THEM A HIPOCRITES AND PIRATES...

what kind of an article was that? you didn't quote anyone on the Mateel side about how they look at the struggle, just People Prod...that is so lame... try again and do a balanced story- what? did you get a press pass? so you kiss PP's ass?

can anyone say coorperate take over!!!!

To feed your need for news, satire and analysis of the dispute among the Mateel Community Center, Inc., People Productions, Carol Bruno, and Tom Dimmick visit www.reggaewarjusticewatch.blogspot.com. Lets find the truth together.

Your article got the facts wrong about what caused the split between Mateel Community Center, Inc. (Mateel) and People Productions (PP) run by Carol Bruno (CB). Here is what really happened. The argument that Mateel breached the contract with People Productions as set forth in Tom Dimmick’s Motion for Summary Adjudication and in People Production’s and Carol Bruno’s lawsuit against Mateel is based on the assertions that Carol Bruno never repudiated because what she said at the November 17, 2006, Mateel membership meeting is allegedly not clear enough to support a repudiation, that she allegedly reaffirmed that she would fulfill her obligations in late December 2006, a day or two before Mateel terminated her contract, and that what others said about Carol Bruno no longer being willing to work with Mateel is irrelevant because it did not come from Carol Bruno. CB, PP and Tom Dimmick's(TD’s) argument is a technical and legalistic one that attempts to overcome what I believe to be a plethora of evidence that CB did in fact repudiate PP’s Production Contract with Mateel. As I have said before, I have reviewed some, but I doubt I have all of the evidence, that shows that PP, through Carol Bruno, did repudiate the July 27, 2005, Production Contract. Here is what is known to me. One source states that on October 17, 2006, Thomas Dimmick sent a letter to Mateel alleging that Carol Bruno said to him: "In no uncertain terms that she will not, under any circumstances again produce the ROTR event for the current Mateel administration." CB and TD will rightfully be seen as what they are - business partners, joint venturers, or at least engaged in significant business pursuits together via long-term contractual relations. At a minimum, they were working close together and I suspect that CB probably even reviewed the letter before it was mailed to Mateel. Human nature is that she would have wanted to make sure that TD was on her side before she started trying to end her contract with Mateel. Regardless, CB no doubt knew of the letter at some point and did nothing I am aware of to try to disclaim what she said to TD until more than two months later. By that point, it was too late. Mateel had to move on if it had any chance to hold ROTR in 2007. My sources indicate that after receiving TD’s letter, Mateel requested mediation with People in the fall of 2006. Before the mediation, Carol Bruno appeared personally at a Mateel membership meeting on November 17, 2006, and publicly stated: "The only way for me to continue is to propose that Tom Dimmick and People Productions license the event from the Mateel." At the meeting, Carol Bruno also publicly demanded a negotiated termination of the production contract and a sale of a license to allow PP to independently produce the music festival for the remainder of the lease term with Mr. Dimmick. I watched Ms. Bruno's "spiel" on YouTube and, in my opinion, it was a patent repudiation as she had no right to demand Mateel sell her what she desired. I also believe that her actions violated her fiduciary duties to Mateel as she was already poisoning the relationship between Mateel and TD by having discussion about continuing on without Mateel involvement. I also believe that she, as a fiduciary to Mateel, was using undue influence and actually trying to coerce Mateel into accepting her demands. Listen to her statements on YouTube again very closely and she is, at least to me, definitely conveying a sense of urgency and perhaps even emergency. She had to be well aware that if Mateel had to produce the ROTR festival without her, that it needed to act quickly and Mateel would have been well aware of that as well. From what I have learned, Mateel’s attempt to resolve its dispute with CB and its delay in hiring Boots Hughston and 2B1 until late December 2006, was the epitome of good faith. Mateel literally waited far beyond the point it was required by law to do so to retain a replacement for PP. By the time PP allegedly tried to retract her repudiation in late December 2006, it was too little too late. Sources also state that Mateel did not even understand her late December communication to mean that she was willing to produce ROTR 2007. Rather, Mateel thought based on the language and context of the communication that CB was only saying that she would complete permit work required under the contract regardless of whether she refused to produce ROTR 2007. Not only was Mateel’s interpretation reasonable, it just did not matter at that point. Mateel would have been foolish to rely on CB to do anything of importance for it ever again. CB had seemingly done all she could to get Mateel to believe it had no choice but to sell ROTR to her and/or TD for more than two months. I suspect Mateel only delayed as long as it did before acknowledging CB’s termination of the Production Contract because CB had cleverly put it in a difficult