Pacifica lawsuit drags on

Because this matter is being made public, I believe it is appropriate to respond. (1) When the lawsuit was filed in November 2007, the judge made an initial ruling that the ballots should not be counted until "all eligible voters" (not just the Cohen plaintiffs) be allowed to vote. (2) National Elections Supervisor Casey Peters decided (with my approval) not to contest the ruling and to keep the polling open while informing WBAI members of their opportunity to vote. He had replacement ballots sent out to the plaintiffs and anyone else who asked for them. In some cases several replacement ballots were mailed because people said they did not receive them. As it turned out some of the plaintiffs were not on the membership list because they made NO financial contributions to Pacifica and claimed that they were members because of their volunteering to serve on the WBAI LSB. This is apparently a new and novel interpretation of the Bylaws, which do allow people to become members by volunteering at a Pacifica station. (3) The lawsuit could have ended then, but the Cohen plaintiffs insisted that Pacifica violate the judge's order by counting only those ballots that had been received by November 16, 2007, and those cast by people who requested replacement ballots by that date. Casey Peters (with my approval) decided to count all ballots cast by eligible members, regardless of when they were received. (4) In order to placate the Cohen plaintiffs and try to bring this litigation to an end, I had the ballots counted both ways - that is all ballots received and just those received by November 16 plus replacements requested by that date. As it turned out, THE RESULTS WERE THE SAME. No matter how the ballots were counted, the same people were elected to the WBAI LSB. The only change was in the order of the first few alternates, which will only have an impact if there is a vacancy on the LSB. (5) Nonetheless, with so little at stake, the Cohen plaintiffs continue this lawsuit. They have added new issues. They want a copy of the membership list, which has always been kept confidential to maintain the privacy of Pacifica's members. (In the 1960's the Supreme Court ruled that the government of Louisiana could not compel the NAACP to turn over a copy of its membership list.) Reluctantly, we have allowed them to examine the list, but not copy it. They have also raised complaints about a handful of members who were granted dues waivers because of lack of resources, even though the committee that granted the waivers was approved by all factions on the WBAI LSB. (6) What drives me somewhat crazy about all this is that the Cohen plaintiffs and their allies won the election and now control the WBAI LSB and its seats on the Pacifica National Board. I have urged them to declare victory and walk away. Instead, they are pursuing a case that has already cost our poverty-stricken network almost $100.000, and want us to pay their attorneys fees in about the same amount as the price of settlement. Even if the network wanted to make a settlement on the basis they demand, we would have to consider that anyone who felt disadvantaged by the settlement could then jump in and continue the case. I am ready, willing, and able to sit down with the Cohen plaintiffs and their attorneys in a private or public forum to resolve this case and end the bleeding. I am frustrated at the personal attacks. Nothing I have done was based on an effort to help either side in the election. I am on the side of Pacifica and its resources. If a meeting does not produce a settlement, Mitch Cohen and I can arm wrestle. Dan Siegel

Siegel's self-serving and misleading reply was brought to my attention less than an hour ago. Glad somebody turned over a rock so we could see what was crawling under it.

This in itself should be grounds for Siegel's dismissal as counsel to Pacifica: "...claimed that they were members because of their volunteering to serve on the WBAI LSB. This is apparently a new and novel interpretation of the Bylaws, which do allow people to become members by volunteering at a Pacifica station...."

And this should perhaps be grounds for his disbarment:

"...The lawsuit could have ended then, but the Cohen plaintiffs insisted that Pacifica violate the judge's order by counting only those ballots that had been received by November 16, 2007, and those cast by people who requested replacement ballots by that date..."

The lawsuit could have ended then if Siegel et al. had done would was "requested": send replacement ballots to all those who had requested them by Nov. 15, and give them adequate time to cast their votes.

Disbarment? For mis-representing what the judge ordered.

Raising suspicions of collusion: "...Casey Peters (with my approval) decided to count all ballots cast by eligible members, regardless of when they were received..."

