BULLETIN: INJUNCTION FILED AGAINST PACIFICA DENIED
_______________________________

The injuncion asked the court to immediately prohibit seating, voting, or acting as directors -- Moran, van Putten, Johns, Murdock, Lee, Cagan, Lyons & Chambers -- on the grounds that they were not elected by "secret ballot" as required for "at large" directors prior to the illegal bylaws amendments. It also asks the court to prohibit seating, voting or acting as directors the last five -- Murdock, Lee, Cagan, Lyons & Chambers -- on the grounds that this results in more than 5 "at large" directors & violates the LABs right to elect 2/3rds of the Board. It also asks the court to order the seating of Jay Imani and any other director(s) who may be elected by the LABs during the pendency of the action.

Here are excerpts of what was asked of the court and could not be granted without a fuller hearing of all the evidence including depositions, etc.:

"Accordingly, pending such final resolution, this Court should preserve the status quo by prohibiting Pacifica from committing, performing, or engaging in actions that violate the pre-amendment Bylaws. In particular, as set forth below, this Court should prohibit Pacifica from:

1. refusing to seat or permit to act as a corporate director any Director duly elected pursuant to Article Three, Section Two of the pre-amendment Bylaws;

2. seating, electing, or permitting to act as a corporate director any Director chosen or elected in violation of Article Three, Section Two of the pre-amendment Bylaws; and

3. seating, electing, or permitting to act as a corporate director any Director chosen or elected in violation of Article Three, Section Four of the pre-amendment Bylaws.

4. seating, electing, or permitting to act as a corporate director any Director chosen or elected in violation of the Bylaws and Policies requiring that the total number of at-large Directors not exceed one-half of LAB-elected Directors."

____________________________

The judge made it clear that the denial of this injunction did not suggest that this case could or would not be won when it is fully heard; he simply could not take this immediate action without unequivocal proof that immediate damage would otherwise occur and because conflicting statements have been offered to the court by Pacifica Board members (surprise).