Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
CL's/"Save KPFA's" Competing Fund Drive Violates the Duty of Loyalty of Their LSB Members
Concerned Listener/Save KPFA LSB members step across the line with competing fund drive and get sued by a shareholder after many complaints and requests to stop were ignored.
When you run for office for governance of a corporation, regular or non-profit, and get elected you have a duty of undivided loyalty. At a time when Pacifica is having serious financial problems and KPFA runs a fund drive, CL/"Save KPFA" runs a competing fund drive to raise money to try to leverage management to do what they want management to do. From the "Save KPFA" web site:
"If Pacifica does the right thing, we will bundle your pledges and submit them to KPFA as part of a special fund." (Who decides for Pacifica what is the right thing?)
This from the group that said in their campaign program, CL web site:
"It is not the Board’s role to directly intervene in the daily life of the station or micromanage programming or management." ( I guess what they really mean is that it is their job to make the decisions, be "the decider")
"We know how to organize and fund raise. That is a handy skill, which CL has turned to aiding the station. We are committed to raising $50,000 to boost KPFA’s signal so that it can reach new audiences." (And they use their "know how" to compete with a KPFA fund drive when the station and Pacifica are in serious financial trouble?)
It seems quite clear that CL/"Save KPFA" is more concerned about its personal agenda than the financial stability of KPFA/Pacifica. Perhaps CL needs to go back and read their own propaganda. Or maybe just admit that they are major hypocrites, saying whatever they think they need to say to disguise their constant push to control KPFA outside the normal channels so they can continue the patronage and cronyism of their past regimes.
Or is this just another demonstration of Brian Edwards-Tiekert's political philosophy "How do we make our enemies own the problems that are to come?" http://peoplesradio.net/Dismantle.htm
See how CL created the Pacifica Financial Crisis and what they have done in the past ten years to sabotage the new democratic bylaws, http://peoplesradio.net/'09_2issues.htm.
"If Pacifica does the right thing, we will bundle your pledges and submit them to KPFA as part of a special fund." (Who decides for Pacifica what is the right thing?)
This from the group that said in their campaign program, CL web site:
"It is not the Board’s role to directly intervene in the daily life of the station or micromanage programming or management." ( I guess what they really mean is that it is their job to make the decisions, be "the decider")
"We know how to organize and fund raise. That is a handy skill, which CL has turned to aiding the station. We are committed to raising $50,000 to boost KPFA’s signal so that it can reach new audiences." (And they use their "know how" to compete with a KPFA fund drive when the station and Pacifica are in serious financial trouble?)
It seems quite clear that CL/"Save KPFA" is more concerned about its personal agenda than the financial stability of KPFA/Pacifica. Perhaps CL needs to go back and read their own propaganda. Or maybe just admit that they are major hypocrites, saying whatever they think they need to say to disguise their constant push to control KPFA outside the normal channels so they can continue the patronage and cronyism of their past regimes.
Or is this just another demonstration of Brian Edwards-Tiekert's political philosophy "How do we make our enemies own the problems that are to come?" http://peoplesradio.net/Dismantle.htm
See how CL created the Pacifica Financial Crisis and what they have done in the past ten years to sabotage the new democratic bylaws, http://peoplesradio.net/'09_2issues.htm.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
After last night's LSB meeting, as I was gathering up my stuff to leave, Dan Siegel, who had just been elected as a KPFA representative to the Pacifica National Board, approached me and said, "You are a chickenshit coward!" and "a fucking bag of shit!" he added as an afterthought. He proceeded to speak in depth and at some length about how I was a "fucking'" this and a "fucking" that, making liberal use of vocabulary that's excluded from the FCC's lexicon.
A person who overheard the tirade told me afterwards that she thought I must've stepped on Siegel's foot to have earned such invective. "No, no, nothing like that," I told her and explained that I'm the plaintiff in a lawsuit, and that what she heard was Attorney Siegel's refined version of legal jargon.
This was not the first time this sort of thing has happened. At the LSB meeting last March Siegel hassled me and then tried to pick a fist fight with Richard Phelps. Well, I guess that's Attorney Dan Siegel in action--a kid who's spent 65 years of his life perfecting the age of 15.
-------------
A previous incident, "Siegel: 'You're suing me!'" (March 7, 2010) is at
http://danielborgstrom.blogspot.com/2010/08/siegel-youre-suing-me.html
For more information:
http://danielborgstrom.blogspot.com/2010/0...
An Oakland civil rights attorney will be joining the administration of Mayor Jean Quan as an unpaid adviser in the coming weeks.
Dan Siegel said he expects he will advise Quan on a variety of issues, including the budget and proposed marijuana farms.
Quan's spokeswoman, Susan Piper, confirmed that Siegel would be joining Quan's administration, but was not available for further comment.
"I would not be the attorney for the mayor, representing the mayor's office or any agency of the city in court," he said, adding that his official title had not been determined.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/11/BAAB1H7E9K.DTL
Pacifica Foundation Bylaws:
"Delegate shall be deemed to have resigned the position of Delegate if s/he becomes a candidate for public office or accepts a political appointment during his or her term as a Delegate. This restriction shall not apply to civil service employment by governmental agencies."
Dan Siegel said he expects he will advise Quan on a variety of issues, including the budget and proposed marijuana farms.
Quan's spokeswoman, Susan Piper, confirmed that Siegel would be joining Quan's administration, but was not available for further comment.
"I would not be the attorney for the mayor, representing the mayor's office or any agency of the city in court," he said, adding that his official title had not been determined.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/11/BAAB1H7E9K.DTL
Pacifica Foundation Bylaws:
"Delegate shall be deemed to have resigned the position of Delegate if s/he becomes a candidate for public office or accepts a political appointment during his or her term as a Delegate. This restriction shall not apply to civil service employment by governmental agencies."
For more information:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...
Didn't Phelps lose the last suit against Siegel and have to pay costs out to him. This suit looks equally ridiculous, it should be thrown out simply for the unprofessional language and characterizations Phelps uses. REEEEEEEEDICKULOUSE
In the defamation suit the court applied the wrong standard and ignored the law. The case is on appeal. And as Yogi Berra said: "IT AIN'T OVER UNTIL IT IS OVER."
Does SLAPP think it is OK for elected members of Pacifica Governance to compete with a KPFA fund drive? If so you better read the law. It probably doesn't matter, SLAPP is just a CL functionary doing the usual anonymous attack.
What exactly is the language you think is wrong in the law suit?
Does SLAPP think it is OK for elected members of Pacifica Governance to compete with a KPFA fund drive? If so you better read the law. It probably doesn't matter, SLAPP is just a CL functionary doing the usual anonymous attack.
What exactly is the language you think is wrong in the law suit?
Oh Richard, get over yourself. You lost the case, pay the 10k, if the appeal is as bad as this case the cost might go up. You should be ashamed of yourself for SLAPPing your political enemy. This lawsuit sounds more like one of your tirades than a legal document.
Good luck trying to convince a judge that SAVEKPFA should not be allowed to raise funds for whatever reason they want. The KPFA foundation doesn't have the local franchise on fundraising, I don't see anything in your Exhibit 2 that prohibits it. This is just embarrassing.
"These layoffs should have been done much sooner" Oh really, are you going to litigate that? LOL
"Former KPFA Management loyal to this group of defendants and their staff allies ran up budget deficits that caused the need for the layoffs." Good luck proving that one also! This isn't an editorial or opinion Richard.
"Defendants conduct described herein was DESPICABLE" OH, THOSE WEALLY WOUSY WADICALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good luck trying to convince a judge that SAVEKPFA should not be allowed to raise funds for whatever reason they want. The KPFA foundation doesn't have the local franchise on fundraising, I don't see anything in your Exhibit 2 that prohibits it. This is just embarrassing.
"These layoffs should have been done much sooner" Oh really, are you going to litigate that? LOL
"Former KPFA Management loyal to this group of defendants and their staff allies ran up budget deficits that caused the need for the layoffs." Good luck proving that one also! This isn't an editorial or opinion Richard.
"Defendants conduct described herein was DESPICABLE" OH, THOSE WEALLY WOUSY WADICALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SLAPP, anytime you have the courage to claim your trash talking we can debate all this in a public forum. But like all CLers none of you are willing to do it because you know I can expose your piles of BS.
Can you read??? Where does it say in the suit that Save KPFA can't fund raise?? The law suit is about elected members of Pacifica governance competing with Pacifica's fund raising. If the defendants want to resign from the KPFA LSB they can fund raise all they want. They are not being sued for fund raising per se, but for breach of their duty of undivided loyalty, which can take many forms. I guess you not are smart enough to figure that out like everyone else that has read the complaint.
Despicable is a legal term of art that is required to be in that section of pleading for punitive damages. Duh.
So are you really that stupid or just trying to confuse people with disinformation? Either way you are a discredit to Pacifica and its Mission and anyone's definition of a progressive movement.
Can you read??? Where does it say in the suit that Save KPFA can't fund raise?? The law suit is about elected members of Pacifica governance competing with Pacifica's fund raising. If the defendants want to resign from the KPFA LSB they can fund raise all they want. They are not being sued for fund raising per se, but for breach of their duty of undivided loyalty, which can take many forms. I guess you not are smart enough to figure that out like everyone else that has read the complaint.