Knowing Casey, one has to question whether the "approval" for this (and for his prior violations of the ByLaws) came after or BEFORE the act.

This is misleading in two ways: "...In order to placate the Cohen plaintiffs and try to bring this litigation to an end, I had the ballots counted both ways - that is all ballots received and just those received by November 16 plus replacements requested by that date. As it turned out, THE RESULTS WERE THE SAME. No matter how the ballots were counted, the same people were elected to the WBAI LSB. The only change was in the order of the first few alternates, which will only have an impact if there is a vacancy on the LSB. Nonetheless, with so little at stake, the Cohen plaintiffs continue this lawsuit..."

[1] They have NOT YET counted the votes of people whose votes they prevented originally (i.e. by failing to give them ballots).

[2] He tries to obscure that what is at stake is not results of a particular election, but the integrity of the entire election process at Pacifica, and exposure of his role in corrupting that integrity.

Another reason for his dismissal as Pacifica counsel and disbarment as an attorney: "...They have added new issues. They want a copy of the membership list, which has always been kept confidential to maintain the privacy of Pacifica's members..."

This is not a new issue. This is a lawful request made many months ago, one which should have been complied with on its own right, with or without any connection to the suit to compel Pacifica to count the votes of those whose ballots were denied them. There is precedent for Siegel's law-breaking in this specific area: the violation of ByLaws by delayed mailing of ballots came directly out of Siegel's illegal delay (and un-necessary complication) of Steve Brown's request for a mailing to the list over a year ago. How many times can one lawyer break the law and escape disbarment? And continue to serve as counsel to the foundation his law-breaking puts in jeopardy?

This is typical JUC race-baiting innuendo (as well as being entirely irrelevant): "...In the 1960's the Supreme Court ruled that the government of Louisiana could not compel the NAACP to turn over a copy of its membership list..."

This is misleading as well as being irrelevant: "...Reluctantly, we have allowed them to examine the list, but not copy it..."

They set absurd requirements which allowed only a token "examination" and ignored the LEGAL right (provided by Pacifica ByLaws and the California Corporate Code) to MAKE COPIES if our purpose requires it. (They even set restrictions on what NOTES we could make.)

Here is an outright lie. I would LO-O-O-O-V-E to see him asked to state this under oath: "...They have also raised complaints about a handful of members who were granted dues waivers because of lack of resources, even though the committee that granted the waivers was approved by all factions on the WBAI LSB..."

Or maybe it's not a lie. Maybe it's just (as it is so often) "just" self-serving "incompetence". In any case, it MIS-STATES THE FACTS, as testified to in the Affidavit submitted by Kathy Davis.

[1] The "committee" was strongly protested, because it was not the full committee.

[2] Even if "the committee" had been properly constituted (i.e. the full committee), it's approval of the waivers would have violated the Bylaws. Moreover, the circumstances of the submission of these "waiver requests" so strongly "suggests" a blatant attempt to pad the voter rolls with unqualified and JUC-recruited "members" as to make one barf: 32, all offered free memberships by Cerene Roberts at a meeting (in Newark, I believe) and mailed en masse in IDENTICAL ENVELOPES AND HAND-WRITING from the same location. And, unfortunately or their vote-padding scheme, mailed too late and approved to late to meet Bylaws stipulation of approval by August 31, 2007.

Here is the nitty-gritty of Siegel's disregard for violation of principle and of bylaws: "...What drives me somewhat crazy about all this is that the Cohen plaintiffs and their allies won the election and now control the WBAI LSB and its seats on the Pacifica National Board. I have urged them to declare victory and walk away..."

One can say "he just doesn't get it" or one can say this is Siegel's soul-killing cynicism in practice: representing it as who gets the political advantage rather than whether Pacifica's management acts within the ByLaws or violates Bylaws whenever it serves THEIR political and/or financial advantage.

This is disgustingly disingenuous: "...Instead, they are pursuing a case that has already cost our poverty-stricken network almost $100.000..."

