By Ruth Hull

Imagine your political party dictating what you may say in public, demanding you NOT perform at your job or punishing you for supporting the environment. What if you could be punished for breaking a rule before it exists? For California Orange County Democrats that day has arrived.

RULE THROUGH FEAR AND PAYOUTS

April 28, 2014, Orange, California: At the Democratic Party of Orange County, California, an unprecedented vote in support of a resolution establishing a new party procedure took place. The resolution was based on the premise that one powerful special interest group, at odds with the majority of members on many issues, has the absolute right to micro-manage the speaking rights of official volunteers when those volunteers are not engaged in party business. The outcome of the vote also clarified that volunteers could be ordered to incompetently perform in their real life jobs when ordered to do so by party leaders. This could force volunteers to have to choose between continuing to help the party or risk losing their jobs or professional licenses. Official volunteers could be required to support dangerous environmental projects that could endanger human lives, animal life and the planet. Open-mindedness, integrity and the right to think and speak the truth were essentially made case for removal from volunteer positions.

This writer attended the meeting where the vote took place. I went there because I learned that party members were being ordered and threatened to vote for a resolution. The person who called me was choosing to risk disfavor and retaliation by voting against it. When I arrived, other members told me that they opposed the proposed resolution. However, they had been given no other choice but to vote for it. Members were frightened. They wanted to do the right thing but many said they didn't dare.

The resolution was a generalized, ambiguous, nebulous, seemingly defamatory attack against a well-liked volunteer who will be named towards the end of this article. Though the bylaw sections for the duties of this volunteer position were referenced, there were no allegations he engaged in conduct inconsistent with his duties and no allegations of any kind of any violation of any bylaw or other party rule whatsoever. He had apparently failed to get pre-approval for every word he spoke or every action he took in his outside life but that was not inconsistent with his volunteer duties. An accompanying letter that was handed out contained the alleged substance of the attack. Chairman Henry Vandermeir ordered members not to show copies to the press but members broke ranks. The accused volunteer was not allowed to see the charges until just before he had to respond. Only the accusers knew the exact nature of the charges until right before the kangaroo trial. The accused only had time to barely skim the letter before defending himself.

[by DRS, Red Kangaroo (Macropus rufus)]

Based on the letter and oral accusations, the purpose of the show trial was to make an example of the volunteer by punishing him with removal from his volunteer position in order to appease one special interest group. The volunteer's heinous crimes were that he had expressed support for the environment over corporate greed, performed well in a respected real-life job which had not been pre-approved by Party leaders, dared to speak against a scheme to defraud taxpayers and had chosen to run against a corrupt official from a different party. Oh, there was another offense. He asked too many questions and refused to take a position on issues before hearing all the facts. Rather shocking crimes, wouldn't you say? Though horrific and obviously meriting a call for the volunteer’s immediate execution, these acts did not violate any of the bylaws or required duties for his volunteer position. A couple of people asked when the waterboards would be brought in.

[by Kevn, Picured: A replica firing squad in Manila]

Questions: (1) Wouldn't it be easier and more effective just to lobotomize people when they sign up to volunteer? (2) If free-thinking individuals are not allowed to engage in unpaid volunteer work for the Democratic Party, does this mean they should demand money to continue their services?

[by Ruth Hull, Pictured: resolution proponent Marti Shrank]

As the grounds for punishing the volunteer weren't even violations of any party rules, and as there were no allegations of any actual conduct violating any current party rules (including the list of duties cited on the resolution page), the resolution at best constituted an Ex Post Facto law or rule and proceeding. Do any of the readers here remember what the U.S. Constitution says about Ex Post Facto Laws? The lack of due process was reminiscent of the loss of Constitutional and civil rights under the PATRIOT Act and under the unlawful detention aspects of the NDAAs of recent years. Those Unconstitutional acts were also written, promoted and enacted by Democrats.

Throughout the proceeding, Jeff Le Rourett and Attorney Michael Kinslow, both of whom were opponents of the resolution, requested that Robert's Rules of Order and the Party by-laws be followed. Again and again their requests for following rules and bylaws were ruled out of order.

