Felashi Ofan <felashiofan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Absolutely. If you can defend yourself against the charges, do so; the truth is
a perfect defense.
WHAT SHE REALLY IS SAYING IS "IF YOU CAN AFFORD" TO DEFEND YOURSELF!
Truth has nothing to do with this vicious low-life tactic!
CAN ANYBODY SAY SLAP-SUIT"?
...made in america
Felashi Ofan <felashiofan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
>
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.