Softec Responds to Violent, Racist Threats to Rep. Rhonda Fields

Softec Solutions, Inc. just put out this statement regarding the violent and racist threats their Chief Operating Officer allegedly made against Representative Rhonda Fields:


SofTec Solutions, Inc. has been informed of allegations against our employee, Mr. Frank Sain. We are shocked to learn of these allegations and are taking this matter very seriously. If true, these actions are highly inappropriate and will not be tolerated. Pending SofTec’s investigation into this matter, Mr. Sain has been suspended immediately from further duties at SofTec. SofTec Solutions is a minority-owned, small business and we employ a large diverse workforce. We will absolutely not tolerate any racial, sexual, gender-based slurs or threats of violence by employees.


Franklin Sain, who reportedly said regarding Representative Fields, ""Hopefully somebody Giffords both of your asses", was arrested Friday for "suspicion of harassment and an attempt to influence a public servant" after threatening emails that were sent to Representative Fields were tracked back to his computer. He was later released on a $30,000 bond, according to Westword. Sain was appointed as Chief Operating Officer at Softec in 2011, according to this press release.

Sain's involvement was detailed in a story by Westword this morning. According to the arrest affidavit, numerous emails were sent using the words, "c*nt" and "n*gger" and one said, "I'm coming for you N*gger B*tch".

Sain is due in court March 8, 2013.

About nancycronk

Nancy Cronk is a longtime community activist and women's leader living in Arapahoe County. Six months before the historic "red sweep" election of 2014, she was recruited to run as a "placeholder" in HD37, and managed to bring in 40K from 500 small donors, and 42% of the vote -- just one point lower than the previous candidate who ran in a presidential year.

34 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ArapaGOP says:

    I think it's good that this company put out a statement, but Softec didn't have anything to do with these threats. Neither did anyone besides the perpetrator. Do not attempt to use this one person who obviously broke the law to smear the law abiding opponents of Democrat gun control bills.

    • Half Glass Full says:

      You are absolutely correct there. Sain was obviously totally out to lunch, and his company of course was not to blame.

      While you're at it, you may want to tell some of the many pro-gun people posting defenses of Mr. Sain on the Big Newspaper's comment boards not to support him either: they're only making more and more of the opponents of the bills look somewhat wacko. There's just no excuse for this guy, as you've rightly noted.

      • ArapaGOP says:

        There is no excuse for threats of violence against legislators. There is also no excuse for legislators to threaten the constitutional rights of Americans. Both of these bring out the worst in people. Can we agree on that at least?

        • Gray in Mountains says:

          Guppy, no constitutional rights are being threatened by our legislature

          • ArapaGOP says:

            That is a matter of interpretation. I happen to believe that restricting magazine size, and outlawing private transfers, do threaten my 2nd Amendment rights. Do Democrats think I do not have the right to feel that way?

            If so, do you really wonder why people are so angry?

            • Gray in Mountains says:

              again a lie. Private transfers are not outlawed, Would you like to buy? Prices are rising, but I have a couple I'd part with

            • MADCO says:

              That (the perceieved threat to 2nd amendment rights)  is a matter of interpretation. I happen to believe that restricting magazine size, and outlawing private transfers, do threaten my 2nd Amendment rights. Do Democrats think I do not have the right to feel that way?

              If so, do you really wonder why people are so angry?

               

              OMG.

              Yes- there is room for interpretation (despite obstinate and ridiculous claims to the contrary).  ANd our Constitution provides a method for deriving a Constitutionally sanctioned interpretation – it's called the "judicial branch", ultimatey the Supreme Court of the United States.

              And while things could be reinterpreted in the future, SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled (interprteted   if you prefer) the 2nd Amendment right to not be unlimited , neither with regard to type of weapon nor with regard to background checks.

