Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Pixel pie fight continues as we await decision...

The following is the Reese side's press release for today, May 7, 2014.  Here is a link to Nalini's Pacifica Radio Waves list.

Berkeley-Various aspects of the PDGG vs. Pacifica lawsuit package (now expanded with a Siegel and Yee restraining order request and cross-complaint) were heard in Alameda Superior Court on the morning of May 6th. In a lengthy hearing, 5 witnesses testified. KPFA programmer Brian Edwards-Tiekert was the only witness for the Siegel and Yee side, and told a couple whoppers on the witness stand, including misquoting bylaws about telephonic meetings and asserting board member service at Pacifica is compensated when it is not. There were 4 witnesses for the PDGG side including 2013-2014 board member Richard Uzzell, Reese, national office senior accountant Joyce Black and 2013 PNB member Tracy Rosenberg.
The hearing largely revolved around issues of meeting notices, contracts/offer letters and the issue of Reese's lack of a social security number, which is the stated reason for the motion to fire her from Siegel and Yee associate Jose Luis Fuentes. 
The judge agreed to review all of the pleadings and issue her decision as quickly as possible.  Nothing was released on the court's website at press time.
For those who want to take a look at all of the legal filings to date: here is a cheat sheet. 

Here is the Siegel faction's account by Mark Hernandez of SaveKPFA

Generalized recap of today's courtroom events: 

The court put both cases together into a single hearing and apparently ignored the motion to remove Siegel & Yee as counsel for Pacifica. Witnesses were called up for cross examination; when Brian Edwards-Tiekert was testifying, the attorney for PDGG/Reese was unable to make any form of coherent line of questioning, as verified by several spectators in the courtroom.

The court broke for lunch and returned at 1:30P when Richard Uzzell, Joyce Black, Janet Kobern, Tracy Rosenberg and Summer Reese were on tap to testify.

Uzzell, a PDGG plaintiff, admitted on the stand that the contract for Reese was not authorized by the PNB. During Uzzell's testimony, it was reported that the judge halted the hearing and castigated Rosenberg to act properly or be ejected from the courtroom.

Black, an accountant in the Pacifica National Office, testified that Pacifica cannot run without Reese, then apparently indicated that she would refuse to work with anyone else.

Rosenberg provided testimony of dubious content, the nature of which came out during cross examination.

Reese's testimony was punctuated by the judge's admonishment for Reese to answer the questions she was asked, and not to ramble on and on about irrelevant matters.

Spectators comments consistently pointed out that the PDGG and Reese attorneys had to be schooled repeatedly on basic and routine legal matters by the judge from the bench in order to keep the hearing moving.

The judge is reported as stating that the PDGG motion for injunction could not be granted, due to its poor construction. The other motion from the Pacifica Foundation was not addressed, but the judge indicated that she would rule on the merits of the filing later. Under California court rules, this generally means up to 90 days for the judge to issue a ruling.


  1. It would appear, from the fragmentary and inevitably biased accounts we’ve had presented to date that each side, unsurprisingly, feels (or at least claims) that it did well.

    It appears (I’ll emphasize that ‘appears’) that it was a bit of a scene.

    It also appears, consistent with the evidently elementary legal failings of the original motion and with the anecdotal reports we’ve had to date, that Aroplex Law may have been less than ideal as to the quality of its representation.

    Ms Petrou appears to be a well educated, well experienced, and well-capable jurist, and she will rule as she sees fit and appropriate.

    Until then, it’s only noise.

    ~ ‘indigopirate’

  2. If Judge Petrou had ruled that PDGG's request for a temporary injunction could not be granted, there would be a court order to stating that on the Alameda County Courthouse website, as there would be if she granted it. There is no court order yet. Mark's assertion about that is just more 'if we say it's so, it will be so" belligerence.

    Judge Petrou did not rule from the bench. Mark invented that, distancing himself a bit with "The judge is reported as stating that . . ." Reported by whom?

  3. The Aroplex lawyer is a young litigator not long out of law school and still suffering stage fright in court, but lawyers on the side of Pacifica Directors for Good Governance are giving her brief rave reviews.

  4. THAT West Coast anonMonday, May 12, 2014

    Ann is unlikely to give you this update, as is Ms. Rosenberg, so here are the first decisions: Order-denying PJ-granting TRO.pdf

    1. I am trying to follow this development—not really a surprising one, but HBO is now absorbing my time, at least for this week. The fat that Summer Reese lost means little when one considers that the entire cast really needs to be replaced. That will not happen, so Pacifica will either limp on to the looming end or find an even more effective suicide pill to gulp. What a shame—not Pacifica's death, for that really occurred a long time ago, but the fact that it could have been prevented and that it is producing some rather ugly gloating from people who are just as responsible as the rest of them.