Please scroll down for update
I was only third party recipient of what is considered hearsay. It is up to the victim to go to the police, but she did not want to. Also, although I believed her story, her allegations were only that: allegations. They have not been proven in a court of law. There is always the chance that she could be a fantasist (although I do not believe that), and so naming names and going to the police could conceivably tarnish innocent people. The legal obligation for Pacifica was simply to investigate the allegations, which it failed to do, and that in itself is a crime.
—Steve Brown December 23, 2017
Response to original Brown post:
—Bill Crosier, December 24, 2017
A response from Steve Brown:
Who told you that the woman’s allegations had been investigated? I was a board member at the time; you were not. And I know from personal knowledge that no investigation ever took place, even after I reported the woman’s allegations directly to Executive Director John Proffitt, which I did while the producer was still alive. The emails between Proffitt and myself about these allegations are still on my computer, and will no doubt be subpoenaed if there is a lawsuit. I can assure you from personal knowledge that no relevant persons – including the person accused and the woman making the accusations – were ever contacted by Pacifica, let alone investigated. This kind of reckless and irresponsible behavior by Pacifica management certainly rises to the level of gross negligence, possibly even criminal negligence -- not to mention a total abandonment of ethical behavior by an organization that claims to be a role model for ethical behavior for the rest of the media. That is hypocrisy on steroids.
2. I specifically omitted the fact of the producer’s death – he died last year – to prevent his identity from being guessed. But this email of yours now makes that precaution useless. (By the way, even though dead, the producer’s 30 years of broadcasts are now being reverentially being aired by Pacifica, one every day, with awed program hosts delivering gushing commentary about what a marvelous human being he was.) What you don’t seem to get, Bill, is that the producer’s recent death makes Pacifica’s position worse, not better, as I informed Pacifica management right after he died. I warned Pacifica that – with the producer now dead -- the woman would no longer fear for her life or the lives of her children; so nothing would prevent her from going public or initiating a lawsuit. This meant that Pacifica had lost its best opportunity to address the woman’s charges quietly (and honorably). But it didn’t matter how much I and others urged Pacifica to “Do The Right Thing.” True to its history of ignoring – or even abetting and covering up – incidents of sexual abuse, Pacifica chose to bury its head in the sand. It chose not to investigate (which is a violation of the law), let alone deal honorably with the woman’s allegations. Most unforgiveable of all, Pacifica’s inaction arguably allowed the producer (if the allegations were true) to continue his sexual abuse of women via Pacifica’s airwaves.
The alleged perpetrator did not have an office at WBAI. He came in, gave Fred Khun, the receptionist a cup of coffee, checked his mail, went on air and left. After 9/11 he used an ISDN line from his office to WBAI's studios. Many of his "guest" hosts were involved in his counseling center enterprise. The victims might consider bringing suit against his estate- my 2¢.
ReplyDeleteBut he allowed WBAI to use his office to broadcast on NUMEROUS occasions - he was DEEPLY connected with WBAI. He was especially TIGHT with Samori Marksman who knew about his sexual activities - indeed they shared a woman until Samori's death.
ReplyDeleteConflation of too many elements. Samori died in 1999, Armand established an ISDN line during 2001. Were the acts of this "shared" woman consensual? A woman claiming her sexuality?
DeleteIn Pacifica, each faction seeks advantage by accusing the opposing faction of criminal activity. They never try to gain advantage by demonstrating competence at running a radio station.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait for the ESB or someone to put these clowns out of business.
Criminal activity at WBAI is all too real. That said, you might not have to wait too long.
DeleteThe death of the alleged perpetrator makes criminal prosecution impossible; any any civil suits soul be barred by the statute of limitations.
ReplyDeleteThere's no lawsuit here. As noted by someone else, the claims are probably barred by the statute of limitations. But even if they are not barred for that reason, they would still fail. She didn't complain when the alleged abuse was taking place. In the absence of knowledge of any abuse, Pacifica had nothing to investigate. If she informed Pacifica years later and long after the alleged abuse had ceased, and if Pacifica then failed to investigate, that failure would not create any liability as to her. If she has any claim, it would be against the estate of the accused.
ReplyDeleteThe statue of limitations would be a defense to any suit against the estate, even if the estate still exists and has not been dissolved by the distribution of the decedent's assets.
DeleteI don't know if any aspects of all this are true or not, but let's remember one thing. We are looking at a psychological CULT. if you know anything about cults, especially psychological ones, they are rife with sexual abuse. Hence, you could say, I am very curious about this matter.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of... Brother Stair, who leads a Christian doomsday cult and commune, was arrested on sexual misconduct charges this past week. it's his second time.
SDL