A few weeks ago, two people on the PNB complained that it was improper for our lawyer or for any of us plaintiffs to contact any of the defendants without permission of defense counsel. Soon after the complaint, defense counsel (Dan Silverman) dutifully sent our lawyer a formal objection to our doing this--despite his having collaborated already in a series of exchanges in which the PNB was routinely CC'd. Besides Casey Peters (National Election Supervisor) and Dale Ratner (Local Elections Supervisor for WBAI), defendants also include "Pacifica Foundation, doing business as WBAI (120 Wall Street, NYC)". This makes for some strange thoughts and worries: inasmuch as I am a part of the Pacifica Foundation (a dues-paid Member), am I forbidden to talk to myself? Am I allowed to say anything here, which might be read by a Pacifica director? I'll leave discussion of those arcane extended implications of the prohibition to the Jesuits and the Talmudists. Meanwhile, all I know is that if either Mitch or myself were to send this to PNB directors, there are those on the board ready and willing to raise hell about it. However, I do not know how we can stop anybody else from quoting from Mitch's message in something that person sends to individual directors or to PNB as a whole, or to Nicole Sawaya. In collaboration with the Dan Siegel, some directors have managed to isolate the PNB (and perhaps the ED) from any description of the legal issues and the progress of the case other than what Siegel finds it convenient to give them. As they say, war is too important to leave to the generals, and similarly Pacifica lawsuits are too important to be left to the lawyers. If Nicole and the PNB knew enough about the case and about the options (past and present) which Dan Siegel/Dan Silverman have refused to exercise, they might ask some questions and they might see the value of giving the lawyers new instructions. Currently, the attorney of record (Dan Silverman) is following the game plan of an eminence grise who no longer speaks with the authority of even an Interim ED (Dan Siegel). Month by month (nearly 6 months, so far) that game plan takes more money from Pacifica members and gives it to lawyers, for an end which (so far as I can see) has no benefit for Pacifica. --Frank LeFever --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mitchel Cohen <mitchelcohen@...> wrote: > > In court today, the lawyers for Pacifica made it plain that they have no interest in trying to reach an agreement even on the facts, which we could then submit to the Judge for a decision. Simple things that they could have stipulated to -- the dates that ballots were mailed, for instance; whether Minutes exist or not; whether Defendants were mailed a ballot -- they refused to try to reach an agreement. > > This is utterly disgraceful; Plaintiffs went in trying to settle to save Pacifica (and ourselves) money, to let the Judge decide in summary judgment whether Casey Peters had the authority to perpetually extend the election. Clearly, they didn't want the Judge to decide that, or they would have agreed on an obvious set of facts with the plaintiffs and let it go to the Judge. > > As a result, they're going to cost Pacifica tens of thousands of dollars more; Pacifica's lawyers are trying to extend and extend and extend. So the Plaintiffs will now be going into another level of the lawsuit; instead of reaching a settlementt, our hand has been forced, and we'll shortly begin taking depositions from Casey Peters, Dale Ratner, Caleb Kleppner, Dan Siegel, Nicole Sawaya and other key figures. > > It's a shame -- all those listener contributions going to pay Pacifica's lawyers instead of where it's really needed. > > WHO is making these stupid and expensive decisions for Pacifica? Is anybody minding the store, or is Dan Siegel still running the Corporation? > > Mitchel Cohen > (in my capacity as lead Plaintiff) >