Despicable is a legal term of art that is required to be in that section of pleading for punitive damages. Duh.
So are you really that stupid or just trying to confuse people with disinformation? Either way you are a discredit to Pacifica and its Mission and anyone's definition of a progressive movement.
With Danny Boy off the board since he's now the consligere to his long time comrade Mayor Quan What happens to the lawsuit ?
As a purveyor of SLAPP suits I am sure you are aware that one of the objectives of them is to chill speech and especially dissent. Congratulations on that one! I will make you a deal, if you win this suit I will let you know who I am.
You can parse the language all you want and to most objective people it is probably clear that your objective is to shut down the successful fund raising that SAVEKPFA is doing, that is of course in addition to punishing your perceived enemies. Again I don't see anything in your exhibits that refers "undivided loyalty", correct me if I am wrong.
I will look up your contention that despicable is necessary to your suit, I apologize for not being as knowledgeable about filing frivolous lawsuits as you are.. The ludicrous part is that your fantasy involves getting punitive damages even if your suit isn't laughed out of court.
You can parse the language all you want and to most objective people it is probably clear that your objective is to shut down the successful fund raising that SAVEKPFA is doing, that is of course in addition to punishing your perceived enemies. Again I don't see anything in your exhibits that refers "undivided loyalty", correct me if I am wrong.
I will look up your contention that despicable is necessary to your suit, I apologize for not being as knowledgeable about filing frivolous lawsuits as you are.. The ludicrous part is that your fantasy involves getting punitive damages even if your suit isn't laughed out of court.
This website is of, by and for the workingclass that has had enough of the capitalist class and its fascist government. Thus, the Thug Hallinan Gang would do itself a great service by staying off this website. Many generations are reading all of this. We are the people who do the work but do not have the public positions or the websites, attend the endless meetings and so forth.
FIRST, thank you Richard Phelps and Daniel Borgstrom for your lawsuit. We all can hardly wait to find out who the defense counsel for the individual defendants is. Please let us know when this lawsuit is filed.
SECOND, the defendants are all very well known, for many years. They are at this point in their lives defending a Republican Party plant, Brian Edwards-Tiekert, in his effort to to be reinstated as the Morning Show reactionary so he can drain KPFA of much needed funds thereby bankrupting KPFA and possibly destroying Pacifica. In case you have not heard about this Republican Party plant, see:
Edwards-Tiekert v Pacifica, Alameda Superior RG10549212 and the docket with printable documents is found at:
http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/html/casesumbody.html
The complaint in TIFF format, which must of us can print with no extra programs, is at
http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=25289492
The case is also at:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/03/18665521.php
The plaintiffs are represented by Dhillon and Smith.
The full biography of the reactionary Republican Party lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, may be found at the Smart Voter website since she ran for Assembly against Democrat Tom Ammiano in San Francisco in November 2008. See
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/dhillon_h/bio.html
Her endorsers are listed at
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/dhillon_h/endorse.html
and her answers to questions by the League of Women Voters are listed at:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/dhillon_h/questions.html
Much is made of her education, but anyone who states, as Dhillon does in answers to questions, that the teachers' unions are a problem in the school system and that the only viable medical system is the private profit health insurance disaster that we now have, is a person who is profoundly backward, ignorant and reactionary.
Her co-chair role of Lawyers for Bush/Cheney'04 and her "journalism" for the reactionary Heritage Foundation, are more fully described at:
http://www.imakenews.com/sfgop/e_article001049029.cfm?x=b11,0,w
Please note that Bush/Cheney's fascism in committing election fraud in 2000 and all their other crimes against humanity at home and abroad were well known by 2004.
Her law firm's website lists a successful lawsuit in which they represented the Republican Party of Los Angeles County. See:
http://www.dhillonsmith.com/2010/05/dhillon-smith-prevails-in-lawsuit-over-the-leadership-of-the-republican-party-of-los-angeles-county/
THIRD, clearly all of the Thug Hallinan Gang are doing the bidding of the capitalist class. This gang includes Larry Bensky, who was the editor of the CIA's Paris Review, who defended Republican Tiekert on the air at KPFA when he was finally layed off. Here is more on Larry Bensky:
1. His attacks to callers on air:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/09/25/18659813.php
2. Supporters of Pat Scott Gang and union busters American Consulting:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/09/21/18659436.php
3. More horrors of supporting Concerned Listeners gang:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/22/18626386.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/15/18472757.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/29/18324348.php
4. His opposition to Peace & Freedom and Green Parties:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/04/27/18495315.php
5. His use of name lists in violation of Pacifica election rules:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/21/18462672.php
6. His opposition to the 9/11 Truth Movement
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/10/18459899.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/15/18311830.php
7. His anti-labor outlook on labor programming:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/14/18154241.php
8. His contempt for free speech:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/11/13/17051361.php
9. His attack on William Blum's book exposing the CIA and a reminder that Bensky was editor of the CIA front, the Paris Review, at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/06/27/17498851.php
10. His ridicule of the fact of history that Nazis influenced the anti-Communist witchhunts of the 1940s-1950s as of course they were first and foremost anti-communist:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/04/05/16762211.php
FOURTH: Historical background
Most of us know the history of all of the defendants, all of whom are past age 60, in this lawsuit. In case you were not around in the 1960s:
1: Read Bettina Aptheker's excellent autobiography, Intimate Politics.
2. See the tribute to Helen Lima, mother of Margy Wilkinson, at:
Berkeley Daily Planet, 6/24/05, by Margy Wilkinson
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2005-06-24/article/21688?headline=Helen-Lima-Presente-By-MARGY-WILKINSON-Special-to-the-Planet
The Hallinan family is a well known family associated with the left, and also with the Democratic Party, a contradiction as you cannot be for socialism and capitalism at the same time.
Malcolm Burnstein was a lawyer with the allegedly radical law firm Treuhaft, Walker & Burnstein, more fully described at:
"Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer," by Josh Gerstein, New York Sun, November 26, 2007 at
http://www.nysun.com/national/hillary-clintons-radical-summer/66933/
His candidate statement for Local Station Board is at:
http://pacificafoundation.org/cand_page.php?id=316
Contrary to 76-year-old Burnstein's statement, this writer remembers lots of acrimony at KPFA in the 1970s. The 1970s is when the "New Left" took over from the conservative Old Left that allowed Republicans and the fascist John Birch Society to be on KPFA. See
http://newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0052
For more KPFA history, see:
http://www.kpfa.org/history
FIFTH: TODAY
It is bad enough that the Thug Hallinan Gang promotes the capitalist Democrats. Now they are promoting a Republican ally, Brian Edwards-Tiekert.
No matter what happens with any lawsuit, Exhibit 1 to the above lawsuit says it all. A bunch of Democrats, some of whom have socialist backgrounds, are promoting an alternate fundraising drive with the express purpose of threatening KPFA with loss of funds from this alternative fund drive if they do not rehire their Republican Party plant, Brian Edwards-Tiekert, which rehire will certainly bankrupt KPFA. They do not say what they will do if KPFA does not rehire Republican Tiekert, but it is implied they will withhold the funds. They do not say they will return the funds to the donors if Tiekert is not rehired. This may not fit the legal definition of blackmail, but it certainly stinks.
FIRST, thank you Richard Phelps and Daniel Borgstrom for your lawsuit. We all can hardly wait to find out who the defense counsel for the individual defendants is. Please let us know when this lawsuit is filed.
SECOND, the defendants are all very well known, for many years. They are at this point in their lives defending a Republican Party plant, Brian Edwards-Tiekert, in his effort to to be reinstated as the Morning Show reactionary so he can drain KPFA of much needed funds thereby bankrupting KPFA and possibly destroying Pacifica. In case you have not heard about this Republican Party plant, see:
Edwards-Tiekert v Pacifica, Alameda Superior RG10549212 and the docket with printable documents is found at:
http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/html/casesumbody.html
The complaint in TIFF format, which must of us can print with no extra programs, is at
http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=25289492
The case is also at:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/03/18665521.php
The plaintiffs are represented by Dhillon and Smith.
The full biography of the reactionary Republican Party lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, may be found at the Smart Voter website since she ran for Assembly against Democrat Tom Ammiano in San Francisco in November 2008. See
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/dhillon_h/bio.html
Her endorsers are listed at
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/dhillon_h/endorse.html
and her answers to questions by the League of Women Voters are listed at:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/dhillon_h/questions.html
Much is made of her education, but anyone who states, as Dhillon does in answers to questions, that the teachers' unions are a problem in the school system and that the only viable medical system is the private profit health insurance disaster that we now have, is a person who is profoundly backward, ignorant and reactionary.
Her co-chair role of Lawyers for Bush/Cheney'04 and her "journalism" for the reactionary Heritage Foundation, are more fully described at:
http://www.imakenews.com/sfgop/e_article001049029.cfm?x=b11,0,w
Please note that Bush/Cheney's fascism in committing election fraud in 2000 and all their other crimes against humanity at home and abroad were well known by 2004.
