Mitchel Cohen is trying to get some information to the PNB past the embargo set up by two directors, as in this letter re-posted at Listener Forums (the "blueboard"): http://www.listenerforums.net/cgi-bin/issues_config.pl?noframes;read=86556 (part one) http://www.listenerforums.net/cgi-bin/issues_config.pl?noframes;read=86557 (part two) Just to emphasize just one damning "detail" from what Mitch posted: in contrast to our coming to the FIRST court-house conference with affadavits, copies of email complaints of failures to receive ballots, etc., Dan Silverman (Dan Siegel's hired dog) has not brought ANYTHING yet, and now claims that what we ask for DOES NOT EXIST: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ EXCERPT: The Plaintiffs had formally requested that Pacifica provide certain discoverable information way back in December. After a month or more of stalling, Pacifica's lawyers provided little in the way of what Plaintiffs were asking for and improperly objected to most of our requests. They also made the rather novel legal claim in March (three months later) that numerous documents would be provided at some future date. Then, at a conference on May 5, 2008 (I remember that court date, it being Karl Marx's birthday), five months after the original request, Pacifica's attorneys entered into a written stipulation promising to supplement their March 13, 2008 response by May 27, 2008. But May 27, 2008 also came and went. On May 29, 2008, Plaintiffs' lawyer contacted Pacifica's attorneys inquiring as to the whereabouts of the promised supplement. Pacifica's attorneys then promised a response by June 2, 2008. But that deadline also passed without compliance. Each time, Pacifica is being billed for "legal work"--i.e., stonewalling. At Thursday's motion conference Pacifica's attorney, Dan Silverman, indicated that a search for the documents sought has not turned up any documents responsive to our demands -- even though these had previously been promised to the Plaintiffs. Pacifica is, through its attorneys, now claiming that neither its National Office nor officers, Pacifica National Board directors, nor the WBAI Local Station Board can locate the following: (a) The minutes of WBAI Local Station Board meetings held in 2007; (b) The minutes of all meetings of the Waiver Committee of the WBAI Local Station Board held in 2007; (c) Invoices from the mailing house used in the 2007 WBAI Delegate election; (d) Documents pertaining to the extension of the Election Close Date for the 2007 WBAI Elections; (e) All communications between Dan Siegel or Lonnie Hicks, on the one hand, with Casey Peters, Dale Ratner, Robert Scott Adams, or Bernard White, on the other, pertaining to the 2007 WBAI Delegate Election; (f) Documents accompanying transmission of the mailing list provided by Pacifica to the mailing house used in mailing ballots and other electoral materials; and (g) All documents pertaining to the secure independent audit procedure used by Pacifica to verify member database accuracy for the 2007 WBAI Delegate Election. Again, Dan Silverman argued last Thursday that none of this exists, which means that the only way Plaintiffs can obtain this information is by taking sworn depositions from Pacifica's national officers, Board of Directors, and Local Station Board members, expanding the case (and costs, and individual impacts) rather than containing and settling it. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I have to admit they MIGHT be speaking truthfully about Minutes of LSB meetings being non-existent during the tenure of the JUC-slected "Secretary", but what of those other items? NO invoices from the mailing house for ANY of several mailings last year? NO invoice(s) for the BALLOT mailing? (Maybe they can play dumb about invoices for the ACE mailing, but invoices for the JUC mailing were addressed to WBAI...) NO documents (nothing in writing, no emails, no nothing) saying ANYTHING about extending the election from Nov. 15 to Nov. 16? Nothing saying ANYTHING about extending it from the 15th or 16th to the 23rd? Neither Dan Siegel nor Lonnie Hicks said or wrote ANYTHING about ANY aspect of the 2007 election to ANYBODY? Not to Casey Peters, Dale Ratner, Robert Scott Adams, or Bernard White? And NONE of them ever wrote or said ANYTHING to Siegel or Hicks about the election? When they sent the address list(s) to the mailing house, they sent them with NO cover letter? NO instructions? NOTHING about to whom the invoices should be sent? Nothing about WHEN the mailings should begin? NO communication with ANYBODY about how to arrive at an "accurate" and "complete" list of members eligible to vote? Are they REALLY saying that we'll have to run up a HUGE bill taking sworn depositions from Pacifica's national officers, Board of Directors, and Local Station Board members? Are they really saying this is the best way for directors of the PNB to fulfill their fiduciary duties, the best use of Pacifica funds, the best way to pitch for donations in the next failed "marathon"? I can hear them now: "We beg you, we implore you, to keep the station strong by pledging enough money to pay our lawyers to prevent Pacifica members seeing what the national officers have done with our very important LSB elections!" Hmmm... I wonder how many PNB directors have thought about this. I wonder if Nicole Sawaya has. I wonder if Dan Siegel has "explained" it to them in just this way. I wonder how many of them will see alternative descriptons of the court case before their meeting, Sunday evening. --Frank LeFever