Pacifica's Kangaroo Court-Trumpite Purge In Pacifica Alex Steinberg Former Pacifica Chair

Presentation to Pacifica National Board kangaroo court

by Alex Steinberg

Note: I spoke at the “trial” scheduled for my disciplinary hearing on Aug. 14, 2025. I spoke after the presentation by PNB Secretary Julie Hewitt speaking for the “prosecution. She introduced new arguments into her presentation that were never provided in the specification of charges I received beforehand. Essentially she tried to argue the legal case of Pacifica vs New Day against the intervenors without of course any of the safeguards that a genuine legal argument in a court would provide. So she was able to make all sorts of accusations unchallenged.

Alex Steinberg 5 minute opening statement:

First of all, I am not going to argue the legal case as Julie has done. This is a dishonest attempt to present what is a collusive settlement as somehow abiding by our bylaws and by the law. The Pacifica National Board has no right to overrule a referendum that had been voted on by the membership.

And furthermore, you did not present any of these arguments to me in advance. So I am just going to reply to what I got from Julie in advance.

Introduction: Appearance under protest and violation of due process

I am appearing before this tribunal under protest, and the only reason I am appearing at all is to set the record straight. If anything, this hearing should be held in public as there is no justification for holding a secret closed-door session when I have voluntarily waived my right to confidentiality in this matter.

You have violated my due process rights by staging a disciplinary hearing without presenting a specific set of charges to which I can reply. I made the request of the PNB Secretary on 3 separate occasions to provide me with specific charges and each time the response were just vague references to my making statements that were quote “false and derogatory”. When pressed I received more vague responses. I was also asked to “provide evidence” - when it is clear that it is impossible to provide evidence about an accusation about whose content I can only guess.

Response to Charge #1

The one specific charge I am aware of is that I used Pacifica resources, i.e. an LSB meeting, to provide information to the public about a website that provides more details of the legal case some of us have launched to allow our point of view to be heard in court ahead of the ratification of the so-called settlement agreement. The website also has a donation button that can be used to contribute to the costs of the legal process. The legal action we are working on is not “against Pacifica” as the Secretary falsely claims, but is simply an attempt to petition the court to allow our voice to be heard as representing the rights of thousands of Pacifica members who voted against the Referendum.

In referring people to that website all I was doing was exercising my constitutional right of free speech in providing information critical of the actions of the Pacifica National Board and Pacifica management. To say that such actions are prohibited by members of the PNB would turn upside down the Pacifica Mission of speaking truth to power. This kind of dissenting activity among Pacificans has happened hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, including at LSB meetings and even during broadcasts. How many times have KPFA listeners been directed to various websites that are raising funds to either sue Pacifica, sue individual Board members (yes that happened to me) or file complaints to the FCC. Why am I being singled out in this previously unheard of “prohibition”?

As to the other charges against me, supposedly where I made “false and derogatory statements”, I can only guess what statements are meant. As far as I can tell 2 items are referenced in a less than straightforward manner by the PNB Secretary. In neither case are my remarks being quoted and no context is provided so this is at best a guess as I said.

Response to charge #2

The first reference in the PNB Secretary’s initial email is that I made

“…false and derogatory accusations about a notification from Pacifica management on a WPFW on the air program on May 3 [sic; 2], 2025.”

My only reference to a “notification” was when I said that,

“…the statement Ron was quoting from is thoroughly dishonest because it says these changes were adopted by the Pacifica Foundation”.

This was a reference to the so-called “press release” that was posted for public viewing on the Pacifica.org website on April 4 2025. If you read that press release it is little more than propaganda touting the benefits of the new bylaws that it claims are now the bylaws of Pacifica. I said the statement was dishonest because first of all it was still a matter of legal contention whether the Pacifica Foundation had in fact legally adopted a new set of bylaws. You should be aware that the Court had not even heard the settlement agreement at the time when the press release was posted on April 4, 2025. In fact the hearing scheduled for the settlement agreement was not until April 8, 2025. So when this item was posted there was no justification for claiming that the Pacifica Foundation had adopted these bylaws.

The news release was also dishonest because there is nothing in the Pacifica bylaws that allows a fundamental rewrite of the bylaws by a vote of the PNB without a membership referendum. There is also no path specified in the bylaws that allows bylaws amendments that require a membership referendum to be bypassed by a “negotiation” or a “mediation”. And of course this is the very issue under contention between the intervenors and the attorneys representing Pacifica and New Day.

Response to charge #3

The only other item obliquely referred to by the PNB Secretary in an email from yesterday as to my alleged “false and derogatory statements” appeared in the Secretary’s 3rd communication to the PNB where she said,

“…[See] the notice of ruling [that was sent as an attachment to the email] along with the judge's ruling from April 24, 2023, which Alex alleges to be "the end of the matter".