Her law firm's website lists a successful lawsuit in which they represented the Republican Party of Los Angeles County. See:
http://www.dhillonsmith.com/2010/05/dhillon-smith-prevails-in-lawsuit-over-the-leadership-of-the-republican-party-of-los-angeles-county/
THIRD, clearly all of the Thug Hallinan Gang are doing the bidding of the capitalist class. This gang includes Larry Bensky, who was the editor of the CIA's Paris Review, who defended Republican Tiekert on the air at KPFA when he was finally layed off. Here is more on Larry Bensky:
1. His attacks to callers on air:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/09/25/18659813.php
2. Supporters of Pat Scott Gang and union busters American Consulting:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/09/21/18659436.php
3. More horrors of supporting Concerned Listeners gang:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/22/18626386.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/15/18472757.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/29/18324348.php
4. His opposition to Peace & Freedom and Green Parties:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/04/27/18495315.php
5. His use of name lists in violation of Pacifica election rules:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/21/18462672.php
6. His opposition to the 9/11 Truth Movement
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/10/18459899.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/15/18311830.php
7. His anti-labor outlook on labor programming:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/14/18154241.php
8. His contempt for free speech:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/11/13/17051361.php
9. His attack on William Blum's book exposing the CIA and a reminder that Bensky was editor of the CIA front, the Paris Review, at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/06/27/17498851.php
10. His ridicule of the fact of history that Nazis influenced the anti-Communist witchhunts of the 1940s-1950s as of course they were first and foremost anti-communist:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/04/05/16762211.php
FOURTH: Historical background
Most of us know the history of all of the defendants, all of whom are past age 60, in this lawsuit. In case you were not around in the 1960s:
1: Read Bettina Aptheker's excellent autobiography, Intimate Politics.
2. See the tribute to Helen Lima, mother of Margy Wilkinson, at:
Berkeley Daily Planet, 6/24/05, by Margy Wilkinson
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2005-06-24/article/21688?headline=Helen-Lima-Presente-By-MARGY-WILKINSON-Special-to-the-Planet
The Hallinan family is a well known family associated with the left, and also with the Democratic Party, a contradiction as you cannot be for socialism and capitalism at the same time.
Malcolm Burnstein was a lawyer with the allegedly radical law firm Treuhaft, Walker & Burnstein, more fully described at:
"Hillary Clinton's Radical Summer," by Josh Gerstein, New York Sun, November 26, 2007 at
http://www.nysun.com/national/hillary-clintons-radical-summer/66933/
His candidate statement for Local Station Board is at:
http://pacificafoundation.org/cand_page.php?id=316
Contrary to 76-year-old Burnstein's statement, this writer remembers lots of acrimony at KPFA in the 1970s. The 1970s is when the "New Left" took over from the conservative Old Left that allowed Republicans and the fascist John Birch Society to be on KPFA. See
http://newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0052
For more KPFA history, see:
http://www.kpfa.org/history
FIFTH: TODAY
It is bad enough that the Thug Hallinan Gang promotes the capitalist Democrats. Now they are promoting a Republican ally, Brian Edwards-Tiekert.
No matter what happens with any lawsuit, Exhibit 1 to the above lawsuit says it all. A bunch of Democrats, some of whom have socialist backgrounds, are promoting an alternate fundraising drive with the express purpose of threatening KPFA with loss of funds from this alternative fund drive if they do not rehire their Republican Party plant, Brian Edwards-Tiekert, which rehire will certainly bankrupt KPFA. They do not say what they will do if KPFA does not rehire Republican Tiekert, but it is implied they will withhold the funds. They do not say they will return the funds to the donors if Tiekert is not rehired. This may not fit the legal definition of blackmail, but it certainly stinks.
Many KPFA Listeners have not allied themselves with one side or another . How about a Old school debate ?
No hold barred . No physical fighting or threats thereof . Just both sides putting forward their best case and attempting to debunk their opponents's arguments .
Traci Rosenberg Vs Margie Wilkinson OR
Dan Siegel vs Richard Phelps FOR THE LISTENERS
Miguel Molina vs Sasha Lilly FOR THE STAFF
Perhaps a Union hall (Not CWA though ) as a venue .
Each side gets to choose a questioner . Perhaps Michael Parenti for the ICR/PR alliance and Matthew Lazar for the CL/KPFAWorker side .
This is a serious proposal . It could really clarify matters.
No hold barred . No physical fighting or threats thereof . Just both sides putting forward their best case and attempting to debunk their opponents's arguments .
Traci Rosenberg Vs Margie Wilkinson OR
Dan Siegel vs Richard Phelps FOR THE LISTENERS
Miguel Molina vs Sasha Lilly FOR THE STAFF
Perhaps a Union hall (Not CWA though ) as a venue .
Each side gets to choose a questioner . Perhaps Michael Parenti for the ICR/PR alliance and Matthew Lazar for the CL/KPFAWorker side .
This is a serious proposal . It could really clarify matters.
Take a deep breath Richard
by SLAPP
Sunday Jan 16th, 2011 5:51 AM
______________________________________
RP) You anonymously insult, lie and twist reality and when someone speaks back with passion for the truth you go passive aggressive and tell them to "Take a Deep Breath" as if I am at all out of breath from dealing with your juvenile crap.
__________________________________________________________________
As a purveyor of SLAPP suits I am sure you are aware that one of the objectives of them is to chill speech and especially dissent. Congratulations on that one! I will make you a deal, if you win this suit I will let you know who I am.
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP) I know a little about SLAPP suits, I co-wrote and lobbied thru the legislature one of the sections on SLAPP law, 425.18. I have never been a "purveyor" of such suits. Obviously you are either ignorant of the law on this issue or are just lying again.
There are two parts to the analysis of a suit that may be a SLAPP. 1. Does it deal primarily with speech or participation
in events of public interest,
2. Even if it does, it isn't a SLAPP suit if the plaintiff makes a prima facie case for the wrongful conduct alleged.
Here is the jury instruction for the cause of action for Breach of the Duty of Undivided Loyalty.
4102. Duty of Undivided Loyalty—Essential Factual
Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/it] was harmed by [name of
defendant]’s breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty. [A/An] [agent/
stockbroker/real estate agent/real estate broker/corporate officer/
partner/[insert other fiduciary relationship]] owes [his/her/its]
[principal/client/corporation/partner/[insert other fiduciary
relationship]] undivided loyalty. To establish this claim, [name of
plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] was [name of plaintiff]’s [agent/
stockbroker/real estate agent/real estate broker/corporate
officer/partner/[insert other fiduciary relationship]];
2. That [name of defendant]
[knowingly acted against [name of plaintiff]’s interests in
connection with [insert description of transaction, e.g.,
“purchasing a residential property”];]
3. That [name of plaintiff] did not give informed consent to
[name of defendant]’s conduct;
4. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
5. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor
in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
Since the Complaint truthfully alleges every element of this tort it is not a SLAPP suit.
_____________________________________________________________________________
You can parse the language all you want and to most objective people it is probably clear that your objective is to shut down the successful fund raising that SAVEKPFA is doing, that is of course in addition to punishing your perceived enemies. Again I don't see anything in your exhibits that refers "undivided loyalty", correct me if I am wrong.
_________________________________________________________________________
RP) SLAPP is wrong again. Exhibit two points out that a duty of LSB members is to help KPFA/Pacifica fundraise. Not fund raising for some group that wants to leverage management with a competing fund drive.
And the language in exhibit 1 makes their intent clear:
"If Pacifica does the right thing, we will bundle your pledges and submit them to KPFA as part of a special fund."
Does "SaveKPFA" get to decide what is the "right thing for Pacifica to do"? I think not, that is up to the Board of Directors. And it shows the dogmatic/sectarian politics of "SaveKPFA", they know what is right and are the only ones that do, and if you get in the way of their accent to the throne they will attack, with lies and personal attacks, because they are the righteous ones, entitled to be the "deciders".
And for the record it was your boy Brian Edwards-Tiekert that called his opponents "enemies" not myself, I prefer the term opponents.
And by your comment calling it a successful fund drive you are obviously more concerned about the "SaveKPFA" sect than the financial well being of KPFA/Pacifica.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I will look up your contention that despicable is necessary to your suit, I apologize for not being as knowledgeable about filing frivolous lawsuits as you are..
________________________________________________________________
RP) Now you are going to start looking up things instead of shooting off your anonymous mouth? Maybe you should do some research before you put your foot into it the first time? But why do that when attack and confuse is your only goal. If you really want to educate the readers you need to educate yourself first. I spent 3-4 hours doing research before I filed this suit. But then I give a damn about the truth. I also consulted with three colleagues well versed in business torts and they all think it is a slam dunk!
You are the one throwing around terms that don't apply. Using a phony apology to take another cheap and dishonest shot! What do you know about the criteria for a suit being "frivolous"? I am regularly consulted by other lawyers about Malicious Prosecution, which is the law of frivolous law suits, since that is one of my areas of specialization. The probable cause for this suit is apparent on the face of the complaint.
______________________________________________________________________
The ludicrous part is that your fantasy involves getting punitive damages even if your suit isn't laughed out of court.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) The ludicrous part of your comment is that you know NOTHING about punitive damages and what conduct is required to be proved to obtain them. Punitive damages are awarded when you prove more than negligence, INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT. Do you think a jury will buy that the defendants, two are lawyers, one is a former journalism professor, just accidentally competed against KPFA/Pacifica? Not unless they are as dumb/ignorant as you.
