Sorin, Chair of Rocky Mountain Fur Con, discusses demise of the con.
by Patch O'Furr
- Original story: Rocky Mountain Fur Con backs neo-nazis, sex offender to intimidate critic
- RMFC closing statement by Sorin: rockymountainfurcon.com
- Flayrah: Rocky Mountain Fur Con canceled following neo-Nazi associations, tax irregularities
- Media: Denver Post, 7News Denver, Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, Nerd and Tie, Unicorn Booty, Lawyers and Liquor, Bleeding Cool, Wonkette (and followup)
- Extra links from the community at end of the article.
Sorin joins me for an interview as a devoted representative of RMFC, even after the con’s sad, surprising end. It was a happening that Dogpatch.press had some part in, even if issues were brewing long before and carried forward on their own. That makes it extra gracious of Sorin to be open and professional about talking. Questions were prepared to build a formal article, then sent in live chat. Sorin fielded them on the fly, with power to review before publication to keep his side as intended. You will see probing opinions from one side, then the other side to make a dialogue. (-Patch)
Hi Sorin. We’re only talking because of sad circumstances – maybe we can improve that. Can you introduce yourself briefly? What are you like besides having been chair of RMFC?
I’ve been part of the furry fandom since 1996, and have been attending conventions since 1998 starting with Confurence and Anthrocon, later Further Confusion and Rainfurrest. I’ve been a part of Rocky Mountain Fur Con since its inception, first as the Vice-Chair and later stepping into the Chairman position when the previous chair stepped down. I’m a social person and like the furry community for its openness and acceptance.
That is a lot of commitment. I bet these events were pretty personal to you.
Hopefully other organizing brings a new con.
Sensational news spreads far, and I think the news about RMFC introduced people to internal debates that usually stay behind the scenes. It makes a negative picture. But that’s not fair, because any con exists because of the wider community and a staff of selfless volunteers. Can you talk about the good that RMFC did over the years?
Despite all the unfortunate happenstances that surround RMFC and it’s cancelation, I’m really proud of a lot of things. The fact that, at least for a while, it really helped bring the Colorado furry community together. The fact that we survived a really rough start to any convention, managing to put on 8 more conventions. The $15,000+ we raised for various charities over many years. And the fact that I had so many dedicated staff members who were putting in long hours trying to keep the convention alive, and who continue to work to help us close down operations as smoothly as possible, despite the end of our organization.
Let’s get into why the con is over. Are you interested in setting the record straight about any topics we can dig into?
In the end, the convention was canceled because of drastically increased security costs, provoked by threats of violence from many different avenues. With a sudden increase in costs, and the inability to find another venue that could work with us during our dates (or even close to them), there was very little that could be done to salvage the convention.
Cost is a big deal with a nonprofit organization… did the security demand hit you by surprise?
Yes it did. We had been approached by our hotel only 3 weeks before the convention was canceled with the new costs, and that was the first we had heard of them, or even the possibility. We started investigating other venues, which we had hoped to be able to move to, when the issue with the C&D broke.
The story on Dogpatch Press did not contact you for a statement. It was done on the fly with a hot item about the C&D sent to Deo about her speech, and I felt that partly, it spoke for itself about a side. But on your side, what was your gut feeling when it was published?
The sending of the C&D letter is a very hot topic right now, but something that I feel the convention could have worked out – if it had not been a matter of also dealing with a loss of venue, and the increasingly aggressive and violently-worded conflict within the local furry community, and really the community at large. Hindsight being what it is, I can say that the C&D was a mistake, both how it was drafted and the fact that it was drafted at all. It was at the time what the board thought was a reasonable action to a situation and culture we just were not prepared to handle. I can see now that that was not the issue, and the C&D was directed rather hastily at the wrong focus.
Hindsight is 20/20 and it’s hard to be in the middle of a bunch of sides and figure out what to do.
Is it fair to say there were internal problems as much as external?
In hindsight, what we should have done was reach out to people to discuss the matter, rather than seeking any sort of legal means to address the issue. But the Board had been under fire from a lot of different directions. To see someone referring to our convention as Nazi Con and talking about coming to do violence there, someone who was not even registered to attend, really triggered a reaction that was probably not very well thought out.