When it looked as if there might not be enough votes to pass the new speech-crime standard, the proponents started pulling out money and paying it into the party funds so that supporters who were not eligible to vote when the question was called were suddenly allowed to vote for the resolution. When some supporters were unprepared or unable to pay, other proponents jumped up with money in hand to buy their votes for the resolution. Jeff LeTouneau, reading from the bylaws, strongly objected to the buying of votes. but was over-ruled. The Koch Brothers didn't need Citizens United. They could have hired a DPOC strategist and saved the legal fees.

Despite the threats, pressure and buying of votes, the resolution only passed by one vote.

[byRuth Hull, Pictured: Resolution Proponent Benny Diaz who tried to throw press out of the building.]

To authenticate the precedent-setting removal of free speech rights, California Democratic Party First Vice Chairman Eric Bauman was called in to preside. Though he was put in charge of the the volunteer's public lynching, Eric did not appear to have a stake in the result. When Sergeant-at-arms Benny Diaz ordered the press out of the building, Benny was over-ridden by Eric Baumam.

THE PROPONENTS FOR TOTAL CONTROL OF VOLUNTEERS

The key proponents of the resolution were Florice Hoffman, Marti Shrank, DPOC Chairman Henry Vandermeir. and DPOC Sergeant-at Arms Benny Diaz. These individuals have the power and/or ability to squelch dissent at DPOC meetings and the use of that power was extremely visible throughout the meeting.

[by Ruth Hull, Pictured Resolution Proponent Florice Hoffman]

Florice Hoffman, the Democratic Regional Director, expressed outrage over the accused volunteer's stances against an unsafe nuclear plant, The San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station, and a project planned for Huntington beach that scientific experts reported would kill masses of plankton, fish eggs and larvae, and create irreparable damage to the Huntington Beach coastline. Florice continued on,expressing anger that the volunteer had failed to knuckle under and support a slush fund for the few at the expense of taxpayers in one of Orange County's city's. After angrily speaking about her opposition to the volunteer's viewpoints as if they were grounds for punishment, Florice later burst into personal attacks on the volunteer that many felt were under-handed, untrue and below the belt.

[by Ruth Hull, PDA representative Bill Honnigman caves in to pressure but regrets his vote for the resolution, Eric Bauman presides behind him.]

During the speeches, it was admitted that those bringing the attacks had personal motives for going after the particular volunteer. Several members in the audience said the resolution proponents appeared to be misusing the resolution process and their positions to conduct personal vendettas.

THE FREEDOM SPEAKERS

The opposition may not have had much time to prepare but their comments received the most applause.

[by Ruth Hull, Orange County District Attorney candidate educates
committee leaders on Robert's Rules of Order]

Orange County District Attorney candidate Greg Diamond spoke in support of the U.S. Constitution, in support of due process and in support of the right of party volunteers to express their viewpoints on issues.

[by Ruth Hull, Pictured; With Eric Bouman behind, attorney Michael Kindslow tries to talk the DPOC into following proper procedures and allowing free speech]

Others speaking against the resolution included Michael Kinslow, Jeff LeTouneau, and Robert Douglas. Each of these opponents was in danger of retribution for speaking out but they didn't let fear get in the way of their opposition to the total control resolution.

[by Ruth Hull, Pictured: Jeff LeTouneau calls on the DPOC to play fair and by the rules]

There is no secret voting in the Democratic Party and there has been a well-known history of Democrats being punished for votes within the party. For members planning a political career, failure to support the proposed resolution could bring a halt to their political dreams. Some Democratic Executive Board members have told this writer that they have lost jobs and been blacklisted professionally as a result of how they voted in DNC votes. Anyone who had the courage to vote against the resolution is encouraged to inform this writer if they are the recipient of retribution. What surprised me was the significant number of members who broke ranks with the leadership. Some left rather than having to vote against their conscience. Some who had been planning to support the resolution voted against it. Others stood firm in opposition throughout the meeting.