The "SaveKPFA" competing fund raising campaign that all four signed on to just dropped from the sky, web site and flyers and all??? They had no idea that it would negatively impact the KPFA fund drive and continued fund raising?
That is what will get laughed out of court if one of them says that.
In case anyone wonders why I put "SaveKPFA" in quotes it is due to the fact that the Concerned Listeners stole that name from a truly righteous group that was trying to actually save KPFA, not dominate it.
And as for winning and you coming clean and out from under your rock, does a settlement in our favor constitute a win? I don't need to take this case to trial if I can get justice for Pacifica in a settlement. And I will truly enjoy this trial if it happens. You should come and watch your buddies go down.
by SLAPP
Sunday Jan 16th, 2011 5:51 AM
______________________________________
RP) You anonymously insult, lie and twist reality and when someone speaks back with passion for the truth you go passive aggressive and tell them to "Take a Deep Breath" as if I am at all out of breath from dealing with your juvenile crap.
__________________________________________________________________
As a purveyor of SLAPP suits I am sure you are aware that one of the objectives of them is to chill speech and especially dissent. Congratulations on that one! I will make you a deal, if you win this suit I will let you know who I am.
____________________________________________________________________________________
RP) I know a little about SLAPP suits, I co-wrote and lobbied thru the legislature one of the sections on SLAPP law, 425.18. I have never been a "purveyor" of such suits. Obviously you are either ignorant of the law on this issue or are just lying again.
There are two parts to the analysis of a suit that may be a SLAPP. 1. Does it deal primarily with speech or participation
in events of public interest,
2. Even if it does, it isn't a SLAPP suit if the plaintiff makes a prima facie case for the wrongful conduct alleged.
Here is the jury instruction for the cause of action for Breach of the Duty of Undivided Loyalty.
4102. Duty of Undivided Loyalty—Essential Factual
Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/it] was harmed by [name of
defendant]’s breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty. [A/An] [agent/
stockbroker/real estate agent/real estate broker/corporate officer/
partner/[insert other fiduciary relationship]] owes [his/her/its]
[principal/client/corporation/partner/[insert other fiduciary
relationship]] undivided loyalty. To establish this claim, [name of
plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] was [name of plaintiff]’s [agent/
stockbroker/real estate agent/real estate broker/corporate
officer/partner/[insert other fiduciary relationship]];
2. That [name of defendant]
[knowingly acted against [name of plaintiff]’s interests in
connection with [insert description of transaction, e.g.,
“purchasing a residential property”];]
3. That [name of plaintiff] did not give informed consent to
[name of defendant]’s conduct;
4. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
5. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor
in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
Since the Complaint truthfully alleges every element of this tort it is not a SLAPP suit.
_____________________________________________________________________________
You can parse the language all you want and to most objective people it is probably clear that your objective is to shut down the successful fund raising that SAVEKPFA is doing, that is of course in addition to punishing your perceived enemies. Again I don't see anything in your exhibits that refers "undivided loyalty", correct me if I am wrong.
_________________________________________________________________________
RP) SLAPP is wrong again. Exhibit two points out that a duty of LSB members is to help KPFA/Pacifica fundraise. Not fund raising for some group that wants to leverage management with a competing fund drive.
And the language in exhibit 1 makes their intent clear:
"If Pacifica does the right thing, we will bundle your pledges and submit them to KPFA as part of a special fund."
Does "SaveKPFA" get to decide what is the "right thing for Pacifica to do"? I think not, that is up to the Board of Directors. And it shows the dogmatic/sectarian politics of "SaveKPFA", they know what is right and are the only ones that do, and if you get in the way of their accent to the throne they will attack, with lies and personal attacks, because they are the righteous ones, entitled to be the "deciders".
And for the record it was your boy Brian Edwards-Tiekert that called his opponents "enemies" not myself, I prefer the term opponents.
And by your comment calling it a successful fund drive you are obviously more concerned about the "SaveKPFA" sect than the financial well being of KPFA/Pacifica.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I will look up your contention that despicable is necessary to your suit, I apologize for not being as knowledgeable about filing frivolous lawsuits as you are..
________________________________________________________________
RP) Now you are going to start looking up things instead of shooting off your anonymous mouth? Maybe you should do some research before you put your foot into it the first time? But why do that when attack and confuse is your only goal. If you really want to educate the readers you need to educate yourself first. I spent 3-4 hours doing research before I filed this suit. But then I give a damn about the truth. I also consulted with three colleagues well versed in business torts and they all think it is a slam dunk!
You are the one throwing around terms that don't apply. Using a phony apology to take another cheap and dishonest shot! What do you know about the criteria for a suit being "frivolous"? I am regularly consulted by other lawyers about Malicious Prosecution, which is the law of frivolous law suits, since that is one of my areas of specialization. The probable cause for this suit is apparent on the face of the complaint.
______________________________________________________________________
The ludicrous part is that your fantasy involves getting punitive damages even if your suit isn't laughed out of court.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) The ludicrous part of your comment is that you know NOTHING about punitive damages and what conduct is required to be proved to obtain them. Punitive damages are awarded when you prove more than negligence, INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT. Do you think a jury will buy that the defendants, two are lawyers, one is a former journalism professor, just accidentally competed against KPFA/Pacifica? Not unless they are as dumb/ignorant as you.
The "SaveKPFA" competing fund raising campaign that all four signed on to just dropped from the sky, web site and flyers and all??? They had no idea that it would negatively impact the KPFA fund drive and continued fund raising?
That is what will get laughed out of court if one of them says that.
In case anyone wonders why I put "SaveKPFA" in quotes it is due to the fact that the Concerned Listeners stole that name from a truly righteous group that was trying to actually save KPFA, not dominate it.
And as for winning and you coming clean and out from under your rock, does a settlement in our favor constitute a win? I don't need to take this case to trial if I can get justice for Pacifica in a settlement. And I will truly enjoy this trial if it happens. You should come and watch your buddies go down.
The suit was filed and served on January 13, 2011. They have 30 days to file an answer or otherwise respond. I am preparing discovery to be served on them shortly. Interrogatories, request for admissions, and request for production of documents. We are going to find out all about their nefarious games.
Siegel's going off the LSB due to his new government position will not get him out of the suit. It will end any continuing damages against him for continuing their wrongful conduct since his duty of loyalty ends with his being appointed by Mayor Quan to her cabinet.
I sent a settlement offer to Siegel yesterday. The ball is in his court if he wants to put KPFA/Pacifica first for once, he can help move things along and end his being a party to the suit and go try to help save Oakland.
For over 7 years I have challenged any and all of them to debate. None have stood up to the challenge. They know that their deceptive propaganda can't stand the light of truth. So they take their shots anonymously or when rebuttal is limited or impossible.
Siegel's going off the LSB due to his new government position will not get him out of the suit. It will end any continuing damages against him for continuing their wrongful conduct since his duty of loyalty ends with his being appointed by Mayor Quan to her cabinet.
I sent a settlement offer to Siegel yesterday. The ball is in his court if he wants to put KPFA/Pacifica first for once, he can help move things along and end his being a party to the suit and go try to help save Oakland.
For over 7 years I have challenged any and all of them to debate. None have stood up to the challenge. They know that their deceptive propaganda can't stand the light of truth. So they take their shots anonymously or when rebuttal is limited or impossible.
Congratulations dick on the successful filing of yet another frivolous lawsuit, you certainly do have a talent for this.
The KPFA guidelines you cite don't say anything about "undivided loyalty" just loyalty, I believe a court will know the distinction even if you don't. Also, just because they are supposed to raise money for the station doesn't mean they are precluded from raising money for other organizations, does it? I would guess that a court will also not so easily buy into your claim that savekpfa is competing since they are only accepting pledges and have said that they will give the money to the station if they actually take it in. Are you going to be able to prove that SAVEKPFA supporters have done nothing to raise money for the station itself? In fact isn't your focus of evil at KPFA, brian edward-tiekert, one of the top fund raisers at the station even though he is a republican party, cointelpro, wellstone, CIA implant? LOL Man, he must really be a busy guy.
Despicable, while indeed a term of art for making a claim of punitive damages it certainly does not appear to be obligatory. I actually think it does have more to do with your Fuddian complex about those WASCALLY WADICALS. If you actually have a cite to the necessity of its inclusion I am sure you will put it up. Additionally the idea that any judge is going to find in your favor let alone give punitive damages is as ridiculous as you continuing to sign on as Richard Phelps- Former Chair KPFA LSB. Whats it been 7 years, get over it dick.
Not a purveyor of SLAPPS? How about the time you sued that octogenarian for expressing his opinion. Maybe it never got to the point of labeling it a SLAPP but the intent was the same, you tried to use the courts to silence him because you didn't like what he was saying. How did that case resolve itself dick
The KPFA guidelines you cite don't say anything about "undivided loyalty" just loyalty, I believe a court will know the distinction even if you don't. Also, just because they are supposed to raise money for the station doesn't mean they are precluded from raising money for other organizations, does it? I would guess that a court will also not so easily buy into your claim that savekpfa is competing since they are only accepting pledges and have said that they will give the money to the station if they actually take it in. Are you going to be able to prove that SAVEKPFA supporters have done nothing to raise money for the station itself? In fact isn't your focus of evil at KPFA, brian edward-tiekert, one of the top fund raisers at the station even though he is a republican party, cointelpro, wellstone, CIA implant? LOL Man, he must really be a busy guy.
