber-stamping exercises.

The sanctioned avenues for internal struggle in FRSO are blocked off. The path forward would involve fierce struggle navigating around FRSO’s rules to institute genuine democracy and elect new leadership - transforming FRSO into a fundamentally different organization.

You Don’t Need Them #

We’ve decided that our time is better spent building that fundemantally different organization than attempting to force FRSO to be something it’s designed to never be, and we believe you should too.

You’re already organizing without them. Right now, today, the work you do succeeds without guidance from the Center. When you built campaigns over the last few years, you did it. When you won victories, you earned them. When you faced problems, you solved them locally. Your district does the work. The Center is absent.

What does the Center actually provide? Not much, by their own admission. Point 18 of their 2022 Central Task document states: “The Standing Committee understands that in the immediate past period the needs of the organization has out stripped our capacity to provide consistent summation and leadership at the same level across all cities.” This was presented at the 9th Congress - the same Congress where the Center shrugged off Dan’s actions hospitalizing a comrade. Their solution was to hire full-time staff: “With an expanded center, we can provide more leadership and guidance to cities.”

Dallas gave them years of dues and two experienced cadre - Kyra and Sydney - who relocated to Minneapolis to help build “the expanded center.” What did the “expanded center” provide in return? They work on Minneapolis organizing. They do speaking tours. They attend national and international conferences. When Dallas built successful campaigns, the Center was absent. The only time they showed up was to protect Dan Sullivan, threaten expulsions when his position was challenged, and dispatch Andy Koch to investigate those asking questions about Dustin Ponder.

Their infrastructure - their building, their salaries, their organizational apparatus - is extracted from you. The organizing work you do locally doesn’t depend on FRSO’s national structure. You can continue building power in your community without subordinating yourself to a leadership clique that covers up sexual assault.

We believe leaving is the right choice. But if you’re determined to stay and fight for accountability within FRSO despite everything documented here, realize this contradiction has two aspects - the leadership that extracts, and the members who fund.

The relationship that appears to subordinate you contains the seeds of its own negation.

They Need You #

Your dues are your leverage. Withhold your dues. Spend them on local organizing. Do not give the leadership clique a penny until they acquiesce to your demands.

FRSO operates on a 90/10 split - 90% of your dues go to national, with only 10% staying local.(40) (40)See rule 9 of the FRSO rules. Even that local 10% often flows back to national: Districts buy FRSO merchandise which the Center sells at a considerable profit margin. That profit returns to national coffers.

What does that 90% fund? A building in the Twin Cities District.(41) (41)Where most of the staff has average cubicles and Mick has a special corner office - very proletarian! Full-time staff in the Twin Cities District. Travel for the leadership clique - domestic and international conferences, speaking engagements, and organizing tours. Your dues paid for national staff time coordinating Dan’s protection. Your dues paid for the Center’s all-day damage control session with Rick to produce a proposal to protect his leadership position. Your dues paid for Andy Koch and Mick Kelly’s damage control trips to Dallas. Your dues paid for Mick Kelly to lie to us on video about Dustin Ponder.

You, as a dues-paying member of this supposedly socialist organization, have no say in how those resources are used. In fact, FRSO is clear: “Financial matters are inherently political and are crucial for our Party’s survival and growth.” (42) (42)p.2 of FRSO Finances Memo. Financial matters are also _none of your business._(43) (43)See point 9 of the FRSO Security Guidelines: “Any finance questions that there may be are, again, on a need-to-know basis.”

All finances are held by the Lucy Parsons Institute for Social Research (LPI), a separate nonprofit 501c3 controlled by Mick Kelly, Tom Burke, Jess Sundin (Steff Yorek’s wife), and Richard Berg.(44) (44)https://lucyparsonsinstitute.org/our-team/ There is no mechanism compelling this board to follow FRSO membership decisions. Members collectively fund what four individuals privately control.

However, this creates real organizational leverage. The leadership clique has built infrastructure they cannot maintain without your dues. If members withhold funding, LPI cannot service the mortgage - the building will be foreclosed, and organizational infrastructure collapses. The four full-time staff positions - Sydney Loving, Andy Koch, Chrisley Carpio, and Mick Kelly - will lose their salaries.

Your FRSO dues fund the leadership clique’s personal nonprofit and their salaries, and they have financially overextended themselves. In October 2024, FRSO committed to a $395,000 mortgage for the Lucy Parsons Center in Minneapolis - over only a five-year term.(45) (45)See the mortgage documents. They committed to four full-time staff positions, totaling roughly $160,000 per year. Add property taxes, insurance, conference costs, operational expenses, and the yearly expenses reaches approximately $375,000 annually. If we assume revenue similar to 2024, FRSO is operating at a defecit of $10,000 a month. (46) (46)See our detailed financial breakdown for how we calculated these numbers.

Five months later, in March 2025, leadership launched an “urgent” fundraiser. Leadership admits in an internal memo they face mandatory refinancing in 2029, writing: “We don’t know what the political terrain will be, how difficult it will be to get a good deal, or how eager banks will be to deal with us.” They took a five-year mortgage term - extremely unusual for commercial real estate - because they had to. If they can’t refinance in 2029, or pay it off before then, they lose the building entirely.

This is why they need you. They may threaten to expel you, but they’d be shooting themselves in the foot. They need your money to service this debt. Every member who withholds dues or is expelled for doing so damages their financial foundation.

And if enough members withhold dues? It gives the leadership clique a test: Will they meet the demands, take accountability, hand over the keys to the infrastracture to new leadership, and accept that FRSO will continue without their control? Or, will they sell the building/allow foreclosure and retreat to a smaller organization that they still control?

If they choose retrenchment over accountability, that tells you everything you need to know.

If You Choose to Stay #

Be prepared for retaliation. Connect with other sympathetic cadre. Document every interaction with the leadership clique and loyalists so they can’t gaslight you. Save documents, screenshot messages, and record meetings where possible.(47) (47)Check your state laws for one-party consent. If you’re in a two-party consent state, explicitly inform leadership you’re recording accountability meetings. If they refuse to meet under those conditions, that’s data. Leadership may move to in-person only communications to avoid documentation. Insist on having a record of these meetings.

They may resort to more desperate tactics. They may try to exploit your commitment to FRSO, framing staying as “revolutionary discipline” and leaving as “abandoning the struggle,” as Tom Burke did with Rick. (48) (48)See this section of Rick’s Proposal. They will likely bar or heavily discourage contact with people who have left FRSO, as Sydney did with Alpharius.(49) (49)This needs context. They may try to “further consolidate” you - increase your workload and not allow breaks, to increase sunk cost and prevent you from reflecting, as Rick suggested they do in Dallas.

They may even try to love bomb you, which is what happened in Gainesville in 2013 according to a student who was there:

At the time that UF SDS was denouncing FRSO, there was a single holdout member of the group who refused to denounce FRSO with us or cut ties with them. The leadership presumably knew what he’d be feeling self-doubt in that shitty decision when pretty much every other respected Gainesville activist was doing the opposite, and so FRSO’s response was to love bomb the shit out of him. Suddenly his Facebook wall was inundated with dozens of posts about how he’s the nicest guy and truest comrade you could possibly imagine (all done in an extremely over-the-top way), meanwhile all of those same people (some of whom I had foolishly thought were my friends) were deleting and blocking me and others for speaking out a against protecting a rapist at the exact same time