I am guessing that the PNB Secretary is alleging that I made “a false a derogatory statement” when I said that the Summary Judgment was “the end of the matter”. If you read my statement, particularly in the context of our legal brief in the motion to intervene it should be absolutely clear that the “matter” in question was the status of the Referendum of 2021. Judge Tavelman’s Summary Judgment declared that,

“…For Pacifica to succeed on Summary Adjudication for declaratory relief it must present evidence sufficient to establish that no triable issue of fact exists as to the voting process of the New Day Referendum, it has done so.”

Note: I was forced to stop here due to exhausting my allotted 5 minutes. I concluded my remarks in my allotted 3 minutes for a closing argument. Prior to my closing argument Julie Hewitt made a closing argument that introduced about a dozen new “examples” of my “false and derogatory” statements that she never bothered to specify previously. Julie’s closing statement, like her opening statement, were peppered with misrepresentations and false statements as to the facts of the case Pacifica vs. New Day and my role in it. I decided not to get distracted by this blatant disregard of due process and to stick to completing the remarks which I had prepared.

Alex resuming his presentation as part of his 3 minute closing argument:

I just want to say that Julie's dishonesty has just now been exhibited by saying I did not reply to her specific charges. She never gave me those specific charges.

So I just want to conclude what I was saying before. I was reading from Judge Tavelman's Summary Judgment which said,

“…For Pacifica to succeed on Summary Adjudication for declaratory relief it must present evidence sufficient to establish that no triable issue of fact exists as to the voting process of the New Day Referendum, it has done so.”

We did not claim that the entire case Pacifica vs New Day had been resolved because there were cross complaints lodged by New Day that were not directly related to the status of the Referendum, for instance, the disqualification of a number of candidates running for the LSB in KPFK. These were the topics that can and should have been, mediated, not the status of the referendum. But as far as whether or not the Referendum had been defeated, Judge Tavelman’s Summary Judgment absolutely should have been the end of the matter. Furthermore when I wrote those words they were not mine to begin with. I copied them directly from Pacifica’s former Attorney Arthur Schwartz when he filed a brief in the case on his last day as Pacifica’s Attorney before he was summarily terminated on or about March 13, 2025. Please see the exhibit I attached of Arthur Schwartz’s brief on this matter.

So that is my response to the vague and unspecified charges lodged against me.

False statements made by Officers of the PNB and the Pacifica ED

To save time I will not go over the false statements made at two PNB meetings by Officers of the PNB and our Executive Director that there were “no records from WBAI” validating the eligibility of WBAI staff to vote in the 2021. You can find the evidence in the exhibit I sent. This was important because it became a key argument for why Pacifica should abandon its previous defense of the Summary Judgment declaring the Referendum had been defeated and take the side of New Day that there was something “tainted” with the WBAI staff vote.

I would like to ask Julie and Susan and Stephanie,

“Why did you not even ask the National Election Supervisor if she had any evidence that the WBAI staff vote had been validated?”

You never even bothered to ask and you claim that there were “no records” at WBAI. This is completely dishonest and you made false statements and you did a disservice to Pacifica and I'm calling you out on it.

In conclusion I want to emphasize that the attempt by a small group of the Pacifica National Board to silence me is intimately involved with their attempt to avoid accountability for their own actions.

Former Chair, Pacifica National Board, Former Chair, National Finance Committee of the Pacifica National Board, Former Chair, Strategic Planning Committee of the Pacifica National Board, Former Chair, Personnel Committee of the Pacifica National Board. Author and Educator.

--

Subject: Re: Notice of disciplinary hearing




I have received the notice from the Pacifica National Board Secretary, Julie Hewitt, that the PNB is moving ahead to try to throw me off the PNB and that you have scheduled a "trial" on Aug. 14 to determine my fate. I have not however received any specific information as to what the charges are. Exactly what "defamations" and "false statements" are you claiming I have made at the WPFW broadcast of May 3 (or May 2.) You have ignored my due process rights, rights that go back as far as the Magna Carta. Where is a transcript of the program and exactly which statements made by me are you claiming are "defamatory" and "false"? I cannot respond to statements claiming I made false statements unless I know which statements you claim are false and furthermore I would also need to see what evidence you have, if any, that the alleged statements are indeed false.

As for the WBAI LSB meeting of May 14, since when is it a crime to refer people to a website at a public meeting of the WBAI LSB? This is done all the time at LSB meetings and we have never called out anyone for doing so because we don't agree with the website's message.

