Absolutely. If you can defend yourself against the charges, do so; the truth is a perfect defense. If you can't, then more power to the people you relentlessly defame. It's about time someone took you to task for your vicious, anti- Pacifica attitudes and behavior. All the best! F.O. --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "hudsonhemingway" <hudsonhemingway@...> 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@...> > Date: 26 January, 2008 22:48:31 EST > To: sheila hamanaka <hamanaka@...> > 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@... > > --- 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. >