[by Ruth Hull: Pictured, Santiago Community College District Candidate Robert Douglas tries to convince the DPOC to return to Democratic values]

THE REVOLT

In spite of having to buckle under to pressure on a resolution, members weren't ready to lie down and die. Before the party leaders could prepare to block the members, there was a nomination, speeches and a strong vote in favor of a candidate in the Orange County District Attorney's race.

In spite of the fact that, behind the scenes, certain high power people in the DPOC are backing the current District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, Orange County residents are tired of public corruption. Tony has a history of using his office for political favoritism, refusing to prosecute violent criminals while prosecuting others for political purposes, such as the UCI students who exercised their First Amendment right to free speech. Victims of violent crimes have been outraged by the deaths that could have been prevented if Tony had cared to prosecute violent criminals instead of acting as their advocates. When police have requested that charges, based on medical evidence and documentation, of sexual child abuse be filed against child molesters or that pornographic pictures of minors be seized, Tony has been fast to block arrest warrants and search warrants, giving child molesters a free ride in Orange County. Often domestic violence victims who plead for protection wind up dead after Tony refuses to follow through on charges the police have requested be filed. According to Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, the amount Tony receives to prioritize insurance cases is in the millions. Following the instructions of insurance companies, Tony calls in his top prosecutors to prosecute inaccurately filed insurance claims to the full extent of the law while totally ignoring violent crimes as the death toll mounts. In Orange County, the shooting of unarmed law-abiding citizens by police and the arrest of Latinos who have left their identification at home has become common place. Fear and violence are rampant in Orange County and the residents are blaming Tony Rackauckas.

[by Ruth Hull, Pictured: Orange County District Attorney Candidate Greg Diamon speaks. DPOC Chairman, Resolution Proponent Henry Vandermeir is setting at his side.]

As it turns out, in Orange County, people from both major parties are calling for a new District Attorney and the popular candidate who has agreed to stand up for change is Greg Diamond, a renowned attorney who is supported by a large cross-section of Orange County residents, including those from the business community as well as civil rights groups.

Greg stated at the meeting: "I want the right people to be in jail. I don't want anyone to be in jail who shouldn't be in jail." That is welcome news to Orange County crime victims and also to the populace at large.

[by Ruth Hull, Pictured: Greg Diamond, an honest alternative to Corrupt District Attorney Tony Rackaucks]

There was a running joke about making Greg Attorney General, perhaps because Orange County residents have called for both Eric Holder and Kamala Harris to clean up political corruption in the county and neither Holder nor Harris has shown any interest in doing so.

The vote for district attorney was evidence that the people were not with the leaders on the issue of the district attorney's race and that that the members opposed the coerced resolution. The volunteer who was under fire in that resolution was none other than the candidate members strongly supported for district attorney, Greg Diamond. The vote for Greg was unplanned and spontaneous with no pressure. Yet the margin was extremely high, appearing to be in the realm of 90%. The power-mongers might have been more effective if they had simply brought in mindless drones for the vote – rather than having to pressure members into supporting a resolution they didn't want.

If an honest attorney defeats Rackauckas, corrupt individuals in both of the major parties will be unhappy. Democrats know the real reason why the leaders tried to undercut yet another of their candidates. The rank and file members fought successfully to endorse their choice for district attorney, but with the total control resolution having passed, how long will members be allowed to think for themselves before being forced out of the party?

The DPOC has acquired a reputation over the years of financing Republican candidates under the table. Before falling in line, years ago, Florice Hoffman complained of the money trail that, as a party official, she had traced from top Orange County Democrats to pro-war Republican Ed Royce's campaign. At that time, she was running for Royce's seat and she expressed feeling betrayed by her own party. The corrupt deals between party bosses are only a piece of the puzzle. The truth goes much deeper.

THE TRUTH WON'T BE STOPPED

Read my next article on this subject for regarding the political corruption that is making some politicians very rich while sending California residents to early deaths and putting California's children into harms way.