Bill Mandell wrote:

>Jonathan is not interested in the California Corporate Code. He wants to
>overthrow the whole system. He does not understand that is simply
>not on the order of business.

My concern is political. I'm fully cognizant (in spite of your intimation to the contrary) that California corporate law dictates the parameters of what is possible in terms of legal remedy for the destruction of the Pacifica Foundation by its directors.

However, if one preemptively removes one's legal adversaries from responsibility, as Adelson has done with Kriegel, Robinson & Bramson by removing them from the suit's defendant's list, then there is really no threat of personal accountability with which to bargain in terms of their behavior as PNB members, pre or post suit ruling.

Carol's strategy IMO is a superior one to Adelson's, in this regard since she's not removed the "dissident" ones from her defendants list and therefore retains at least the potential of leverage.

If you're saying I want to overthrow Pacifica's cronyistic, insiders-only system of appointing people to the LABs and replace it with open elections such as what was carried out in Berkeley, then the answer is yes.

I certainly believe that's Carol's intention. I don't believe that's Adelson's. As in the "dissidents" case, he would have already sponsored an open inclusive process in LA toward that end. Instead he prefers to stroke the political milieu in LA (and everywhere else) that fears real democratization of Pacifica above all else. Adelson's claim is that democratization is not enough. Who ever said it was? This is the minimum we should expect, along with a firmly enforced affirmative action structure.

Consequently, I believe the court is fully aware of the socio-political consequences of whether to order democratization of Pacifica or block it and the chance of the court favoring democracy is as slim as the degree of faith we should have in the so-called "friendly" PNB members to carry it out. If Kriegel, Bramson and Robinson are truly interested in democratization, why would they wait for the court's order before initiating this process themselves?

I'm afraid what we have going on in this movement is a gigantic 'wool over eyes' operation.

When you've been directly lied to before about their intentions as I have, it wouldn't be wise for me to have ANY faith in these so-called "friendly" stewards of Pacifica's heritage.

I say get those promises about democratization in writing and notarized, Carol.

Jonathan Markowitz