It’s also fair to say, that yes, there were internal conflicts on how to address issues relating to the convention, and how those issues were to be handled.
Is it fair to call this a continuation of the Furry Raiders drama that happened in 2016?
I don’t think it’s that simple, but yes on the surface I think you could say that it was a continuation of the drama that started around the Furry Raiders in 2016.
How much farther would you say issues go back? To 2008? Is the stuff about taxes and Kahuki’s record integral to the story, or did it just generally add a little more negativity to what outsiders saw?
I would say it just added to, and confused the issue. The stuff about taxes has been overblown and really miscommunicated. As for the issue with Kahuki, I would prefer not to comment on that. It’s not my place to comment on his past, or anything else outside of the direct operation of the convention, which has not been in his hands for many years.
Let me throw an outside view at you and see what you think. This will be long. I have been closely in touch with locals and done a lot of digging. I have seen a lot of blaming, and people trying to ride this for attention or to push agendas. It’s very divisive. BUT, personally I sense that there aren’t equal sides between the “AntiFA” (isn’t it more of a leaderless philosophy than a group?) – and the Furry Raiders (a group with active leadership to point out).
Here’s what seems like the possible deep story to me.
- Kahuki, the CEO, may have carried lingering resentment over having to step down in 2008.
- Scorch enabled that, and both joined sides when there was controversy about them leading MAAAC (the con parent org).
- In comes the Furry Raiders in 2016, serving Kahuki’s resentment with a license to troll.
- I’ve read Scorch describing a dilemma between banning 150 raiders, or letting a list of 150 complainers stay away. It sounds like a false excuse. Why not ban Foxler and a few key ones?
- Lack of taking control by con leadership let things decay in the community, so objectors felt provoked to push back on their own.
- The Raiders escalated with attitude about bringing guns.
- It set the stage for Deo’s speech, the C&D letter, and all the rest blowing up, with the cost of security being a death blow.
Is any of that close to the story? Were the Furry Raiders threatening the con, and Scorch/Kahuki using them as pawns? Did you want to ban Foxler?
Well let me address your points one at a time:
1) I know Kahuki was upset at having to step down at the time.
2) I’m in the same boat with Scorch as I am with Kahuki. I did not know his mind and was really too busy trying to deal with the convention to look for any greater machinations. I honestly don’t believe there was any sort of plot or scheme afoot, just some bad decisions made by various members of the board and convention operators, including myself.
3) I really can’t speak to this. I would be lying if I said that I knew any of this to be true.
4) I do feel that Scorch actually believes that banning one group is the same as banning another and was not moving on some sort of agenda. And in the end I don’t feel that banning specific people would have resolved anything. The calls were not to ban the leadership but the Furry Raiders as a whole which then just opens the discussion of who else do we ban just because people don’t like them?
5) If by they, you are referring to the board, I would only say that it’s expensive and difficult for a child project to attempt to take control of a parent organization, even if that were something we were looking to do. If you’re referring to the Raiders, I have to say that I continue to find it rather naive that people would somehow think that it was our responsibility to police the community at large.
6) I agree that the threats of weapons were an escalating factor, but we were unable to confirm that it was anyone associated with the Raiders, and not just someone wanting to escalate things for their amusement. And frankly, all of the groups were responsible for the escalation.
7) The C&D was in response to the escalated violence and the increased security. It was an attempt by the board (and a short-sighted one) to try and show that we were addressing security concerns, in hopes that the hotel would rescind it’s cost requirements.
Would it be fair to say this could have been avoided by dealing more strongly with the Furry Raiders in 2016?
No, I don’t think so. I feel that anything more we could have done would have set a bad precedent for the convention, and would have led to its demise in the long run anyways.
As for if I wanted to ban Foxler, I really have not given it much thought. I did not think it would actually resolve anything, since the people that wanted him banned would focus on another target, and beyond that I was so busy trying to keep the convention together that I really did not give it more thought than that.
How malicious was it of the Raiders to do that room block takeover in 2016… and didn’t all the community reaction just follow that?
