Berkeley-In California, Alameda Superior Court denied Siegel and Yee’s motion to require the two listener-member plaintiffs in Yeakey vs. Pacifica to provide a $50,000 bond. The concise denial can be seen here and states: “The court concludes the plaintiffs are not required to post a bond because they have not pled any derivative claims”. Siegel and Yee have since filed a demurrer, yet another procedural feint that runs up Pacifica’s legal costs.Yeakey vs. Pacifica seeks to remove 7 directors whose three-year elected delegate terms expired in December of 2015 and 2 affiliate representatives who are not connected to stations currently affiliated with Pacifica. Continue reading A Crevasse, But No Bond→
Berkeley-At Thursday’s national board meeting, the majority spent most of the meeting passing a resolution instructing station management to “run their operations more productively” by such actions as calling credit card donors whose credit cards don’t go through and encouraging past donors to renew. Houston listener rep Bill Crosier attempted to amend the resolution to also address the content being broadcast. He proposed rolling back program changes in the last 12 months that generated less net fund drive revenue than the pre-change content. Continue reading Striking Out Solvency→
Berkeley-Unofficial corporate counsel Dan Siegel and his law firm responded to the Yeakey Vs Pacifica lawsuit, which requests the removal of two affiliate directors whose stations do not have current affiliate contracts with Pacifica and the removal of the 7 current members of the board of directors whose elected terms ended in December of 2015, by postponing a hearing on the merits of the case and demanding a bond of $50,000 from the two listeners who filed the suit. A bond request requires documentation of how the defendants would face a loss of that amount or more were they not to prevail in the case, which Siegel and Yee did not provide. The complaint can be seen here. Continue reading No Defense→