Despicable, while indeed a term of art for making a claim of punitive damages it certainly does not appear to be obligatory. I actually think it does have more to do with your Fuddian complex about those WASCALLY WADICALS. If you actually have a cite to the necessity of its inclusion I am sure you will put it up. Additionally the idea that any judge is going to find in your favor let alone give punitive damages is as ridiculous as you continuing to sign on as Richard Phelps- Former Chair KPFA LSB. Whats it been 7 years, get over it dick.
Not a purveyor of SLAPPS? How about the time you sued that octogenarian for expressing his opinion. Maybe it never got to the point of labeling it a SLAPP but the intent was the same, you tried to use the courts to silence him because you didn't like what he was saying. How did that case resolve itself dick
Despite what '' SLAPP'' writes the clique who ''wants OUR station back ! '' aren't radicals or '' wadicals '' .
There are mostly a bunch of Housebroken EX radicals , respectable Progressives who are deep in the Democratic party .
(Siegel isn't the only one ) Yeah they have a few Academic leftists like '' Against the Grain '' Sasha Lilly and her Anarcho-Businessman husband Ramsey Caanan to give themselves a little Left cover ('' See we're aren't all just liberals look at them '' )
But a big part of this struggle is their desire to get rid of ''Ultra left '' and '' Conspricacy Nuts'' programmers like Bonnie Faulkner of '' Guns and Butter '' and Miguel Molina and Dennis Bernstein of '' Flashpoints ''. (See close CL allies like Ian Boals and Matthew Lasar's rants on this subject )
And several of their key people are very affulent (and that sure has a way of shaping one 's consiousness ! )
There are mostly a bunch of Housebroken EX radicals , respectable Progressives who are deep in the Democratic party .
(Siegel isn't the only one ) Yeah they have a few Academic leftists like '' Against the Grain '' Sasha Lilly and her Anarcho-Businessman husband Ramsey Caanan to give themselves a little Left cover ('' See we're aren't all just liberals look at them '' )
But a big part of this struggle is their desire to get rid of ''Ultra left '' and '' Conspricacy Nuts'' programmers like Bonnie Faulkner of '' Guns and Butter '' and Miguel Molina and Dennis Bernstein of '' Flashpoints ''. (See close CL allies like Ian Boals and Matthew Lasar's rants on this subject )
And several of their key people are very affulent (and that sure has a way of shaping one 's consiousness ! )
Congratulations dick
by SLAPP
Sunday Jan 16th, 2011 6:09 PM
Congratulations dick on the successful filing of yet another frivolous lawsuit, you certainly do have a talent for this.
__________________________________________________________________
RP) I guess you don't read or comprehend anything or just ignore the facts and law. It will only be a SLAPP suit if you do not have a real cause of action, which we do. Anyone who cares to find the truth can review the Complaint with the Jury Instructions I posted and see that there is a a real cause of action.
____________________________________________________________________________
The KPFA guidelines you cite don't say anything about "undivided loyalty" just loyalty, I believe a court will know the distinction even if you don't.
______________________________________________________________________________
RP) My cross to bear, dealing with such drivel from a dishonest coward, afraid to be accountable for what he/she writes. What I was referring to was the duty to fund raise. The loyalty law is common law, it doesn't have to be in the Bylaws, just like it isn't written in them that you can't hit someone else on the LSB but if you did they could sue for battery.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Also, just because they are supposed to raise money for the station doesn't mean they are precluded from raising money for other organizations, does it?
_______________________________________________________________________________
RP) I hope they hire you to defend them! Of course they can raise money for other things like Palestine /Gaza aid, they just can't compete with KPFA/Pacifica.
________________________________________________________________
I would guess that a court will also not so easily buy into your claim that savekpfa is competing since they are only accepting pledges and have said that they will give the money to the station if they actually take it in.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
RP) again you distort reality after I have pointed you to the truth so it must be intentional disinformation. All you can do is guess since you don't know anything and clearly aren't looking for the truth. Here is what they said which I previously posted:
"IF PACIFICA DOES THE RIGHT THING, WE WILL BUNDLE YOUR PLEDGES AND SUBMIT THEM TO KPFA AS PART OF A SPECIAL FUND.
"SaveKPFA" made NO statement, that regardless of the outcome of their attempted extortion, that the pledges will be given to KPFA. Perhaps you are not aware of the long standing Pacifica principle against "underwriting" and/or selling time slots.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you going to be able to prove that SAVEKPFA supporters have done nothing to raise money for the station itself?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) Totally irrelevant. One does not cancel the other. I sure hope these folks use you as a legal strategist.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In fact isn't your focus of evil at KPFA, brian edward-tiekert, one of the top fund raisers at the station even though he is a republican party, cointelpro, wellstone, CIA implant? LOL Man, he must really be a busy guy.
______________________________________________________________________________-
RP) I am surprised at your use of the word "fact"? Since you pay no attention to them. I don't know that BET has ever done any actual fund raising. He used to do pitches on the air as part of his job, and when doing that during prime time even Arlene did fine. I have never accused BET of any of those things. I stick to the facts that I can prove.
Here are some of BET's profound statements that demonstrate his true politics and lack of morality.
"HOW DO WE MAKE OUR ENEMIES OWN THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE TO COME?"
you can see his staff solidarity when he says that one topic to discuss is : "PROPPING UP STAFF MORALE"
And then there is his "union solidarity" demonstrated by his strategy group composed of some management, non-union members and leaving out many other union members. http://peoplesradio.net/Dismantle.htm
I almost forgot his vote AGAINST having the budget handled in accord with the union contract. Funny thing, all the "SaveKPFAers that claim to be "pro union" voted against that????
_______________________________________________________________________________
Despicable, while indeed a term of art for making a claim of punitive damages it certainly does not appear to be obligatory.
_________________________________________________________________________________
RP) So you back off your original rant, but again you show your ignorance and try to sell it to folks. How many Complaints asking for punitive damages have you ever drafted or researched? None or you couldn't honestly say that. But then "honest" is probably not in your practice vocabulary. Go look in a form book at the law library, "despicable" will be in there, why because it is part of the Code on punitive damages see below: Civil Code Section 3294
Article 3. Exemplary Damages
Current through 2010
§ 3294.
(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
________________________________________________________________
I actually think it does have more to do with your Fuddian complex about those WASCALLY WADICALS. If you actually have a cite to the necessity of its inclusion I am sure you will put it up.
_________________________________________________________________
RP) So why didn't you look it up before you attack? Because the truth doesn't matter to you and your ilk.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Additionally the idea that any judge is going to find in your favor let alone give punitive damages is as ridiculous as you continuing to sign on as Richard Phelps- Former Chair KPFA LSB. Whats it been 7 years, get over it dick.
_______________________________________________________________
RP) What would you know about what any judge will do? You have already established your absolute ignorance about the law of this type of case and law in general. And again you show your ignorance of basic legal procedure. Juries award punitive damages in jury trials not judges, and this will be a jury trial.
I sign on that way so that newcomers understand that my comments are based on actual experience and not just blowing smoke out your ass like SLAPP. Who is afraid to tell us who he/she is since he doesn't want to be responsible for all hi/her lies and distortions and just plain stupid comments.
__________________________________________________________________
Not a purveyor of SLAPPS? How about the time you sued that octogenarian for expressing his opinion.
___________________________________________________________________________________
RP) Here again you lie, have you no shame or is it just that your sociopathic tendencies are really showing?
He was not sued for stating opinions. He was sued for defamation. Stating facts that were not true. One example, he accused me of attacking Amy Goodman, when in fact I was one of the folks lobbying to get her program, DN! in prime time where it belongs. I asked him nicely for some months to stop and then told him I was going to sue him if he didn't stop and when he didn't I filed in small claims court. I dismissed the case without prejudice after a court hearing where the small claims judge said it would have to go to superior court, and funny thing after that he stopped defaming me.
_________________________________________________________________________________-
Maybe it never got to the point of labeling it a SLAPP but the intent was the same, you tried to use the courts to silence him because you didn't like what he was saying. How did that case resolve itself dick
________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) I used the court in an entirely proper manner. I sued to stop defamation. Free speech does not allow people to state facts that aren't true to damage a persons reputation. As I said above I dismissed without prejudice telling Jim Weber that if he continued I would take it to Superior Court and he stopped defaming me. He didn't stop criticizing my politics and that is fine. But he did stop making false factual defamatory statements.
Now I am done with you, I don't rebut your BS in any attempt to change your mind. I do it to let people know what a liar you are and what you and your allies are about, dishonest desires for power and control of KPFA. By now any rational person of minimal intelligence has seen through you.
by SLAPP
Sunday Jan 16th, 2011 6:09 PM
Congratulations dick on the successful filing of yet another frivolous lawsuit, you certainly do have a talent for this.
__________________________________________________________________
RP) I guess you don't read or comprehend anything or just ignore the facts and law. It will only be a SLAPP suit if you do not have a real cause of action, which we do. Anyone who cares to find the truth can review the Complaint with the Jury Instructions I posted and see that there is a a real cause of action.