I can’t speak to how malicious it was of the Raiders to take a portion of the block, and had they held it, there might have been more of an argument for banning them. The fact of the matter is though, that they replied to our request to release rooms, and did so. The fact that there were less rooms to be rented at that hotel was not the fault of the Raiders or anyone else, just of the smaller venue. Do I agree with what the Raiders did? No, though I won’t lie and say I knew it to be malicious or not, because I don’t.
How would you characterize the Furry Raiders now?
I really try not to think about them, or interact with them or their members right now. I think that whatever it was they set out to do originally has been corrupted by a handful of bad apples, and if they really wanted to do something for the community, they would bow out gracefully.
If people feel they are a threat, are people being oversensitive? Or could we say the room block takeover can be considered a threat? Wouldn’t the con suffer or die if rooms were reserved, but then released too late for people to make travel plans?
I think they are giving the Raiders to much credit to call them a threat. That being said, people have a right to believe what they want. As far as conventions are concerned, yes it would be a threat if they had done that, and if they had refused to release a large portion of the block then we would be having a very different conversation.
In your final statement, did you have a certain focus in mind for the “against one another” part: “This cost increase stemmed directly from the very public threats of violence against one another by members of this community, as well as the negative backlash from misinformation spread about the convention, its staff and attendees”. Does that apply to the Raiders or you just don’t know?
It was simply attempting to convey that that cost increase and in the end the cancellation of the convention were the result of people using the internet to threaten and attack using the web’s anonymity. It was not directed at just the Raiders, or the AntiFA, but everyone who felt that the convention was a good platform for attacking people.
Thanks, I think it mostly speaks for itself then.
The way the story came out on Dogpatch Press, then blew up all over, it seemed to work like a little nudge that caused a big topple. It made me sense long-ongoing issues I had no idea about before the con cancelation 12 hours later. Is there some good in blowing up the con to make a clean slate? (Not forgetting this is most of all about the dealers, artists, and community who didn’t deserve this.)
There probably is, though this is not how I would have liked the convention to close up shop. It’s very hurtful to all the people who put so much time and energy into helping it grow.
Have you followed the mainstream media notice about this?
I have a little. I’ve spoken to a few of the media outlets too.
Who told the story the worst? What’s the best thing you want to happen to counter balance it?
I’m not sure I want to critique any media outlet by name, especially in print. I will say that most of the mainstream news outlets that have actually approached us and spoken to myself, or my Marketing Director have given an overall fair portrayal of the convention and it’s closing, at least on a very surface level.
I’d love to ask more about where do we go from here to make things positive. First – let me throw a curve ball.
I have seen a mainstream topic about punching nazis, where some argue there’s a place for civil-disobedience to oppose actual ones like Richard Spencer. (That doesn’t mean violence without consequences, necessarily, but that the social order isn’t enabling nonviolent opposition to do enough). In other words, fighting nazis after they get violent isn’t enough, and being passive might invite them to get bolder.
the lesson learned from WWII should not be "you have to let the nazis get in power and do everything they want before you fight back"— Colin Spacetwinks (@spacetwinks) April 17, 2017
Also, actual, real nazis are now watching this story, and I don’t think it’s good. Remember some of the very worst stories about Furries (Vanity Fair, CSI etc.) – even when they made furries look terrible, it inspired some people to become furries. Any attention can make the distance shrink a little.
What should we do about this situation as a community?
I think that we as a community need to do more to try and understand each other. Understanding does not mean agreement, or even all believing the same thing. Right now, people are so loudly opposed that they have not even thought to stop and try to understand each other. I’m not saying anyone is right or wrong, but the Furry community started out as a place where acceptance was it’s defining factor, and the beginning of acceptance is understanding.
People in our community are too quick to hate and judge, and too slow to try and understand. The loudest among us set the tone for our community, our politics and our social decisions. I’m not arguing for the Raiders, or the AntiFA’s or any other group that pops up. I’m just arguing against these snap judgements, attacks and creation of slander just to set someone else apart.
Definitely agree about acceptance. I notice though, you commented up there about the Raiders, “if they really wanted to do something for the community they would bow out gracefully.”
By that I mean that I don’t think they can fix their image anymore than RMFC could. It’s time to let the community move on, and if they actually have good intentions, let those that want to do good go regroup later.
