Nothing said or done in Pacifica, no LSB resolution nor any PNB resolution, will have any impact on Obama (or even on Baraka); at least not until we deal with problems within our own domain. As, for example, THIS scam to which I earlier tried to call attention: --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Frank LeFever" <fflefever@...> wrote: > > 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 > descriptions of the court case before their meeting, Sunday evening. > > --Frank LeFever >