He knows full well that the case could have been ended a week or two after the Temporary Restraining Order was filed, simply by doing what he should have done to begin with: send replacement ballots to all who had requested them before the LEGAL DEADLINE. Cost to Pacifica? At most $1000--$2000 legal fees (for their lawyers; we would have paid our own costs) + (at most) $100 or $200 postal service (first-class or Priority Mail mailings).

This is a lie, so far as I can determine: "...and want us to pay their attorneys fees in about the same amount as the price of settlement..."

I challenge forked-tongue Siegel to say (under oath) where or when we gave him or anyone else any such absurd estimate --- or any estimate at all, for that matter.

As for the fees SIEGEL's lawyers are charging: how much do you suppose they charged NOT to show up in court LAST FRIDAY with the documents they PROMISED to produce? The judge may indeed require a financial penalty for such "frivolity". How much have they charged for ALL THE OTHER OCCASIONS they have "promised" to produce documents and said "we don't have them" and then (after we subpoened the mailing house Siegel and his cronies picked) suddenly "found" and promised to to give us BUT BACKED OUT OF MEETING AFTER MEETING, promising to give them to us "next time", "later" --- how much do they charge for THIS service to Pacifica?

Is this a THREAT? "...Even if the network wanted to make a settlement on the basis they demand, we would have to consider that anyone who felt disadvantaged by the settlement could then jump in and continue the case..."

Gee, who might that be? Would Siegel feel "disadvantaged" by having his role in this sordid affair revealed to scrutiny? Or does he mean that the JUC (who have already been "disadvantaged" by losses even in a rigged election) would be "disadvantaged" by some increment in further loss if VALID votes were counted?

This is a real pile of crap: "...I am ready, willing, and able to sit down with the Cohen plaintiffs and their attorneys in a private or public forum to resolve this case and end the bleeding..."

Siegel's lawyers have already "sat down" with us (sometimes) or failed to "sit down" with us (at several other times) and have rejected repeated proposals for resolution.

As for Siegel's performance in a Public Forum, I still recall his MIS-STATING the terms of our suit at the Newark PNB open session (god knows what he said in subsequent closed sessions from which an "unfriendly" director WAS EXCLUDED).

Mis-stated: "...I am frustrated at the personal attacks..."

No, he is frustrated by his inability to obscure his role in this fiasco to a tolerable level of exculpation.

THIS REMAINS TO BE SEEN: "...Nothing I have done was based on an effort to help either side in the election..."

THIS IS CONTRADICTED BY HIS HISTORY OF BAD ADVICE AND BAD ACTIONS: "...I am on the side of Pacifica and its resources..."

Ha-ha-ha: "...If a meeting does not produce a settlement, Mitch Cohen and I can arm wrestle..."

After Mitch, there's me and then there are seven more plaintiffs lined up to take him on. I think a head wrestle is more to the point, but if he's more confident of his arm, so be it.

--Frank LeFever

I sure hope that Dan Siegel's offer to settle "the Cohen lawsuit" by holding a meeting with plaintiffs and their attorney (that's me!) encompasses his giving sworn testimony at a deposition. This latest letter clearly demonstrates the reasons why the nine plaintiffs still press this lawsuit: Dan Siegel remains truth-challenged.

Siegel writes: "(1) When the lawsuit was filed in November 2007, the judge made an initial ruling that the ballots should not be counted until "all eligible voters" (not just the Cohen plaintiffs) be allowed to vote....(3) The lawsuit could have ended then, but the Cohen plaintiffs insisted that Pacifica violate the judge's order by counting only those ballots that had been received by November 16, 2007, and those cast by people who requested replacement ballots by that date. Casey Peters (with my approval) decided to count all ballots cast by eligible members, regardless of when they were received."