I don’t think I can ask anything more of you, except let’s get back to the positive stuff. Is there anything you can say for the dealers, artists, and community who don’t have a convention right now?
I would say that I’m sorry. I’m sorry that the state of the convention had to come to this, and I’m sorry that social politics caused the end of what was once a great staple of the Colorado Furry Community. Despite all the allegations flying around regarding the convention, in the end, we all tried to do our best to make a great con, to operate legally, and did so with very little resources, volunteering our time with very little to show for it but the convention.
Thanks a ton for putting so much effort into this.
Thank you for taking the time to speak to me about it.
Credit is due to Sorin about info in the previous Dogpatch Press article, where we confirmed that the C&D letter was official. We don’t want to overstate his personal approval apart from RMFC, and apologize for that impression.
UPDATE: One lawyer’s opinion.
/2 the type of statement I'd advise a representative of a non-profit client to make in this circumstance, if they had to make a statement.— BoozyBarrister (@BoozyBarrister) April 25, 2017
Here’s perspective from around the community that contributed to questions.
- Deleted FA journal by board member Scorch (archived): “In mid February 2017; a MAAC board meeting was scheduled for the specific reasons of discussing what we should do about other people who decided to have a problem with the furry raiders including their petition to boycott RMFC if we refuse to ban 160+ furry raiders who are people who actually do help and support the furry community… This was primarily a discussion of our commercial concerns of judging the pros and cons such as: Ban 150+ Raiders and set this precedent of banning an entire class of furs because other furs decided to have a problem with them. Or simply not worry about 150+ furs on the petition (decided to have a problem) who would merely boycott (stay away from) RMFC. It was decided to simply allow the people who decided to have a problem to simply stay away”
- Foxler makes a video confession of paying to join a neo-nazi organization. On 4/21/17, Foxler also threatens to wear a swastika and: “I told board 3 months ago if they didn’t stop bring up Raider in their soical media post. Con would face failure” [sic]
- DrummingRaccoon on FA: “Hitler would be super proud of you Nazi fur guys, carrying on his legacy by dressing up in animal costumes with your little red arm bands and marching around a hotel lobby surrounded by hundreds of gays, trans folks and people of color that you totally have to coexist with now… I know for a fact now that there are some of you extremely self-contradicting furs out there who actually take the National Socialism thing for real.”
“I commented on a friend’s post regarding the RMFC drama saying something basically like “Fuck yeah, punch the Nazis!” and then a handful of these motherfuckers came out of the woodwork posting pictures of their guns saying ‘THIS WHAT YEW GON GET IF YOU ASSAULT ME, YOU SUBHUMAN ANTIFA COMMIE FUCK.’ … Their Facebook posts got deleted, but I still remember a few of their names. What we need to be concerned about is that real Neo-Nazis have taken notice of this shit now…”
- Nazi/white supremacist article about Foxler and furries pointed out by Furry News Network.
- FA journal: Rocky Mountain Fur Con 2017 Canceled, by ColoradoFurs – Comment by LucanShepherd to Scorch: “Deo and her actions are not the only influence on the sequence of events. The Raiders and upset Colorado locals and other people were involved. Both before and after Deo had any involvement… Yet you continually defend the Raiders.”
Comment by Fyzgal to Scorch: “so you’re literally trying to say it had NOTHING to do with a NeoNazi organization member threatening to conceal carry weapon to the hotel when it doesn’t allow it?”
Comment by Turgius to Scorch: “Perhaps some of this mess can be cleared up if you or others on the board can release documentation of the hotel’s requirement for the increased security and associated costs as well as the convention’s good faith effort to negotiate it. I imagine the DPD would have provided a verifiable invoice for their off duty services. Perhaps more transparency regarding what happened can help resolve this situation rather than accusations from either side.”
More to the story about blaming Deo: A false rumor about RMFC is repeating history from the Burned Furs.
To support independent furry writing, from opinions to book reviews by all of the team, please visit Dogpatch Press on Patreon where you can access exclusive stuff for just $1.