____________________________________________________________________________
The KPFA guidelines you cite don't say anything about "undivided loyalty" just loyalty, I believe a court will know the distinction even if you don't.
______________________________________________________________________________
RP) My cross to bear, dealing with such drivel from a dishonest coward, afraid to be accountable for what he/she writes. What I was referring to was the duty to fund raise. The loyalty law is common law, it doesn't have to be in the Bylaws, just like it isn't written in them that you can't hit someone else on the LSB but if you did they could sue for battery.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Also, just because they are supposed to raise money for the station doesn't mean they are precluded from raising money for other organizations, does it?
_______________________________________________________________________________
RP) I hope they hire you to defend them! Of course they can raise money for other things like Palestine /Gaza aid, they just can't compete with KPFA/Pacifica.
________________________________________________________________
I would guess that a court will also not so easily buy into your claim that savekpfa is competing since they are only accepting pledges and have said that they will give the money to the station if they actually take it in.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
RP) again you distort reality after I have pointed you to the truth so it must be intentional disinformation. All you can do is guess since you don't know anything and clearly aren't looking for the truth. Here is what they said which I previously posted:
"IF PACIFICA DOES THE RIGHT THING, WE WILL BUNDLE YOUR PLEDGES AND SUBMIT THEM TO KPFA AS PART OF A SPECIAL FUND.
"SaveKPFA" made NO statement, that regardless of the outcome of their attempted extortion, that the pledges will be given to KPFA. Perhaps you are not aware of the long standing Pacifica principle against "underwriting" and/or selling time slots.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you going to be able to prove that SAVEKPFA supporters have done nothing to raise money for the station itself?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) Totally irrelevant. One does not cancel the other. I sure hope these folks use you as a legal strategist.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In fact isn't your focus of evil at KPFA, brian edward-tiekert, one of the top fund raisers at the station even though he is a republican party, cointelpro, wellstone, CIA implant? LOL Man, he must really be a busy guy.
______________________________________________________________________________-
RP) I am surprised at your use of the word "fact"? Since you pay no attention to them. I don't know that BET has ever done any actual fund raising. He used to do pitches on the air as part of his job, and when doing that during prime time even Arlene did fine. I have never accused BET of any of those things. I stick to the facts that I can prove.
Here are some of BET's profound statements that demonstrate his true politics and lack of morality.
"HOW DO WE MAKE OUR ENEMIES OWN THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE TO COME?"
you can see his staff solidarity when he says that one topic to discuss is : "PROPPING UP STAFF MORALE"
And then there is his "union solidarity" demonstrated by his strategy group composed of some management, non-union members and leaving out many other union members. http://peoplesradio.net/Dismantle.htm
I almost forgot his vote AGAINST having the budget handled in accord with the union contract. Funny thing, all the "SaveKPFAers that claim to be "pro union" voted against that????
_______________________________________________________________________________
Despicable, while indeed a term of art for making a claim of punitive damages it certainly does not appear to be obligatory.
_________________________________________________________________________________
RP) So you back off your original rant, but again you show your ignorance and try to sell it to folks. How many Complaints asking for punitive damages have you ever drafted or researched? None or you couldn't honestly say that. But then "honest" is probably not in your practice vocabulary. Go look in a form book at the law library, "despicable" will be in there, why because it is part of the Code on punitive damages see below: Civil Code Section 3294
Article 3. Exemplary Damages
Current through 2010
§ 3294.
(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
________________________________________________________________
I actually think it does have more to do with your Fuddian complex about those WASCALLY WADICALS. If you actually have a cite to the necessity of its inclusion I am sure you will put it up.
_________________________________________________________________
RP) So why didn't you look it up before you attack? Because the truth doesn't matter to you and your ilk.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Additionally the idea that any judge is going to find in your favor let alone give punitive damages is as ridiculous as you continuing to sign on as Richard Phelps- Former Chair KPFA LSB. Whats it been 7 years, get over it dick.
_______________________________________________________________
RP) What would you know about what any judge will do? You have already established your absolute ignorance about the law of this type of case and law in general. And again you show your ignorance of basic legal procedure. Juries award punitive damages in jury trials not judges, and this will be a jury trial.
I sign on that way so that newcomers understand that my comments are based on actual experience and not just blowing smoke out your ass like SLAPP. Who is afraid to tell us who he/she is since he doesn't want to be responsible for all hi/her lies and distortions and just plain stupid comments.
__________________________________________________________________
Not a purveyor of SLAPPS? How about the time you sued that octogenarian for expressing his opinion.
___________________________________________________________________________________
RP) Here again you lie, have you no shame or is it just that your sociopathic tendencies are really showing?
He was not sued for stating opinions. He was sued for defamation. Stating facts that were not true. One example, he accused me of attacking Amy Goodman, when in fact I was one of the folks lobbying to get her program, DN! in prime time where it belongs. I asked him nicely for some months to stop and then told him I was going to sue him if he didn't stop and when he didn't I filed in small claims court. I dismissed the case without prejudice after a court hearing where the small claims judge said it would have to go to superior court, and funny thing after that he stopped defaming me.
_________________________________________________________________________________-
Maybe it never got to the point of labeling it a SLAPP but the intent was the same, you tried to use the courts to silence him because you didn't like what he was saying. How did that case resolve itself dick
________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) I used the court in an entirely proper manner. I sued to stop defamation. Free speech does not allow people to state facts that aren't true to damage a persons reputation. As I said above I dismissed without prejudice telling Jim Weber that if he continued I would take it to Superior Court and he stopped defaming me. He didn't stop criticizing my politics and that is fine. But he did stop making false factual defamatory statements.
Now I am done with you, I don't rebut your BS in any attempt to change your mind. I do it to let people know what a liar you are and what you and your allies are about, dishonest desires for power and control of KPFA. By now any rational person of minimal intelligence has seen through you.
I don't write often but I do read the media section and others pretty regularly. This thread confirms what I have seen for some years now. Almost every time Richard Phelps puts up an article some anonymous types attack him. They seldom actually debate him and from what I have seen Phelps sticks to the facts and the attackers go after him more often than they do the positions he takes about KPFA. From this constant and nasty attacking he must really be getting to them. They don't go after others on Phelps side with anywhere near the same energy or frequency. I don't always agree with his conclusions but I am glad he has not let the attacks slow him down. I learn from his comments and appreciate his courage to keep telling us his point of view knowing what he has to face every time he sends in a comment. Why can't we all get along and discuss all the issues in an open and fair way?
Congratulations dick
by SLAPP
Sunday Jan 16th, 2011 6:09 PM
Congratulations dick on the successful filing of yet another frivolous lawsuit, you certainly do have a talent for this.
__________________________________________________________________
RP) I guess you don't read or comprehend anything or just ignore the facts and law. It will only be a SLAPP suit if you do not have a real cause of action, which we do. Anyone who cares to find the truth can review the Complaint with the Jury Instructions I posted and see that there is a a real cause of action.
Oh dicky, dicky, dicky. I think you may be projecting here a bit about the comprehension thing. I didn't say this was a SLAPP suit, I said it was frivolous. I read the complaint and it is my opinion is that it is a joke, without a prayer of success. Good thing you don't put much value on your time. But please keep us updated.
____________________________________________________________________________
The KPFA guidelines you cite don't say anything about "undivided loyalty" just loyalty, I believe a court will know the distinction even if you don't.
______________________________________________________________________________
RP) My cross to bear, dealing with such drivel from a dishonest coward, afraid to be accountable for what he/she writes. What I was referring to was the duty to fund raise. The loyalty law is common law, it doesn't have to be in the Bylaws, just like it isn't written in them that you can't hit someone else on the LSB but if you did they could sue for battery.
What a pathetic argument, and you hold yourself out as an attorney? Words mean things Richard and undivided loyalty is different than loyalty. Sheeeesh!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Also, just because they are supposed to raise money for the station doesn't mean they are precluded from raising money for other organizations, does it?
_______________________________________________________________________________
RP) I hope they hire you to defend them! Of course they can raise money for other things like Palestine /Gaza aid, they just can't compete with KPFA/Pacifica.
And where does it say that they can't raise money for whatever they want dicky? Don't worry they won't hire me, I sure they have a COMPETENT attorney that they will hire or will do it pro bono for them.
________________________________________________________________
I would guess that a court will also not so easily buy into your claim that savekpfa is competing since they are only accepting pledges and have said that they will give the money to the station if they actually take it in.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
RP) again you distort reality after I have pointed you to the truth so it must be intentional disinformation. All you can do is guess since you don't know anything and clearly aren't looking for the truth. Here is what they said which I previously posted:
"IF PACIFICA DOES THE RIGHT THING, WE WILL BUNDLE YOUR PLEDGES AND SUBMIT THEM TO KPFA AS PART OF A SPECIAL FUND.
"SaveKPFA" made NO statement, that regardless of the outcome of their attempted extortion, that the pledges will be given to KPFA. Perhaps you are not aware of the long standing Pacifica principle against "underwriting" and/or selling time slots.