The truth is: Judge Braun never has made any ruling in this lawsuit telling Pacifica how to count the ballots. A fortiori, when the issue of how to count the votes came up, it was not within the realm of things possible that "the Cohen plaintiffs insisted that Pacifica violate the judge's order" when there is no order determining which ballots should be counted. But let's not let the facts interfere with the spinning of a good yarn. Plaintiffs also resent the innuendo that they asked the Court to count only the ballots of "the Cohen plaintiffs." Plaintiffs are seeking that Pacifica count all the ballots of all persons who sought a replacement ballot by November 15 - and that includes members of all factions.

Siegel writes: "(2)...As it turned out some of the plaintiffs were not on the membership list because they made NO financial contributions to Pacifica and claimed that they were members because of their volunteering to serve on the WBAI LSB. This is apparently a new and novel interpretation of the Bylaws, which do allow people to become members by volunteering at a Pacifica station."

The truth is: The bylaws and board resolutions provide that membership in Pacifica may be earned through volunteering (something no one told any of the fraudulent waiver applicants) and that each station shall have a volunteer coordinator whose job it is to make sure that the volunteer work of all members is credited for the purpose of placing their name on the list of members eligible to vote. There is nothing novel or new about this and plaintiff Mitchel Cohen actually confirmed that this was Casey Peters' understanding of the bylaws in August 2007, i.e. BEFORE THE ELECTION. Also, as it turned out, the majority of the plaintiffs are dues-paying members whose names apparently were not on the list of members used by Casey Peters to mail out ballots. Still, Pacifica refuses to admit that these dues-paying members' names were not on the membership list. Dan Siegel refuses to admit as much and has been hiding the documentary evidence that would show as much. It should not find it surprising that plaintiffs find such obfuscation of the truth to be troubling and something that continues to stand in the way of the prompt settlement of this case.

Siegel writes: "(4)...I had the ballots counted both ways."

The truth is: There are more than two ways to count the ballots, Siegel knows it, Siegel has not counted the ballots in the manner demanded by the plaintiffs, and plaintiffs cannot yet determine what the results of the election would have been had it been run in accordance with the bylaws.

Siegel writes: (5)...They have added new issues. They want a copy of the membership list, which has always been kept confidential to maintain the privacy of Pacifica's members. (In the 1960's the Supreme Court ruled that the government of Louisiana could not compel the NAACP to turn over a copy of its membership list.) Reluctantly, we have allowed them to examine the list, but not copy it.

The truth is: This issue was added last year (almost two months before Casey Peters (with Dan Siegel's approval) decided not to contest plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction). Dan, how much did Pacifica spend in attorney's fees between November 16, 2007 and January 24, 2008 when you finally consented to the entry against Pacifica of the preliminary injunction that plaintiff's requested on November 16, 2007? Furthermore, plaintiffs are not the government of Louisiana; they are members of Pacifica and are entitled to the WBAI membership list pursuant to New York and California law. Bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. NAACP, and cognizant that plaintiffs are MEMBERS OF PACIFICA entitled to the membership list of Pacifica under both New York and California law, on October 24, 2008, Judge Braun granted plaintiff's motion for an order compelling Pacifica Foundation to provide plaintiffs with a copy of the WBAI membership list. How many motions must plaintiffs bring and prevail upon before Pacifica learns how to capitulate? Capitulation is what you do when you are dead wrong and want to save attorney's fees. It was an option available on November 16 and that would have saved Pacifica at least $100,000 had it been taken at that time. Dan Siegel is responsible for the decision of Pacifica to fight this lawsuit and pay their lawyers $100,000 instead of settling it on the terms proposed by plaintiffs.

Siegel writes: "(5)...They have also raised complaints about a handful of members who were granted dues waivers because of lack of resources, even though the committee that granted the waivers was approved by all factions on the WBAI LSB."