“talking about coming to do violence there”
If this is about Deo, I don’t seem to recall Deo saying anything about going anywhere.
it amazes me that the con STILL refuses to acknowledge WHY the extra security was called for. It’s like they don’t want to acknowledge the Furry Raiders and I find that disgusting because if we don’t address the cancer, how will we get it to go away?
If you look at the final statement that Sorin wrote, it honestly seems pretty obvious to me that he’s deliberately talking out of both sides of his mouth. He seems to think that by identifying the problem he’s talking about only by saying “this movement has grown into a community that promotes violence” or “threats of violence from many different avenues”, he can reassure Furry Raiders supporters that he was really talking about (pick any combination: Deo, other critics of Furry Raiders, SJWs, the giant evil Jewish space lizards that secretly rule the world,) and at the same time, reassure the rest of the fandom that he’s aware of the problem before him and he was, in fact, talking about Furry Raiders. And so whoever seems like they’re winning the culture war in the future, he’ll always be able to say he was on their side all along. He’ll have his bases covered.
Some people might describe what Sorin wrote as being the professional thing to write. They might commend him for going out of his way not to favor any one side. The problem, of course, is that there are not two equal sides to this issue, and treating it as if it was an issue where there were two equal sides is what’s gotten the entire convention into the mess that it’s in now. Even if you assumed that none of the Furry Raiders’ neo-Nazi connections and none of the testimony from local furs about them assaulting people at meets is true, even if you assume that really is all just a grand conspiracy against them by Loud Minorities and False Flag Agents that Just Want To Make The Whole Group Look Bad (and if you really believe that, then I’ve got a homeopathic remedy to sell you that will cleanse all the chemicals from your body,) the very simple and obvious fact still remains that any group that buys out 25% of the room block for a convention specifically to force people to go through them to obtain rooms rather than the convention’s actual registration process is not a group that deserves to have the con staff negotiate with them like equals, as if neither party has any moral high ground. It’s a group that deserves to be told, in no uncertain terms, not only that they will never be welcome at that convention ever again, but that the organizers of every notable convention in the fandom are going to be warned about what they just did, post haste. I can absolutely guarantee you, you will never find an example of a successful convention that has not banned people for far, far lesser offenses. (And, for that matter, successful conventions have policies in place to prevent that exact attack vector from being used against them, as some people brought up in replies to that Google+ post.)
As for the immediate cause of the closure being an ultimatum from the convention center demanding that the RMFC staff pay to hire people from the Denver Police Department for security, no evidence has come out that suggests that isn’t true, but I increasingly suspect the real reason the convention center made that decision had nothing to do with any slapfight on Twitter, even one that did involve threats to shoot anyone (I mean, you used to see plenty of hikikomori on 4chan fantasizing about bombing furry cons, and Vanity Fair once published an interview to a national audience with a Chicago local saying he wanted to (direct quote) “take [his] 10/22 and take a couple plink shots at” attendees of Midwest FurFest. I dare say that’s a more credible threat than any Twitter comment that anyone has pointed to since this whole mess started, and yet no furry convention has ever cited it as a reason to close, or even just to hire more security….)
Instead, I suspect that, whether they told anyone this was the reason or not, the real reason the convention center demanded more money for security was because they found out about Rodney Graff’s involvement with the sovereign citizen movement, probably because of the initial drama started by his “cease and desist order” (which was dated March 29, leaving plenty of time for it to have gone through the mail, for Deo to have commented on it, and for people to have responded, before Sorin announced the cancellation of the con on April 10.) As much fun as it may be to mock the sovereign citizen movement’s pseudo-legal gibberings, it’s a group that has carried out murders of police officers on many occasions. They were even involved in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. There are far more dangerous, more evil people involved in the sovereign citizen movement than is immediately obvious to most people.
What I want to know is, do we have sources for Deo saying that she never intended to go to RMFC (i. e. direct links to statements from her?) It’s not that I think Patch wasn’t telling the truth about that or anything, I’d just like a more concrete source.
I’ve seen Deo repeating many times that she never intended to go to RMFC. Ask her.
I don’t think the hotel was reacting to the nutty Sovereign Citizen thing, although you’re right to be concerned. The timing isn’t right. I don’t doubt that many problems snowballed though, and you’re right to find it very negative.