               

              So – no you don't. Or if you do, you do only in the same way Tebow fans can think Tebow is the greatest NFL QB ever.  You can think what you want – it neither changes the law nor the Constitution.*

               

              And I have no doubt why most people who are angry are- they are stupid and afraid of death.  Compunded by fear of the future and an infantile rejection of legitamate elections (also Constitutional) and no- I have no doubt why the people you are describing are angry.

               

              .

               

              *Having voluntarily sworn an oath to the Constitution and put on a  uniform to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, helped me to understand  my love of country (profound) and to clarfy my understanding of the document.  You might find it helpful too.  Or not- it is a voluntary thing.

            • Duke Cox says:

              and outlawing private transfers

               

              back this up… or admit you lied.

            • Aristotle says:

              I don't wonder at your anger at all. You're Old Boys' Club's dominion over American society is under threat, and like the spoiled children you are, you're throwing a hissy fit.

              Your "anger" (better described as selfish petulance) is no wonder at all.

        • Aristotle says:

          You're a piece of work, A-GOrP.

          I don't know what's sadder, the fact that you can't simply condemn this guy's actions, or the fact that I'm not surprised at your shameless rolling up of guns into the issue. I suppose it's a measure of just how closely you relate to those actions, your words to the contrary notwithstanding.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          I'm one of the few here that tries to listen when you post. So take this as feedback from someone who is actually listening to what you are writing. This post shows you to be a complete tool.

          1. Sometimes the actions of someone in your party requires condemnation – and nothing more. Your desperate search for some equivilency shows you to be nothing more than a mouthpiece.
          2. Legislators cannot threaten the constitutional rights of Americans. The constitution trumps legislation. Every time. So that's total bullshit and if you have half a brain you know that.
          3. Even if it was true, no there is no equivilence here. One is an individual threatening direct harm. The other is legislators performing their job by proposing legislation. The first is illegal and morally wrong. The second is our democracy in action.

          Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of your response here. You should not use his picture as an icon as you tarnish his reputation by doing so.

        • BlueCat says:

          Legislators have every right to propose legislation they deem appropriate.  It may pass or fail. If it passes it is up to the courts, not you ArapG, to decide whether or not it meets the requirements of our constitution.

          As for regulation pertaining to firearms, our Judicial branch has long allowed some.  There has been no ruling that the ban on the sale of fully automatic weapons is  unconstitutional.  There has been no ruling that requiring concealed carry permits is unconstitutional, that background checks for the purchase of guns is unconstitutional or that it is unconstitutional to prevent people from boarding planes with guns in their posession. Those are just the first examples among many that come to mind. 

          So there is plenty of long established precedent  for the constitutionality  of  a certain degree of gun regulation and no precedent supporting the view that it is unconstitutional to impose any limits on the right to bear arms. 

          Disagreement on the degree to which this right can and ought to be subject to regulation under our constitution is perfectly legitimate but hysterical rage is not. There is no reason why any proposed legislation pertaining to the already clearly established practice of regulatiing the right to bear arms should "bring out the worst" in anyone.

          If legislation you believe to be unconstitutional is passed and the courts agree with you, then that legislation will be over-turned. If they don't you can be angry about it.  I certainly am angry about the Citizen 's United decision.  But how we choose to express our disappointment and anger will always be our own and only our own responsibility.  It is never legitimate to blame any idiotic thing we say or do on "them" bringing out the worst in us. 

           

    • Gray in Mountains says:

      Guppy, they are all law abiding until they are not. They all believe in last 4 words of the 2A but not the first clause. The SC decided the first clause doesn't matter and they stated that the last 4 words can be modified. The Dems, in the interests of public safety, are modifying. Enjoy it

    • nancycronk says:

      Agoop,
      Actually, I give the company props for their statement. I hope they fired his ass, too.

    • Aristotle says:

      Do not attempt to use this one person who obviously broke the law to smear the law abiding opponents of Democrat [sic] gun control bills.

      Don't worry, ArapaGOrP. I'm sure Sain was a law abiding gun owner right up to the day he sent his first threatening email. Law abiding gun owners do a bangup job smearing themselves.