situation to try and force Mateel to sell out. But hold on, there is even more evidence that PP breached the contract. As noted already, Paul Bassis, Carol Bruno’s former business partner and close associate, stood up at the November 17, 2006, Mateel member meeting and emphatically asserted that Carol Bruno meant it and that she would no longer produce the event for Mateel. I also watched Paul Bassis' very strident and emphatic "spiel" on YouTube and so should you for his exact language as I am relying on memory. I understand that other people spoke and made the same assertions. My sources say Carol Bruno sat through Mr. Bassis' "spiel" and the similar statements of others and never denied the statements. If Paul Bassis’ appearance at the November 17, 2007, meeting and his speech was a fortuitous event for CB, it sure was a lucky coincidence for her as his presentation arguing her case was forceful and bold. He is a dynamic public speaker and he is bold as a lion. CB, through PP, was Mateel's fiduciary agent and ROTR contract partner at the time. Would a reasonable person not conclude based on what she said and her refusal to rebut what others said, as well as all of the other evidence, that she was repudiating? I sure do think so. The evidence I believe supports that she wanted Mateel to believe she would never produce another ROTR festival. Hold on again, there is still more evidence of repudiation. Despite the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the Lease between Thomas Dimmick and Mateel and PP's contract with Mateel, as well as PP's fiduciary obligations to Mateel, there is evidence that Thomas Dimmick and Carol Bruno sought to eliminate Mateel from the ROTR equation long before Mateel terminated PP. There is an email between Thomas Dimmick and Carol Bruno dated October 12, 2006, that states: “What I am finally realizing is that the Mateel has been what has been preventing me from freedom of flight, not Reggae on the River. Tom you are right. Lets do Reggae, but not do Mateel. Licensing is the only way. We need to be unified on this point. We need to do what it takes to jump reggae to the next level . . ." So now we know that CB was not just misunderstood. She wanted to “do Reggae, but not do Mateel” and her suit against Mateel should be seen for what I believe it is - a grossly unethical and immoral business practice. Carol Bruno accomplished her apparent goal of convincing Mattel that she would not produce ROTR 2007 and I find CB’s, PB’s, PP’s, and TD’s attempts to say she never repudiated to be downright disingenuous. PB and TD played an active role in convincing Mateel that CB repudiated and I find their arguments against Mateel to be highly repugnant. Sorry to be so strident, but this world sometimes needs people like me to call it like it is. In addition to the repudiation, I believe PP also materially breached the Production Contract by violating its fiduciary duties to Mateel. Carol Bruno's discussions with Thomas Dimmick about cutting out Mateel amounted to fiduciary fraud or at least constructive fraud. (Assilzadeh v. California Federal Bank (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 399, 415-416) In Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc., 24 Cal.App.4th 555, the court held that the failure of a fiduciary to disclose a material fact to its principal which might affect the fiduciary's motives or the principal's conduct may constitute constructive fraud. (Id. at 562) Tell me, if PP were your fiduciary would you not want to know that TD wanted to produce ROTR 2007 without Mateel while you were deciding all of the issues raised by CB and TD starting in October 2007? You bet you would and Mateel deserved to be told what was really going on by CB and her actions are, in my opinion, downright deserving of public reproach. I have heard that she is a nice person and believe that to be true, but she sure did lose track of her obligations and moral compass in Late 2006. That does not make her a bad person. For all I know she is a fine person. But it does mean that she should stop trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, acknowledge and admit her errors and make good on what she owes Mateel and its members. No reasonable organization in Mateel's position had to continue on under, not only a contractual relationship, but under a fiduciary relationship wherein the fiduciary that was legally obligated to look out for its interests with respect to ROTR and its valuable Lease with Thomas Dimmick was admitting that it was breaching its duties, working with Thomas Dimmick to oust Mateel from the ROTR equation, and submitting ultimatums to Mateel's Board to force it to sign over its rights to ROTR. It is hard to imagine circumstances that would have more entitled Mateel to terminate PP. A party's express or implied repudiation of a contract before performance is due relieves the other party of his or her contractual obligations and the nonbreaching party need not remain ready and willing to tender its performance and may immediately pursue breach of contract remedies. (Jeppi v. Brockman Holding Co. (1949) 34 Cal.2d 11, 18) Based on the foregoing, while I do not know the basis for Paul Bassis’ belief that Mateel breached its contract with PP, I do know he is wrong. I remain ready and willing to face anyone in a debate on Eric Kirk’s "All Things Reconsidered” radio program. If I am wrong, here is your chance to prove it.