Pacifica filed some rather astounding materials with the court in Alameda County on Jan. 8, containing declarations with outright false statements.
The Pacifica Restructuring Project responded with legal filings to set the record straight, and to make it clear to the judge, which group (PRP) was working on behalf of the members, and which group (some of the PNB) was making statements in a desperate attempt to prevent the members from being able to vote on new Bylaws to fix Pacifica’s dysfunctional governance. The filings by Pacifica, as stated in PRP’s reply, were “a thicket of misrepresentations of fact, false innuendos, speculations, and irrelevant red herrings intended to be prejudicial”.
The new PRP filings, that reference the ones filed by Pacifica’s attorney, are:
- Reply Points and Authorities for further orders to carry out alternative writ of mandate (the main filing, that references the others below)
- Crosier Reply Declaration & Exhibits A-D
- Exhibit E (NES Election Report for 2018 Delegates Election)
- Crosier Exhibits F-J
- Wonderwheel Reply Declaration
- Spooner Reply Declaration
- DaSilva Reply Declaration
Then on Jan. 16, the day after the above reply was filed, PNB Directors Aaron, Steinberg, and Sagurton posted a special “emergency” meeting of the PNB for Jan. 23, to seat newly-elected Directors a week earlier than previously scheduled, in an attempt to get ahead of the judge’s ruling in the case. The Pacifica Restructuring Project filed the following response:
- , in response to improper setting of special meeting by certain members of the PNB in an attempt to get new Directors seated before the judge rules on the case
Update, Jan. 23, 2020: Citing advice from their own legal counsel, the PNB members who had called for the special “emergency” meeting, to seat new Directors just before the judge ruled on the case, cancelled the Jan. 23 PNB meeting.
Bill Crosier