  2. Half Glass Full says:

    His employer really didn't have any choice. Sain had also expressed his fervent desire that both Rep. Fields (who had lost her son to gunfire in 2004) and her young daughter would be killed. 

    Maybe Sain can find a new job with one of his many defenders on the Big Newspaper's online comments pages, some of which have even gone so far as to argue that Rep. Fields was to blame for "pushing his buttons" – by having the gall to introduce a gun bill.

    Strangely, in the middle of his disgusting and vile rants against Rep. Fields and her daughter, Sain claimed that the magazine-limit bill that Rep. Fields was sponsoring would be ineffective because it would only take Sain "one second" to switch out one of the literally dozens of high-capacity magazines he owns for another one. If that's really true, Mr. Sain, why did you become so totally unhinged by the bill?

  3. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    I always support due process and now that this has moved in to the criminal realm I support Mr. Sain's constitutionally protected presumption of innocence.

    I also recognize SofTec's need to protect its company brand by suspending an employee for conduct that could damage that brand.

    I have been surprised that the House GOP has not issued a statement condeming death threats against a member of the COlorado House.  Perhaps they haved up all their outrage on bills designed to fail so they could run mailers against D's in swing seats.

    That said I thought I would post some information taken SofTec's website.

    Frank Sain – Chief Operating Officer

    SofTec appointed Frank Sain as Chief Operating Officer in September of 2011. A results-oriented executive with over 20 years’ experience delivering complex technical business solutions aligned to clients’ missions, strategic initiatives, budgets and mandates, Frank is responsible for all corporate activities of the company. Mr. Sain brings both business development and project management experience for enterprise-level professional services for federal government clients. Most recently he was the Director of IT Solutions for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). While at SAIC, he held a variety of positions and was strategic in capturing and winning over $200M with such clients as the Intelligence Support Command (INSCOM), National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), and United States Army Pacific (USARPAC).

    Frank received his Bachelors of Science in Technical Management from Wayland Baptist University in Plainview Texas and Master’s in Business Administration from Regis University in Denver. He served on Active duty in the US Army from 1988 to 1998, specializing in Intel and Intelligence Applications.

    • roccoprahn says:

      Activ duty for 10 years.

      How did he not get the message?

    • The realist says:

      Stunning, really.  He was threatening the life of someone working diligently to maintain our civil society, the same civil society he was sworn to defend in his 10 years of active duty. 

    • Aristotle says:

      This:

      I have been surprised that the House GOP has not issued a statement condeming death threats against a member of the COlorado House.  Perhaps they haved up all their outrage on bills designed to fail so they could run mailers against D's in swing seats.

      I'm not suprised, unfortunately. The radicals running around under today's GOrP banner don't believe their Democratic colleagues are deserving of anything but contempt. I guarantee that some elected GOP representatives were perfectly capable of authoring those emails themselves.

      Condemn? How are they supposed to condemn something that they believe is true in their shriveled little hearts?

      • BlueCat says:

        Agree.  The Rs alwayseither defend there creeps or go directly to the old "Johnny does stuff just as bad" argument. Their refusal to stand strongly against their own worst elements has probably contributed to their increasingly dismal showing in national polls with fewer and fewr having a positive opinion of them or any trust in them.

        Today there's news about Ashley Judd, contemplating a challenge to Mcconnell, condemning a  Kentucky Dem race based attack on McConnell because of his Chinese heritage wife.  She strongly condemned their using her to smear him with possibly ant-American views due to her influence.  Hard to imagine a Republican in her position coming out with anything stronger than, maybe " I take him at his word if he says he and his wife aren't anti-American.  Of course I don't know  them personally".

        For a while, this R refusal to ever criticize any R or R supporting group or individual helped them maintain discipline and hegemony but it seems to be backfiring these days. They just look like the party that supports bottom feeders as long as those bottom feeders support the party.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.