Well, I am certainly not looking for the truth from YOU! Now that would be crazy. You can't even figure out what I am saying because of the blinding rage you seem to constantly exude. As I said, Take a deep breath. They won't take the money in unless they can get a deal to bring back professionals to the morning show.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you going to be able to prove that SAVEKPFA supporters have done nothing to raise money for the station itself?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) Totally irrelevant. One does not cancel the other. I sure hope these folks use you as a legal strategist.
Sure it does dicky. If they are raising money for the station directly there goes your loyalty argument that you will be reduced to after your undivided loyalty contention goes down the drain.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In fact isn't your focus of evil at KPFA, brian edward-tiekert, one of the top fund raisers at the station even though he is a republican party, cointelpro, wellstone, CIA implant? LOL Man, he must really be a busy guy.
______________________________________________________________________________-
RP) I am surprised at your use of the word "fact"? Since you pay no attention to them. I don't know that BET has ever done any actual fund raising. He used to do pitches on the air as part of his job, and when doing that during prime time even Arlene did fine. I have never accused BET of any of those things. I stick to the facts that I can prove.
Here are some of BET's profound statements that demonstrate his true politics and lack of morality.
"HOW DO WE MAKE OUR ENEMIES OWN THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE TO COME?"
you can see his staff solidarity when he says that one topic to discuss is : "PROPPING UP STAFF MORALE"
And then there is his "union solidarity" demonstrated by his strategy group composed of some management, non-union members and leaving out many other union members. http://peoplesradio.net/Dismantle.htm
I almost forgot his vote AGAINST having the budget handled in accord with the union contract. Funny thing, all the "SaveKPFAers that claim to be "pro union" voted against that????
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, come on big dick, you know that he is the most effective on air fund raiser the station has and works tirelessly at it. So if you never said any of those things about him, do you disavow those who do? Just the facts now, just the facts
_______________________________________________________________________________
Despicable, while indeed a term of art for making a claim of punitive damages it certainly does not appear to be obligatory.
_________________________________________________________________________________
RP) So you back off your original rant, but again you show your ignorance and try to sell it to folks. How many Complaints asking for punitive damages have you ever drafted or researched? None or you couldn't honestly say that. But then "honest" is probably not in your practice vocabulary. Go look in a form book at the law library, "despicable" will be in there, why because it is part of the Code on punitive damages see below: Civil Code Section 3294
Article 3. Exemplary Damages
Current through 2010
§ 3294.
(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proves my point, you could have used other language, it is just your inner Fudd coming out.
________________________________________________________________
I actually think it does have more to do with your Fuddian complex about those WASCALLY WADICALS. If you actually have a cite to the necessity of its inclusion I am sure you will put it up.
_________________________________________________________________
RP) So why didn't you look it up before you attack? Because the truth doesn't matter to you and your ilk.
This isn't about truth, it is just about pushing your political agenda in hope that you can get rid the former in your exulted title.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Additionally the idea that any judge is going to find in your favor let alone give punitive damages is as ridiculous as you continuing to sign on as Richard Phelps- Former Chair KPFA LSB. Whats it been 7 years, get over it dick.
_______________________________________________________________
RP) What would you know about what any judge will do? You have already established your absolute ignorance about the law of this type of case and law in general. And again you show your ignorance of basic legal procedure. Juries award punitive damages in jury trials not judges, and this will be a jury trial.
I sign on that way so that newcomers understand that my comments are based on actual experience and not just blowing smoke out your ass like SLAPP. Who is afraid to tell us who he/she is since he doesn't want to be responsible for all hi/her lies and distortions and just plain stupid comments.
And you have no idea what a judge or jury will do either, do you? I am actually thrilled to hear that you want to put this in front of a jury if it isn't dismissed in a summary judgment.
__________________________________________________________________
Not a purveyor of SLAPPS? How about the time you sued that octogenarian for expressing his opinion.
___________________________________________________________________________________
RP) Here again you lie, have you no shame or is it just that your sociopathic tendencies are really showing?
He was not sued for stating opinions. He was sued for defamation. Stating facts that were not true. One example, he accused me of attacking Amy Goodman, when in fact I was one of the folks lobbying to get her program, DN! in prime time where it belongs. I asked him nicely for some months to stop and then told him I was going to sue him if he didn't stop and when he didn't I filed in small claims court. I dismissed the case without prejudice after a court hearing where the small claims judge said it would have to go to superior court, and funny thing after that he stopped defaming me.
Oh come on dickie, you got your ass handed to you by an octogenarian without an attorney. Everybody knows what happened.
_________________________________________________________________________________-
Maybe it never got to the point of labeling it a SLAPP but the intent was the same, you tried to use the courts to silence him because you didn't like what he was saying. How did that case resolve itself dick
________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) I used the court in an entirely proper manner. I sued to stop defamation. Free speech does not allow people to state facts that aren't true to damage a persons reputation. As I said above I dismissed without prejudice telling Jim Weber that if he continued I would take it to Superior Court and he stopped defaming me. He didn't stop criticizing my politics and that is fine. But he did stop making false factual defamatory statements.
Now I am done with you, I don't rebut your BS in any attempt to change your mind. I do it to let people know what a liar you are and what you and your allies are about, dishonest desires for power and control of KPFA. By now any rational person of minimal intelligence has seen through you.
I am sorry to hear you are done with me, I quite enjoyed this little banter with you. You be well now, ok.
Just so you know, I don't even listen to KPFA, somebody just told me about how wacky this whole kpfa section of indymedia was so I took a look and there was your truly wacky lawsuit. I searched a bunch of your posts and had a little fun with you and you really lived up to your reputation! When I found the posts about the Jim Weber suit I knew I hit pay dirt. Well good luck to you anyway.f
by SLAPP
Sunday Jan 16th, 2011 6:09 PM
Congratulations dick on the successful filing of yet another frivolous lawsuit, you certainly do have a talent for this.
__________________________________________________________________
RP) I guess you don't read or comprehend anything or just ignore the facts and law. It will only be a SLAPP suit if you do not have a real cause of action, which we do. Anyone who cares to find the truth can review the Complaint with the Jury Instructions I posted and see that there is a a real cause of action.
Oh dicky, dicky, dicky. I think you may be projecting here a bit about the comprehension thing. I didn't say this was a SLAPP suit, I said it was frivolous. I read the complaint and it is my opinion is that it is a joke, without a prayer of success. Good thing you don't put much value on your time. But please keep us updated.
____________________________________________________________________________
The KPFA guidelines you cite don't say anything about "undivided loyalty" just loyalty, I believe a court will know the distinction even if you don't.
______________________________________________________________________________
RP) My cross to bear, dealing with such drivel from a dishonest coward, afraid to be accountable for what he/she writes. What I was referring to was the duty to fund raise. The loyalty law is common law, it doesn't have to be in the Bylaws, just like it isn't written in them that you can't hit someone else on the LSB but if you did they could sue for battery.
What a pathetic argument, and you hold yourself out as an attorney? Words mean things Richard and undivided loyalty is different than loyalty. Sheeeesh!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Also, just because they are supposed to raise money for the station doesn't mean they are precluded from raising money for other organizations, does it?
_______________________________________________________________________________
RP) I hope they hire you to defend them! Of course they can raise money for other things like Palestine /Gaza aid, they just can't compete with KPFA/Pacifica.
And where does it say that they can't raise money for whatever they want dicky? Don't worry they won't hire me, I sure they have a COMPETENT attorney that they will hire or will do it pro bono for them.
________________________________________________________________
I would guess that a court will also not so easily buy into your claim that savekpfa is competing since they are only accepting pledges and have said that they will give the money to the station if they actually take it in.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
RP) again you distort reality after I have pointed you to the truth so it must be intentional disinformation. All you can do is guess since you don't know anything and clearly aren't looking for the truth. Here is what they said which I previously posted:
"IF PACIFICA DOES THE RIGHT THING, WE WILL BUNDLE YOUR PLEDGES AND SUBMIT THEM TO KPFA AS PART OF A SPECIAL FUND.
"SaveKPFA" made NO statement, that regardless of the outcome of their attempted extortion, that the pledges will be given to KPFA. Perhaps you are not aware of the long standing Pacifica principle against "underwriting" and/or selling time slots.
Well, I am certainly not looking for the truth from YOU! Now that would be crazy. You can't even figure out what I am saying because of the blinding rage you seem to constantly exude. As I said, Take a deep breath. They won't take the money in unless they can get a deal to bring back professionals to the morning show.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you going to be able to prove that SAVEKPFA supporters have done nothing to raise money for the station itself?
____________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) Totally irrelevant. One does not cancel the other. I sure hope these folks use you as a legal strategist.
Sure it does dicky. If they are raising money for the station directly there goes your loyalty argument that you will be reduced to after your undivided loyalty contention goes down the drain.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In fact isn't your focus of evil at KPFA, brian edward-tiekert, one of the top fund raisers at the station even though he is a republican party, cointelpro, wellstone, CIA implant? LOL Man, he must really be a busy guy.
______________________________________________________________________________-
RP) I am surprised at your use of the word "fact"? Since you pay no attention to them. I don't know that BET has ever done any actual fund raising. He used to do pitches on the air as part of his job, and when doing that during prime time even Arlene did fine. I have never accused BET of any of those things. I stick to the facts that I can prove.
Here are some of BET's profound statements that demonstrate his true politics and lack of morality.