The truth is: There is no evidence that the majority of persons granted dues waivers were granted those waivers because they lacked the necessary resources to become a member. Or that it was impossible for them to earn membership by volunteering. Lack of resources is not enough to entitle one to a dues waiver; one must also demonstrate that they are unable to volunteer time and earn membership that way. What the evidence does show is that a JUC operative (Cerene Roberts) attended a public meeting in Newark, New Jersey, the day before the deadline for the GRANTING of waivers and procured 90% of the waiver applications that were filled-out by persons who could not identify either the call letters of the radio station or the frequency upon which it broadcasts. Rather, those persons were chosen because that JUC operative felt these voters could be persuaded to vote for the JUC slate. This is the most blatant case of vote-rigging I have ever personally witnessed. Excuse the plaintiffs for wanting a clean election. When will Dan Siegel admit that plaintiffs caught Cerene Roberts stuffing the ballot box with ballots cast by persons who never listened to the station in their lives?

Siegel writes: "(6)...I have urged them to declare victory and walk away. Instead, they are pursuing a case that has already cost our poverty-stricken network almost $100.000, and want us to pay their attorneys fees in about the same amount as the price of settlement."

The truth is: To date, plaintiffs never have made any demands for payment of attorney's fees in settlement of this case that provided for Pacifica to pay a sum of money anywhere near the $100,000 that Pacifica's attorneys have billed it. In informal settlement discussions earlier this month wherein the first requirement was capitulation to all of plaintiffs' demands in the lawsuit, one plaintiff did float the number of $20,000 for attorneys fees. Pacifica rejected this offer by failing to accept it in a timely manner. Plaintiffs continue to win everything they have asked for in their complaint one item at a time. The next tab it will have to pick up is the cost of flying Siegel, Peters and Ratner to NYC for depositions next month and pay their attorneys to stand around while I ask Siegel and Peters where all the bodies lie. I can hardly wait to get Dan Siegel under oath where he will have to tell the truth as to why he delayed Steve Brown's ACE mailing and the WBAI ballots and why he dismissed Peters as NES and appointed someone who could not rule on the outstanding Fair Election complaints! I bet there is a boat load of regret somewhere in this organization that Pacifica did not meet our demands on or about November 25, which was the date of the first appearance by its attorneys in this case. Instead, it was Pacifica that ignored the bylaws establishing November 15 as the last day for ballots. Let there be no doubt: the election was extended for the benefit of the JUC get-out-the-vote operation and not to benefit the persons who were not mailed ballots. The election results bear this conclusion out where approximately 2/3 of all ballots cast after November 15 were for JUC candidates whereas they received quite a bit less than 50% of the ballots cast before November 15.

Dan Siegel is a piece of work and I lack sufficient time to enumerate all of his fantasies and provide you with the actual facts. But it is all a matter of public record down at the records roomof the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York. The index number is 115399/2007. You can look it up.

Tiffington Chauncy Gardner, Exsq. is opposed to the poor and opposed to free speech. He feels himself dutifully qualified to determine who is entitled to a hardship waiver based on low income status and who not. Why do rich people like Tiffington Chauncy Gardner, Exsq. always try to define the identity of the poor themselves? Because they want to keep them poor so they can continue to be rich and lord it over everybody. How sad and pathetic.
Tiffington Chauncy Gardner, Exsq. also threatened to sue a woman of color who is a longtime WBAI supporter and programmer for defamation since she rightfully lumped the various (generally white, generally middle class, generally middle aged, generally male -- and not unlike Tiffington Chauncy Gardner, Exsq. himself) members of the gang trying to gain hegemony for themselves at WBAI into a recognizable whole, that has gone under various names these past several years in an effort to dupe the membership of WBAI. The woman of color however didn't blink and kowtow to the white male wealth and legal threats and Tiffington Chauncy Gardner, Exsq. eventually stopped threatening her.
But suing people at WBAI for exercising free speech is nothing new to Tiffington Chauncy Gardner, Exsq., since he tried that technique some years ago against a current labor issues programmer and a now deceased progream director". That oen didn't fly either.
And now he's the hired gun for the white middle male hit squad aimed at deracinating WBAI.
Seems like Tiffington Chauncy Gardner, Exsq. is a severe anal retentive.

The sad truth is that the plaintiffs, those great defenders of white privilege, have literally cost real working people their jobs. I have never heard (or read) a non-racist use the phrase "race-baiting". (See above.)