Furthermore the website to which I referred people is not and never was engaged in a legal action "against Pacifica". The only legal action we have been contemplating is requesting that the Court add six members of Pacifica as intervenors to the case Pacifica vs. New Day. Since Pacifica entered into the collusive "settlement agreement" with Goodman/New Day the voices of those who opposed the agreement have been silenced. We have a right as members of Pacifica who voted against the Referendum in 2021, to be represented in Court prior to any "settlement". The New Day supporters on the Pacifica National Board made that impossible by firing Attorney Arthur Schwartz on March 13, 2025 and doing a 180 degree turn on Pacifica's official position toward New Day. Prior to that date Pacifica defended the Summary Judgment issued by Judge Tavelman in 2023 that declared that the Bylaws Referendum had been defeated. Pacifica went to court against Jan Goodman of New Day on numerous occasions to defend the integrity of the vote on the New Day Referendum. However, on March 13, 2025 Pacifica suddenly took the opposite position and therefore abandoned the rights of those of us who voted against the Referendum. The only legal remedy those of us who opposed this collusive settlement was to ask the Court to add us as Intervenors into the case since Pacifica was no longer representing our rights and of course the other party in the legal case, Goodman/New Day, never represented our rights. Pacifica's new attorney, working with Jan Goodman, then deliberately engaged in a legal maneuver to shut down our attempt to be added as intervenors into the case by coming to a mutually agreed upon "dismissal" of the case on May 27, 2025, prior to a previously scheduled Court hearing on July 3 on the settlement agreement and before we had a chance to file our motion to intervene - which we did on June 4, 2025. If you claim that this kind of legal skullduggery is a model of fairness and due process then all I can say is that your attorney should apply for a job in Trump's Department of Justice.

What also strikes me is the sheer hypocrisy of the group that is claiming our attempt to get the Court to hear our side of the story is an action "against Pacifica". This is the same group of people who supported the legal actions of Jan Goodman/New Day against Pacifica that have so far cost Pacifica hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. It is largely the same group that either backed directly or approved of the complaint to the FCC by a group originating from KPFA, including some who are currently members of the KPFA LSB, who asked the FCC to reject WBAI's license renewal application. It is the same group that engaged in a frivolous lawsuit against myself and former PNB member Grace Aaron that also cost Pacifica at least $100K in legal bills. I would also remind everyone that we have broadcasters ( I will not name anyone here) who in the past urged their listeners, on the air, to end their financial support of Pacifica stations. Not only did those broadcasters get away with this blatant provocation against Pacifica, they are today considered valuable broadcasters at some of our stations. By way of contrast, we never asked people to stop donating to Pacifica. In fact some of us are very active in fund raising activity for our local stations. Finally we should recall the events of October 2019, when a faction on the PNB - not a majority - shut down WBAI and turned it into a repeater station. They also fired all WBAI staff members. This was an illegal action that was reversed through a Court Order a month later when the PNB majority succeeded in removing the Executive Director who took that action. Jan Goodman, later the voice of New Day, was one of the Directors who supported that action, an action that cost Pacifica something like $1 million in lost revenue and legal fees. If you want to know why 99% of WBAI staff voted against the New Day Referendum all you have to do is recall the events of 2019.

I look forward to my day in "court" and to hearing the charges against me and your supporting evidence.
I will have witnesses and a legal representative, but I will argue my own case.

I will also be asking the PNB to open the "trial" to the public. I am waiving all my rights to privacy as I think it would be an important educational mission for the public to hear what is going on in an institution that claims to be progressive.

Alex Steinberg, listener member (for now) of the Pacifica National Board, listener representative of the WBAI Local Station Board
Former Chair, Pacifica National Board, Former Chair, National Finance Committee of the Pacifica National Board, Former Chair, Strategic Planning Committee of the Pacifica National Board, Former Chair, Personnel Committee of the Pacifica National Board. Author and Educator.


On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 9:14 PM Pacifica National Board Secretary wrote:
Dear Alex,
This email is based on a motion passed by the Pacifica National Board in Executive Session at its July 10, 2025 meeting.
You, Alexander Steinberg, are hereby cited to appear before the Pacifica National Board in an Executive Session via Zoom on August 14, 2025 at 8:30 pm ET for a disciplinary hearing to show cause why you should not be suspended for a designated period of time, be removed from the Pacifica National Board or have your Pacific membership be revoked by the Pacifica Executive Director at the request of the PNB on the following charge and specification:
Charge: Actions that are adverse to the best interest of the Pacifica Foundation Inc.
Specification: The Defendant allegedly made false and derogatory accusations about a notification from Pacifica management on a WPFW on the air program on May 3 [sic; 2], 2025 and misused Pacifica meeting resources at the May 14, 2025 WBAI Local Station Board Meeting to refer members to a website raising money for legal action against the Pacifica Foundation Inc.
Notice of Procedures
You may be represented by yourself, another PNB Director or by an attorney, and may bring up to 2 witnesses. You may be called as a witness.
If you wish to have a representative or witnesses, you must notify the PNB Secretary at secretary [at] pacifica.org by August 6, 2025 of the name, phone number and email address of the person representing you and the names, phone number and email addresses of proposed witnesses.
This process is scheduled to last for one hour.
The Pacifica National Board and the representative of the or the person being charged will each have up to 5 minutes for opening remarks and up to 3 minutes for a closing statement with a maximum time of 5 minutes for questioning and testimony of each witness.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the information in this email.
Thank you,
Julie Hewitt
Secretary, PNB