"HOW DO WE MAKE OUR ENEMIES OWN THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE TO COME?"
you can see his staff solidarity when he says that one topic to discuss is : "PROPPING UP STAFF MORALE"
And then there is his "union solidarity" demonstrated by his strategy group composed of some management, non-union members and leaving out many other union members. http://peoplesradio.net/Dismantle.htm
I almost forgot his vote AGAINST having the budget handled in accord with the union contract. Funny thing, all the "SaveKPFAers that claim to be "pro union" voted against that????
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, come on big dick, you know that he is the most effective on air fund raiser the station has and works tirelessly at it. So if you never said any of those things about him, do you disavow those who do? Just the facts now, just the facts
_______________________________________________________________________________
Despicable, while indeed a term of art for making a claim of punitive damages it certainly does not appear to be obligatory.
_________________________________________________________________________________
RP) So you back off your original rant, but again you show your ignorance and try to sell it to folks. How many Complaints asking for punitive damages have you ever drafted or researched? None or you couldn't honestly say that. But then "honest" is probably not in your practice vocabulary. Go look in a form book at the law library, "despicable" will be in there, why because it is part of the Code on punitive damages see below: Civil Code Section 3294
Article 3. Exemplary Damages
Current through 2010
§ 3294.
(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proves my point, you could have used other language, it is just your inner Fudd coming out.
________________________________________________________________
I actually think it does have more to do with your Fuddian complex about those WASCALLY WADICALS. If you actually have a cite to the necessity of its inclusion I am sure you will put it up.
_________________________________________________________________
RP) So why didn't you look it up before you attack? Because the truth doesn't matter to you and your ilk.
This isn't about truth, it is just about pushing your political agenda in hope that you can get rid the former in your exulted title.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Additionally the idea that any judge is going to find in your favor let alone give punitive damages is as ridiculous as you continuing to sign on as Richard Phelps- Former Chair KPFA LSB. Whats it been 7 years, get over it dick.
_______________________________________________________________
RP) What would you know about what any judge will do? You have already established your absolute ignorance about the law of this type of case and law in general. And again you show your ignorance of basic legal procedure. Juries award punitive damages in jury trials not judges, and this will be a jury trial.
I sign on that way so that newcomers understand that my comments are based on actual experience and not just blowing smoke out your ass like SLAPP. Who is afraid to tell us who he/she is since he doesn't want to be responsible for all hi/her lies and distortions and just plain stupid comments.
And you have no idea what a judge or jury will do either, do you? I am actually thrilled to hear that you want to put this in front of a jury if it isn't dismissed in a summary judgment.
__________________________________________________________________
Not a purveyor of SLAPPS? How about the time you sued that octogenarian for expressing his opinion.
___________________________________________________________________________________
RP) Here again you lie, have you no shame or is it just that your sociopathic tendencies are really showing?
He was not sued for stating opinions. He was sued for defamation. Stating facts that were not true. One example, he accused me of attacking Amy Goodman, when in fact I was one of the folks lobbying to get her program, DN! in prime time where it belongs. I asked him nicely for some months to stop and then told him I was going to sue him if he didn't stop and when he didn't I filed in small claims court. I dismissed the case without prejudice after a court hearing where the small claims judge said it would have to go to superior court, and funny thing after that he stopped defaming me.
Oh come on dickie, you got your ass handed to you by an octogenarian without an attorney. Everybody knows what happened.
_________________________________________________________________________________-
Maybe it never got to the point of labeling it a SLAPP but the intent was the same, you tried to use the courts to silence him because you didn't like what he was saying. How did that case resolve itself dick
________________________________________________________________________________________
RP) I used the court in an entirely proper manner. I sued to stop defamation. Free speech does not allow people to state facts that aren't true to damage a persons reputation. As I said above I dismissed without prejudice telling Jim Weber that if he continued I would take it to Superior Court and he stopped defaming me. He didn't stop criticizing my politics and that is fine. But he did stop making false factual defamatory statements.
Now I am done with you, I don't rebut your BS in any attempt to change your mind. I do it to let people know what a liar you are and what you and your allies are about, dishonest desires for power and control of KPFA. By now any rational person of minimal intelligence has seen through you.
I am sorry to hear you are done with me, I quite enjoyed this little banter with you. You be well now, ok.
Just so you know, I don't even listen to KPFA, somebody just told me about how wacky this whole kpfa section of indymedia was so I took a look and there was your truly wacky lawsuit. I searched a bunch of your posts and had a little fun with you and you really lived up to your reputation! When I found the posts about the Jim Weber suit I knew I hit pay dirt. Well good luck to you anyway.f
If this is a discussion between two of KPFA's best and brightest supporters, it's no wonder our station is in so much trouble. This sounds like two big egos trying to score points off of each other. Too much of the discourse around KPFA and Pacifica is just like that. It's sad and small-minded that listener money is wasted on this kind of drivel. Persons "in charge" of things, whether paid staff, execs, board members seem to have forgotten the listener, though lots of lip service is given to the idea of serving the listener. If no one can see past their own small agenda, if no one is willing to let go of something and meet others partway, what hope is there for our radio station? And if you can't resolve at least some of the internal battles, how do you hope to have any influence on the world around us all?
Pacifica means peaceful.
We're all good at the talk, it's time to do the walk.
Sincerely,
April Corsiva, gardener
Pacifica means peaceful.
We're all good at the talk, it's time to do the walk.
Sincerely,
April Corsiva, gardener
Honest debating of issues is a healthy practice that helps us all understand things better and get closer to the solutions to problems and helps us understand better where the people we are involved with are coming from. Anonymous distortions and slanderous lies move things backwards and not forward toward a better collective understanding.
Here is the long standing case law on the duty of loyalty. I don't make things up.
XUM SPEEGLE, Inc. v. FIELDS (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 546, 554.
"It is settled that a director or officer of a corporation may not enter into a competing enterprise which cripples or injures the business of the corporation of which he is an officer or director. An officer or director may not seize for himself, to the detriment of his company, business opportunities in the company's line of activities which his company has an interest and prior claim to obtain. In the event that he does seize such opportunities in violation of his fiduciary duty, the corporation may claim for itself all benefits so obtained.
Here is the long standing case law on the duty of loyalty. I don't make things up.
XUM SPEEGLE, Inc. v. FIELDS (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 546, 554.
"It is settled that a director or officer of a corporation may not enter into a competing enterprise which cripples or injures the business of the corporation of which he is an officer or director. An officer or director may not seize for himself, to the detriment of his company, business opportunities in the company's line of activities which his company has an interest and prior claim to obtain. In the event that he does seize such opportunities in violation of his fiduciary duty, the corporation may claim for itself all benefits so obtained.
And you said you were done with me! You just can't resist my charms can you? You tease, what is a girl to do when you carry on like this. You just needed some time to research a little tidbit to come back with that would make me and everybody else think how smart you are. You are so cute.
But really, do you think you are going to get a jury to think that a little website that took in no money was guilty of crippling of even injuring big old KPFA. And even if they did the cite below say they can only claim the the benefits they obtained, which as of now is nothing.
Do you make your living practicing law or is it just a hobby? I hope it is just a hobby for you sake.
But really, do you think you are going to get a jury to think that a little website that took in no money was guilty of crippling of even injuring big old KPFA. And even if they did the cite below say they can only claim the the benefits they obtained, which as of now is nothing.
Do you make your living practicing law or is it just a hobby? I hope it is just a hobby for you sake.
Throwing tantrums is SOP for Richie, I mean Indybay could make a separate tag and just go wild.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/04/18663093.php?show_comments=1
"An admission by your silence that they are true." No tag backs either, I take it. You can read Richard generally sound nutty in this section of comments, and post for the zillionth time an email he probably reads every night before he goes to bed. Which of course led to...
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/23/18664903.php?show_comments=1
Richard getting warned by Indybay. Unrepentant, he reposts, I mean responds "If you have read it then don't read it again." 15 times in total Rich beat that gong. And accusing everyone of being "CL" operatives, and being cowards for not debating him in public. On, and on, and on, the same phony, hypocritical crap. Boo anonymity, but yay for Thug Hallinan Crew and anyone else who is down with ICR.
We're all down with recycling Richard, but you're doing it with the wrong things.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/04/18663093.php?show_comments=1
"An admission by your silence that they are true." No tag backs either, I take it. You can read Richard generally sound nutty in this section of comments, and post for the zillionth time an email he probably reads every night before he goes to bed. Which of course led to...
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/23/18664903.php?show_comments=1
Richard getting warned by Indybay. Unrepentant, he reposts, I mean responds "If you have read it then don't read it again." 15 times in total Rich beat that gong. And accusing everyone of being "CL" operatives, and being cowards for not debating him in public. On, and on, and on, the same phony, hypocritical crap. Boo anonymity, but yay for Thug Hallinan Crew and anyone else who is down with ICR.
We're all down with recycling Richard, but you're doing it with the wrong things.
Richard Phelps high five to you. You must be doing the right thing since you got the usual zionist swine slandering you. Keep the good job man.
CL/SAVE KPFA FOR THEMSELVES: THEY ATTACK WHAT AND WHOMEVER THEY CAN NOT CONTROL. SOP
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network