Exclusive in MENDOCINO COUNTRY Independent by Richard Johnson

            On two occasions less than three weeks apart in January, intoxicated white men attacked employees of Jensen’s Truck Stop in North Ukiah while yelling racial depredations. They live within a couple of miles of each other in Redwood Valley, one on Madrone Lane, the other on Road D. 

            Ahmed Kahn, a man of Pakistani descent, purchased the truck stop last April, and most of the employees are also of Pakistani descent. They are all American citizens.

            On the afternoon of Wednesday, January 12, Joseph Anthony Frank came into the truck stop office and convenience store clearly drunk and, after denouncing his nationality, threatened to kill the owner, Ahmed Khan. Frank allegedly punched Kahn in the face before leaving, according to police.

            Frank, 63, was arrested a short time later and just a few blocks away when a CHP officer recognized his truck from a Be On the Lookout notification.

            Frank was charged initially with DUI and making a terrorist threat. Since then prosecutor Dan McConnell has changed the terrorist threat charge to assault and a “hate crimes” charge, Penal Code Section 422.7(a).  (Case#MCUKCRCR100010195). 

            Frank is apparently out on $5.000 bail. His PX Setting was continued till March 3 at 8:30am in Department A.

            DA Lintott told the Independent that her department was allowing the victims to parcipate in the prosecution according to Marcy’s Law.

            Proposition 9, passed in 2008, provides crime victims with due process rights to participate in prosecution, bail and parole decisions affecting their perpetrators.

            The Bail Section of that initiative provides “In setting, reducing or denying bail, the judge or magistrate shall take into consideration the protection of the public, the safety of the victim, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at the trial or hearing of the case. Public safety and the safety of the victim shall be the primary considerations.

            “Before any person arrested for a “serious felony” may be released on bail, a hearing may be held before the magistrate or judge, and the prosecuting attorney and the victim shall be given notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard on the matter.”

Possible Copycat:

            Cody M. Cranford, 21, was also clearly intoxicated when he came into the Lovers Lane truck stop around 11 p.m. on January 29 and began demanding to use the phone, a ruse to interact with the two clerks on duty, Lateef Kamahl and Waqar Malik.

             When they referred him to the payphone outside and gave him change, he used the payphone but returned and demanded once again to use their phone. When they refused again, he became agitated and demanded to know where they were from. When one employee answered they were from Pakistan, he verbally abused them for their ethnicity causing a disturbance while other customers were inside the store. 

            According to testimony in Cranford’s preliminary hearing on February 16, Kamahl while standing in front of the counter reached for his phone to dial 911, but Cranford allegedly gabbed him by the sweater to prevent him from completing the call and punched him. Malik then tried to pick up the phone to dial 911 and the defendant punched him as well in order to prevent the call.

            MCSO deputy Andrew Porter continued to testify under questioning from ADA Dan McConnell that the defendant then grabbed Kamahl by his sweater and dragged him  50' out into the parking lot, threw him down on the ground and beat him. During this assault, Cranford was yelling nationalistic depredations, according to information Porter gathered from the victims. Malik exited the store and tried to intervene physically on Kamahl’s behalf.

            After Cranford fled the scene, the victims did call 911 as well as their boss Ahmed Khan who soon showed up. As deputy Porter continued to obtain information from the victims, he radioed in to Sheriff’s dispatch which broadcast an emergency BOLO for the suspect.

            In response, a number of deputies called in to report they had found the defendant in front of the bowling alley across the street, matching the description of the suspect: (not many people have naturally orange hair).

            Deputy Porter then conducted a field ID in which he drove Kamahl and Khan in his patrol vehicle within 25 yards away from where the defendant was being detained in front of the bowling alley across the street from the scene and he testified that Kamahl identified Cranford as the man who had assaulted him.

            The defendant was then lodged in Mendocino County jail on $150,000 bail. He remains in custody. He was on probation for DUI. He will be arraigned in Room A on March 2.

            On the 16th public defender Eric Rennert ably defended Cranford, characterizing the incident as a “scuffle” during which his client had used “bad language” and argued that the prosecution had not established that the assault was likely to have caused grave bodily injury. He also pointed out that deputy Porter’s testimony was hearsay, which is allowed in preliminary hearings, but that the witness was paraphrasing the epithets Cranford had used, quoting from the victims accounts at the scene which were sketchy because they were in an emotional state of shock.

            What Porter did testify was that the defendant had declared several times, “We are American,” and demanded the victims “leave the country.” While he allegedly continued to punch the victim on the ground, the defendant used the “F” word over and over as an adjective and a verb. In the police car on the way to jail, the defendant told Porter he should not be arrested for assaulting “F-ing Arabs.” Pakistanis are largely not Arab, but Pashtun, Punjabi, and Sindhi. But for people like him, all Muslims are Arabs. 

            Cranford was initially charged with kidnapping, violations of civil rights, intimidation, assault, battery, and burglary. Later McConnell reduced these to two counts of felony assault, PC 245(a) (1) and two hate crimes felonies, PC Section 422, there being two victims.

            Judge Henderson held the defendant to be bound over for trial on all counts but the assault charge with respect to victim Malik was reduced to a misdemeanor. His next apperance will be on March 2 at 1:30pm.

Hate Crimes:

            Hate crimes are covered in sections of the state penal code starting with 422.55.  They can be separate counts, and also enhancements of underlying felonies.

            California Penal Code 422.7(a) provides for a state prison or county jail sentence up to one year and a fine of up to $10,000. As enhancements, they can add one or more years of state prison time.

Widespread Hatred:

             In every region of the state, incidents have occurred in which racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities have been harassed, intimidated, assaulted and even murdered.  In some communities, acts motivated by bigotry have sparked widespread community disruption.

            Although reliable data on the incidence and severity of hate violence is not available, testimony from community organizations who receive and track reports; from law enforcement officials; and from victims, documents that violence motivated by bigotry is widespread in California.  In some communities reported hate violence appears to be increasing.

            A hate crime is any act of intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force directed against any person, or gamely, or their property or advocate, motivated either in whole or in part by hostility to their real or perceived race, ethnic background, religious belief, sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation, with the intention of causing fear or intimidation, or to deter the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United State of California whether or not performed under color of law.

Civil Codes

            When hate violence is punishable under a criminal statute it is a hate crime.  It should be noted that civil statutes (as opposed to criminal statutes) may provide relief for some types of hate violence.

            The Ralph Act ," Civil Code sections 51.7 and 52--provides that it is a civil right for a person to be free of violence or its threat against the person or his or her property, because of a person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability or position in a labor dispute, or because a person is perceived to have one or more of these characteristics--(bases of discrimination are illustrative, rather than restrictive)

    Enforced by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which prosecutes, and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, which adjudicates, and by the Attorney General, any district or city attorney and by private attorneys.

Provides for civil penalties of up to $25,000 for perpetrators, civil remedies to victims of "hate violence," three times actual damages, but no less than $1000, punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees

             The Bane Act. Civil Code section 52.1 --provides protection from interference by threats, intimidation, or coercion or for attempts to interfere with someone's state or federal statutory or constitutional rights (these include association, assembly, due process, education, employment, equal protection, expression, formation and enforcement of contracts, holding of public office, housing, privacy, speech, travel, use of public facilities, voting, worship, and protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to personal relations)-- proof of "hate motivation" required, according to a 1994 Court of Appeal decision in Boccato v. City of Hermosa Beach

         Enforced by Attorney General, any district attorney or city attorney, or a private attorney