Sorin gave a 3-week time period from the security cost notification to cancellation, putting it around March 20 or so.
The twitter slapfight with Deo was on Jan 27, and she reported it to the con. Scorch’s journal said they had a meet about banning people in mid-February when they decided not to. It says they looked at Deo’s “threat”. And did nothing about it in mid february.
So I’m guessing they had a month to go until a next staff meet, and in that time was some falling out with the hotel. After getting the security cost, they reacted by belatedly sending the threat letter a week later (dated 3/29) as an attempt to mitigate it. And they were seeking new venues on April 10 when the article came out here. They canceled the con 12 hours later. Things were already done, I think that was just a final nudge.
If I understand correctly (which I may not — please clarify this), Deo Twittered a rhetorical comment, “Can’t wait to punch those Nazis.” Deo never intended to attend the RMFC — did she make this clear? Based upon this Twitter post, one or more people threatened to bring guns to RMFC to protect themselves against getting punched. How many people posted such a threat? Deo reported this to the RMFC committee — not to the hotel or to the Denver police. Result: the RMFC committee, or Kahuki acting alone but with the committee’s knowledge and tacit consent, sent Deo the C&D letter “in response to Deo’s threats” or something like that.
This does not make sense. What threats or lies did the RMFC committee believe that Deo had made?
No, you have everything right Mr Patten, she has said repeatedly that she had no intention of attending RMFC.
you have everything else 1000% correct too.
The Initial “Tweet” revealed nothing of Deo’s intent to participate in RMFC or not. This only become known well after the fact. When the situation had already escalated. The whole situation was poorly handled.
It still hasn’t been explained how they doxed Deo for her address. When they did, they became informed that she wasn’t local. As organizers they had access to the member roll and could verify that she wasn’t on it. They should have done basic verification before sending illegitimate threats.
I’m surprised one would approve a “cease and desist” letter like that. It’s quite clear that it has very heavy influence from Sovereign Citizen, a group where the FBI classifies as being domestic terrorists.
For me that was the final nail in the coffin. I think any group would want to distance themselves as far as possible from that group. To think that RMFC let someone like this write a legal document is breathtaking.
I certainly want absolutely nothing to do with any group associated with neo nazis. They’re the antithesis of every thing I believe in.
Yeah, this whole Sovereign Citizen thing has me pissed. In my own personal opinion this was the cause for so much grief that could have been avoided.
>It was at the time what the board thought was a reasonable action to a situation and culture we just were not prepared to handle.The stuff about taxes has been overblown and really miscommunicated.7) The C&D was in response to the escalated violence and the increased security.<
Then why the C&D letter was only sent to Deo and not to the guy who made the gun threat? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Bartolo Polkakitty's theory above is much more believable actually. In 2017 it's doubtful that law enforcement would take twitter bickering so seriously, but if they examined the C&D letter and interpreted the situation as Deo threatening a member of a movement known for retaliating with violence like Sovereign Citiziens then that would have been ground for serious concern.
(Previous post attempt has been mangled for some reasons, sorry.)
“It was at the time what the board thought was a reasonable action to a situation and culture we just were not prepared to handle.”
Which “culture” does he mean here? The Furry Riders? AntiFA? Sovereign Citiziens?
“The stuff about taxes has been overblown and really miscommunicated.”
What is his statement about the taxes matter then? Judging from what we have red so far in the other reports the situation seems fairly clear cut.
“7) The C&D was in response to the escalated violence and the increased security.”
Then why the C&D letter was only sent to Deo and not to the guy who made the gun threat? Doesn’t make sense. Bartolo Polkakitty’s theory above is much more believable actually. In 2017 it’s doubtful that law enforcement would take twitter bickering so seriously. But if they examined the C&D letter and interpreted the situation as Deo threatening a member of a movement know for retaliating with violence like Sovereign Citiziens then that would have been ground for serious concern.
Overall I would say that chair was honest on most things. But not this violence crap, I personally know 2 people who were at the final con. They swear to me no violence and no threats anywhere. Before anyone even says that the con hushed it up, you know how hard it is to hush anything up that happened at any con?!!! In a word impossible. But if you carefully read the article it was more a matter of increased costs and I would admit security. That is mainly do to the way the world is now.