<i>I have never heard (or read) a non-racist use the phrase "race-baiting". (See above.)</i>

Well, you just used it.

I loved that Bob Dylan talk-song when I first heard it tripping on mescaline, y'know, "Dan was ridin' on the Mayflower when he thought he spied some land .... "

I have the same reaction (sans the mesc, sadly, longingly) reading Pacifica Network attorney Dan "Ahab" Siegel's jumble of wild images and tall tales.

The point in our lawsuit is simple. The nine plaintiffs -- one for every position on the ballfield -- were and still are members of WBAI/Pacifica but weren't sent ballots.

We asked for them, they said "Who's on first?" 'n told us "the ballot's in the mail" but they lied. They pitched again: "What's on second?," swing and a miss. "I don't know's on third!" hmmm. Quick pitch. And then it started raining. This rain delay went on all last winter and into the Spring. Siegel, as Bud Abbot, was helping Lou Costello try to steal the election for Lex Luther and his band of evil-doers, so we went to court.

Siegel and Pacifica aren't used to people fighting on principle against their shenanigans, and sticking with it. So instead of settling right off the bat, they tried the old strategy of trying to bankrupt the Plaintiffs (me and 8 other WBAI listeners and staff). They'd stall, and stonewall, then try to steal third (but I don't know's on third!) and set up invisible meetings -- and all the while Siegel's lawyers in NYC would be billing Pacifica and filing motions to throw us all in jail for carrying harpoons!

In reality, all Siegel's strategy did was bankrupt Pacifica. The Judge threw out their motion trying to force us to pay THEM. But just then a bowling ball came down the road and knocked me off my feet. A pay phone was ringing, it just about blew my mind when I picked it up and said hello Siegel's foot came through the line.

And the PNB sings right along. They'd rather ally with Lex Luther than admit they were wrong, and shit all over the members.

Not this time.

Well, the last I heard of Ahab he was stuck on a whale that was married to the deputy sheriff of the jail. But the funniest thing was when I was leavin' the bay I saw five stations sailin' in complete disarray, I asked the captain what his name was and how come he didn't drive a truck
He said his name was Dan Siegel. I just said, "Good luck."

Siegel's lawyers failed to show up in court last Friday. As a result, the defendants are directed to allow plaintiff James Ross to inspect and copy the membership list of Pacifica Foundation.

(And they damned well better do it within the next three weeks.)

The judge further ordered that defendants shall produce documents we asked for (i.e. "demanded in discovery"), including plaintiff's First Demand for Discovery and Inspection, dated December 14, 2007. They have less than three weeks to comply.

Think about it --- we asked for some documents which would be necessary to answer such basic questions as:

[1] "Were people who complained of not receiving ballots INCLUDED in the original ballot mailing?"

[2] "How many people requested replacement ballots before the legally mandated deadline for voting, and who were they?

[3] "How many people were sent replacement ballots? Were their votes counted?"

In mid-December, a month after the legally-mandated close of elections, they said they did not have that information.

Months later, after we subpoenaed the mailing house, they suddenly discovered that they DID have that information. They "promised" to give it to us several times, but each time broke the promise.

The meter was running. They were charging Pacifica for nearly a year of refusing to do what the judge finally had to ORDER them to do.

Did PACIFICA gain anything from holding back this information for nearly a year? Or was it only Siegel and his lawyers who gained something?

The judge will also let us supplement our amended complaint.

--Frank LeFever

Dan Siegel responds to Mitchel Cohen's well traveled letter once it's posted on Indybay (where Siegel lives) and then the plaintiffs and even plaintiffs' lawyer runs to jump on him all at once.
They are some desperate folk, obviously.

