CAN ANYBODY SAY SLAP-SUIT!
...made in america
Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We are not the advice you need regarding this. We are not attorneys. If you
have received notification and have reason to believe that you could be served,
this might be a good time
to seek the advise of legal counsel.
hudsonhemingway <hudsonhemingway@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd like to hear from people other than the 9 "Plaintiffs" in Cohen v
Pacifica.
I'd like to know if any of my fellow Pacificans think I should be sued
for libel in a court of law/
Do YOU support this threatened suit? Yes, or No?
Sheila Hamanaka
Producer, WBAI
The following was received 10 1/2 hours after I posted an email to
Rockland Friends of WBAI stating that Carolyn Birden had failed in her
attempt to get officially sanctioned members of the WBAI Local Station
Board thrown off the Pacifica National Board. I also quoted Dan
Siegel's comments about the WBAI lawsuit.
Begin forwarded message:
From: tjhillgardner <tjhillgardner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 26 January, 2008 22:48:31 EST
To: sheila hamanaka <hamanaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: FLASH! ACE FAILS TO UNSEAT LEGIT BOARD MEMBERS
Dear Ms. Hamanaka,
I represent the plaintiffs in Cohen v. Pacifica Foundation
and I write to demand that you publicly retract the false statements
of fact that you made concerning the identity of the litigants in
that case.
In public statements you have written and implied that the
plaintiffs are members of the Alliance for Community Elections
(ACE). This is false, you know that it is false, and your statements
appear malicious and designed solely to injure plaintiffs and their
reputation. However, because of the "war" by you and your
constituents waged against ACE, you apparently find it convenient to
distort the truth for you and your faction's political advantage to
falsely claim that ACE and the plaintiffs in the Cohen litigation are
one and the same. This is beyond childish or stupid ? it is libelous.
None of the plaintiffs are members of ACE and ACE is not a
financier of plaintiffs' litigation. It is that simple and I cannot
be clearer.
Furthermore, to the extent that you repeat the canard that
the object of the plaintiffs' suit is to secure only to the
plaintiffs a right to cast ballots, this is also a complete falsehood
and exposes you to liability for defamation.
If you do not issue a public retraction announcing that you
falsely claimed the plaintiffs and "ACE" are one and the same, and
admitting that none of the plaintiffs are members of ACE, that ACE is
not financing the plaintiffs' litigation, and that the object of the
plaintiffs' lawsuit is to guarantee that all persons who did not
receive ballots and requested replacement ballots prior to November
15 be permitted to cast them, I am authorized to commence a civil
suit against you for libel.
Obviously, I do not represent you, it would be improper for
me to render legal advice to you, and nothing herein should be
construed by you as legal advice rendered to you by me. You would be
well-advised to seek legal counsel of your choosing because this is a
very serious matter.
Finally, you make many other false statements about the
proceedings before the Court. However, because those statements are
misrepresentations about what the judge did, or what other persons
said, they are not libelous statements made about the plaintiffs and
cannot give rise to a claim by the plaintiffs against you. But for
your information it is public record that the Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for an injunction against the defendants and, by
implication, found that plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on
the merits of their claim that defendants failed to provide ballots
to persons entitled to them before the Election Close Date of
November 15, 2007. Furthermore, if Dan Siegel said what you claimed
he said ? that plaintiffs are arguing that "only [plaintiffs] should
be allowed to vote" ? be assured that he will also be getting a
letter similar to this one demanding he retract such a statement
where he knows that to be false. The plaintiffs are seeking to
vindicate the rights of a certain class of persons ? all persons who
did not get a ballot prior to November 15, 2007 and who notified
election officials by November 15, 2007 that they did not get a
ballot. That class of individuals includes Justice and Unity
Campaign (JUC) members such as Sara Flounders, Philip Greenspan, Jitu
Weusi, Angela Weusi, Gail Golden, and Ali Abdul Karim to name just a
few. The court documents speak for themselves.
Should you have any questions, you may contact me or have
your attorney contact me.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. Hillgardner, Esq.
Attorney at Law
82-63 170th Street
Jamaica, New York 11432
(718) 657-0606
tjhillgardner@xxxxxxxxxxx
--- In rocklandfriendsofwbai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sheila hamanaka
<hamanaka@...> wrote:
(You can listen to these highlights for WBAI listeners by going to
www.kpfts.org and scrolling down to Pacifica National Board Mtg.
FRIDAY, WBAI elections discussion.)
ACE'S CAROLYN BIRDEN FAILS MISERABLY IN ATTEMPT TO KICK LEGIT WBAI
REPS
OFF PACIFICA NATIONAL BOARD.
DAN SIEGEL, THE INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, on WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
IN
COURT, EXPOSING THE LIE (which Cohen/LeFever posted on this list)
THAT
ACE WON IN COURT.
PARAPHRASED NOTES:
Carolyn Birden, WBAI rep on the PNB, tries to claim that the ACE
dominated FAKE HALF-SIZE Local Station Board is legal board and she
and
her ACE allies are the only legitimate WBAI reps to the PNB. When
Dan
Siegel starts to speak Birden repeatedly interrupts him and the
chair
has to warn her to shut up.
CONTRARY to what Cohen, Birden and LeFever claim, Siegel explains
that
the judge UPHELD PACIFICA'S POSITION and that the ACE plaintiffs
thought "only they should be allowed to vote".
Siegel said the ballot mailing was delayed to accomodate Steve
Brown
who wanted to put out a mailer. Thus the extension of voting til
Nov
23. BUT ACE WENT TO COURT. Meanwhile some people might not have
voted
because they heard about the injunction.
ACE WANTED TO GRILL VOTERS, MISSISSIPPI STYLE
Seigel: "The position they took in the lawsuit was that only those
persons who had requested replacement ballots as of November 15th
and
who had not received them, be allowed to vote, not other people
should
be allowed to vote..." and they wanted to and this really
happened
in court yesterday - anyone who had not requested a replacement
ballot
prior to November 15th would have to appear and be cross examined
as to
the bona fides of their intention to vote before November 15th, and
we
took the position that this sounded a little bit like things you
heard
about in Mississippi back in the 50's and early 60's when people
who
wanted to vote had to go in and pay a tax and swear that their
grandparents were, you know, whatever ... and THE JUDGE AGREED WITH
US," (my emphasis)
So then the plaintiffs took the position was that the WBAI LSB was
illegal -
THE JUDGE DECLINED TO DO ANY OF THIS
SIEGEL EXPLAINS WHY THE LSB W/24 MEMBERS ARE LEGIT
LSB's are standing committees. According to Robert's Rules, a
committee
stands until replacements take over. Under CA law, a board sits
until
new board members take over. Altho he did not rule we were right,
THE
JUDGE DECLINED TO RULE WE WERE WRONG. When you go in on an
injunction,
the party seeking an injunction has the burden of showing the
likelihood that they will prevail based on the merits of the case
and
that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not
issued.
BY DECLINING TO ISSUE THE INJUNCTION THE JUDGE RULED THAT THEY ARE
NOT
LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS OF THEIR CASE AND THEY ARE NOT
SUFFERING IRREPARABLE HARM.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
?Put Some Kegler?s On It!
? It?s Good For What Ails Ya!?
www.OnePainFreeSolution.Biz
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.