I honestly question your credibility and whether or not you’re biased.
You might say a kitten short of a litter. Other commenters should take note of yours.
I’m guessing that good? lol
I was at the final con and didn’t see anything either, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. What we have here is what is called anecdotal evidence.
I was at the final Con and didn’t see or hear anything either. Granted I was pretty inebriated through most of it.
“If you’re referring to the Raiders, I have to say that I continue to find it rather naive that people would somehow think that it was our responsibility to police the community at large.”
That’s not your job, your job is to police the convention and make sure attendees feel safe and you failed to do that.
Is it really a good idea to direct traffic toward the Daily Stormer, even indirectly?
I thought it was indirect enough so readers can decide if they want to click or not.
For the record I did ask scorch for a break down of the security costs by note which he did provide after his account was not longer suspended and the main journal was taken down by FA. Although I cant find a source for the current amount the DPD charges for off duty officers. For documentation I was directed to contact Sorin since he was unable to release that information to me directly. This response is bellow minus some redundancies that can act as triggers for some people. I was given full permission to share. . Id be more than happy to provide a PDF with the full contents.
I do have in my possession a copy of a written Offer for security services Originated from an Officer (Detective) at the Denver police and Issued to the Marriott at Denver Tech.
The quote is:
Security Services from 6am to 8pm, 8 Officers at $65/hr = $7,280 per day X 3 days = $21,840 + “scheduling fee” $200.00 = $22,040.00.
This quote is for DAYTIME only and does not include additional security services for evening events that can run as late as 2am such as a dance in the main ballroom.
And when we attempted to offer alternative solutions; the hotel told us directly (via teleconference) this is non-negotiable. This appeared to be breach of contract in which we had already agreed to indemnify and hold the hotel harmless for any liability issues…
We were then faced with this roadblock and apparent breach of contract and started writing stuff to try to enforce the Mariott’s contract obligations and part of this process was a private letter from the CEO to the person who appeared to be the CAUSE of this very horrible situation CAUSED by the action of the person putting threats in writing and transmitting said threats across the boarders of our states…
With regards to taxes; please disregard all the lies, disinformation and character assassinations.
While true we did have a tax issue a few ago; that was simply about losing our non-profit status. This issue was resolved at that time and the accounting has been and is up to date.
The only “tax liability” is merely whatever is due for the filing period and not likely to be much of a liability since there shall be no event for that specific tax period.
I am not authorized to provide any documentation…
I have no motive to lie and you may take my word regarding these facts.
If you really need to see a document then I suggest contacting the Con Chair (Sorin) since our CEO did resign and I probably will resign as well due to the manner in which both Kahuki and Myself have been treated after we have invested SO MUCH into helping so many of our fellow furs and bringing them this annual convention which was by no means, a money machine or an easy endeavor to complete every year.
Apology for typos, is rather late here XD
Thanks a lot for following through on your comment at the CO Furs FA journal (“Perhaps more transparency regarding what happened can help resolve this situation rather than accusations from either side.””)
The security cost makes sense and I never disbelieved it. One thing I do see in that response is the accusations that you wanted to get beyond. And lack of transparency about threats.
The accusation is it was all Deo’s fault. Never mind that this out-of-state non-attending person was answered with gun threats. Never mind that Deo spoke in January and (per Scorch’s journal) they discussed Deo at a board meeting in mid-Feb and decided to do nothing then. Never mind that Deo didn’t call the hotel or Denver police.
Scorch neglected to show anything about who made gun threats, or what the police said about them, or how they somehow decided to issue the security cost to the con around March 20. The timing doesn’t match Deo’s words, and he withheld transparency about the gun threats. (Where was the C&D about those?) Scorch is clearly being dishonest/biased in his accusation about the “CAUSE”.
From all appearances, the basic CAUSE was Scorch and Kahuki colluding with the Furry Raiders and refusing to ban even one of them when it was clearly deserved in 2016, predating all of this. (Refer to above comment by Bartolo Polkakitty.) Sorin’s got his own side, but what you shared is more support to say that mismanagement killed the con.