Dan Siegel responds to Mitchel Cohen's well traveled letter once it's posted on Indybay (where Siegel lives) and then the plaintiffs and even plaintiffs' lawyer runs to jump on him all at once. They are some desperate folk, obviously. You got it. Desperate for truth. Desperate to save Pacifica from those seeking to destroy it. Amazing how whenever folks move to defend their rights there are always some folks who attack them, instead of the perpetrators of injustice. If Siegel et al. are truly interested in helping Pacifica, he would have said "you know, you're right, here's a ballot. Sorry 'bout that." Then no lawsuit would have been filed. And now we find that Siegel and his attorneys in NYC are bilking Pacifica out of $100,000 for trying to stop these members of Pacifica from receiving ballots and running a clean election? Um, one-hundred-thousand-dollars!? As I asked in the letter that opened this thread, Who is minding the store? Mitchel Cohen

Fw: [Fulcrumsofchange] Dan Siegel's letter on IndyBay.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PacificaRadiowaves/message/5116

seigel wrote:
<em>
Do you have any idea how much money I have billed in total on the Cohen case? The total is $3307.50. How much do you believe was billed for "deliberate delays?" The answer is zero.
</em>

what about the 61K billed by mondo NYC law firm skadden arps as of september 2007?

Well Dan...you should know. It was your original lawsuit AGAINST Pacifica and the intellectually dishonest conspiracy you helped form to take over this institution was the source of Pacifica's current malaise. Those malicious lawsuits cost the network millions and forced out many of our most talented staff, programmers and volunteers over the seven years since you "won" through a coerced and unethical "Settlement." Even that Settlement was breach time and again after your takeover. I only wish that Pacifica had had it's day in Court back then. We were one month short of a Jury trial, but the street thug tactics of you Plaintiffs had manged to nearly bankrupt the network and there was no one left to fight for Pacifica. I believe that you all would have lost the case and Pacifica could have recovered, adding new stations and actually playing a meaningful role in our society for these past seven years. Instead, we are at an all time low, shrinking support, losing listeners, losing credibility, peddling all those fear-mongering DVDs and allowing knuckleheads to spew anti-white, anti-West and anti-intellectual programming year after year. But now the local board members are too busy with their own elections and their hapless attempts at being the sole Trustees of a hundred million dollar+ enterprise.....tasks which they are are sorely unqualified to take on. Your acts and claims have cost the network almost a decade in lost momentum and lost opportunities. You have also profited from suing this institution. I think a citizen's Grand Jury ought to look into the whole mess. I blame you, Dave Adelson, Lydia Brazon, Carol Spooner, Gregory Wonderwheel, Lyn Gerry, Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, Leslie Cagen, Dan Coughlin, Bernard White and other self-appointed "listener activists" and former "banned and fired" as the persons most responsible for the chaos of the past seven years. You people managed to hoodwink the California Attorney General, tens of thousands of long time listeners, lawmakers and progressive media outlets from coast to coast through fear mongering and disinformation....all in an effort to scare everyone to death over a so-called "evil corporate board" which, like a lynch mob, you set out to destroy. Like all WARS, your WAR has cost us dearly. I truly wish you'd leave and take the rediculous new bylaws and the blotched new "democractic structure" that isn't working and CANNOT work with you. As long as you are still around, you will be an obstacle to the restructing that is so necessary . But before you leave, you should apologize for what you've done and offer to set right the mess you've made, including the hterrible mistakes you made in "representing" Pacifica in a myriad of employee lawsuits and management crises, which have also costs us dearly. And maybe you could save us some cash, now, by convincing Amy Goodman to donate the daily Democracy Now! program during Pacifica's financial crises, considering that she was gifted the entire enterprise in a secret backroom deal among friends so long ago during the "struggle" that you helped lead. Ms. Goodman is sitting on an estimated 6 million in cash and assets, none of which would have been possible without the hijacking of this network. Seems to me that both of you could afford to give back for a change. She can give us the show for a while so that we can pay for necessary staff, and you could take your recent lawsuits against local collages and the Pacifica lawsuits and just leave....sparing us from even one more day of your "services." Isn't there some other non-profit group that you can turn your, ahem, attention to? Please!?