While the Co-op had to pay $50,000 in legal fees out of its own general fund for legal fees, it should be noted that Pease said he did not have to pay anything to the attorneys who did the work for him on this lawsuit.

Pease is just another slime ball attorney who sues when he doesn’t get his way. Then he gets one or more of his slime ball peers to run up costs to the opposing party hoping to break them financially. Why would the citizens of District 2 want anything WHATSOEVER to do with this person.

I’m just wondering what happens to the CO-OP if Pease becomes the Dist. Two councilperson?

He was hoping to return to the board in March 2017, not November. Sorry for the error.

Clearly Pease's self-image is tied up with the Co-op, as it's the second thing mentioned in his candidate's statement. So this story is very revealing of his character when he doesn't get his way: He fraudulently altered the wording of a petition, invalidating himself; then sued when he wasn't given a pass for his behavior. And even after having a judge tell him he's wrong, he maintains not getting what he wants is "an injustice" and no price or hardship too much for his opponents to bear.

I agree with JustWondering: Pease is a bully who can't let go of a grudge, so there's little doubt he'd abuse elected office to pursue this and other vendettas.

What kind of hatchet job is this Ken? Read the bylaws like I said--they're posted here: https://www.obpeoplesfood.coop/.../56035807/2015_bylaws.pdf Section 4.3--the candidate is to generate and return a petition. I served on the committee that drafted these bylaws. The point is to take the nomination procedure outside the hands of the board so members can have their own voice. Wow Nancy and Ofelia are even more corrupt than I thought. Not only did they steal an election--installing 2 candidates and not giving members/owners any choice who to vote for--but they also stole $50K from the owners to do it rather than just letting us have a real election! This is also total BS that I was trying to somehow keep this secret. I sent multiple press releases out about this outrage and contacted a reporter from the Reader several times--Dorian Hargrove--but nothing was printed. So you decide to post a slanted piece the day before the election in my city council race because that scumbag Seamus who works for establishment Dems told you to? What a crock of shit.

Mr. Pease- "Scumbag Seamus" had nothing to do with launching this "hatchet job." I had heard from a friend of someone deeply connected with the OB Co-Op (who did want to be named out of fear of getting personally sued) but who nevertheless felt that your lawsuit was unfounded and baseless because you changed the wording of the petition. Of course the reason for you not being deemed worthy to be re-elected to the board in the first place was very complex and contentious and up for debate. The fact that you changed the wording of the petition (which you agreed happened) seems to any reasonable person to be a crucial point as to why you were not welcome to participate as a candidate (and the judge agreed in the lawsuit). I wrote this story because there was a lawsuit you filed, you lost, and the judge outlined in detail why you lost. Do you understand that concept of news reporting? I did not learn about this until the weekend before the election. I RECEIVED NO INITIAL CONTACT FROM ANY POLITICAL OPPONENT OR THEIR CAMPS. I think it is interesting to note how you told me the costs of the OB C-Op to defend itself was covered by its insurance. This was deceitful. Sure, the insurance company kicked in money BUT ONLY AFTER THE CO-OP PAID THE FIRST $50,000 in legal expenses. You made it sound like the entire legal expense was covered by the Co-Op. Not cool, Mr. Pease. You admitted me to that your attorney expenses were covered by attorney friends on what I would label as a "bro deal" (my words, not yours). The Co-Op did not have access to free legal aid. You mentioned Nancy and Ofelia. The first person I spoke with who spelled out the big picture and proved to me in my mind this was indeed a story, was neither of those people. "Trying to keep this secret" was not suggested. I was amazed that no other media had covered this month-old lawsuit which seemed to be very germane to your city council candidacy. After I spoke with two different OB Co-Op operatives (who were never seeking publicity in the first place) I did reach out to the two Democrat candidates. You can see what they said. One of the spokespersons said they had in fact tried to get publicity on this but that no one in the media seemed to care. That person clearly thought that it would have been much more beneficial to have gotten the story out when the ruling was handed down instead of when it did break. But the initial contact for this story absolutely did not originate from a competing candidate.

Ken, you lie and are not a real reporter. I stated that the other attorneys working on this case with me--representing several People's owners who are not happy about the rights of the owners being violated here--commonly work on public interest cases together and only get paid by the other side (government agency or corporation, in this case would have been the insurance company) if we win. I never uttered the words "bro deal." That's a ridiculous thing I would never say but maybe something you heard because you're wired that way.

The judge in this case did not analyze the history, purpose and wording of the bylaws but instead relied on the business judgment rule, which essentially allows corporations to do what they want. However, OB Peoples is a different kind of corporation. It is member owned and supposed to be democratic. Your accusations of "changing the wording" of the petition make no sense in light of the clear wording of the bylaws stating the candidate--not OB Peoples--is to generate the petition.

Usurping this role from the owners who want to run and/or nominate a candidate and inserting their own editorial comments onto the petition is prohibited by the bylaws. This is an important issue for all owners. I probably will appeal, as anyone running in the future should not be forced to use wording generated by OB Peoples when the bylaws clearly spell out that the candidate is to generate the petition.

I had no way of knowing that not only did these people steal an election, but they also stole $50K in owners' money to do it. We asked this question repeatedly in discovery and all they would say was they were covered by insurance. They would not say if they paid a dime in addition to that. The owners would liked to have known that too, that these insiders who took control of the board spent the owners' $$ in this way instead of choosing to simply allow a real election where owners could choose between candidates instead of being forced to vote for only 2 candidates for 2 spots.

Mr. Pease- Sorry your level of discourse has succumbed to "Scumbag Seamus" and "Not a real reporter." I fully expect "fake news" to follow. As I very clearly said, "bro deal" was my words not yours. Did you miss that? The point is, attorneys sometimes do favors for each other. And while I'm sure the attorneys who helped you with this lawsuit were absolutely doing it for altruistic reasons as you state, the fact is you did not have to pay them. Meanwhile, the co-op ended up paying out $50,000. That was my entire point. You maintain that the board stole $50,000 of owner's money. It seems to me they had a lawsuit with real life deadlines and they had to retain legal help to defend themselves against your lawsuit. If they did not retain legal aid, they would have lost by default. Since they did, they were able to fight back, tell their version of the truth, and what do you know? They won! Mr. Pease, we're talking about you not being on a board which does not pay its board members. You chose to SUE them because you were denied a chance for run for reelection. Maybe there were crucial issues that caused the fissure between you and the other board members in the first place. It seems to me those issues were lost because of the struggle of you getting on the board. You SUED because a/you have access to donated legal assistance and b/you were longer be an unpaid board member. Don't you think a better, less destructive path would have been to go public with the issues you raised and with the unfair way (in your opinion) that you were denied a chance to be elected. Clearly there seems to valid points on both sides. As it sits now, you SUED, and the judge said you were wrong and the Co-Op is out $50,000. Also, are you telling me the fact you passed around different petitions with new wording was not mentioned in the judge's ruling? Um, I think that was mentioned in why he decided against you.

I am just now seeing this article. I did not vote for Mr. Pease, but in light of other past lawsuits I decided to choose another candidate. I definitely am politically aligned with his positions, but I had concerns over how well he would be able to work to build consensus on city council.

As a People's household member, I am disappointed by his decision to sue us for a grievance related to an election for a nonprofit board. I am involved in the nonprofit community and understand that disputes get messy, but usually people are able to mediate and work things out rather than filing a damaging lawsuit. Or let it go, and regroup for another day.