Skip to content


July 3, 2013


                                                                   Edward Manfredonia

                                                                   8337 St. James Avenue

                                                                   Apt. 4B

                                                                   Elmhurst, NY 11373

                                                                   917 608 9083

                                                                   28 June 2013


Joel Kaplan


Corporation for Public Broadcasting

401 Ninth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004-2129


Dear Mr. Kaplan:


It is obvious that Gregory Wonderwheel has never read The Report by the Office of the Inspector General.  Below is the full title of The Report.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Office of Inspector General

Audit of CPB Grants Awarded to Pacifica Foundation Radio Stations KPFA, KPFK, WBAI AND WPFW

For the Period October 1, 2008-September 30, 2010

Audit Report No. ASR1202-1208

September 21, 2012


Thus, Gregory Wonderwheel speaks in the usual psycho-babble of WBAI.  This psycho-babble is frequently used by the academic failure known as R Paul Martin, whose sexual ideal is a 10 year old boy.  The WBAI Local Station Board has R Paul Martin, a member of NAMBLA and a Proud Pedophile, as a member.  Martin is also Chair of the WBAI Finance Committee and utilizes his true nature as a Psychopath to control the flow of the information to members of the WBAI Finance Committee with the approval of Stephen M Brown, former pornography entrepreneur, and Carolyn Birden, who believes that women, who are employed on Wall Street, deserved to be raped by their employers- and yes, that is true.  Birden, a college English Professor who has never read Ulysses, also speaks in psycho-babble.


I personally do not know Gregory Wonderwheel; nor do I recall meeting him at any meetings of either the WBAI Local Station Board, or the WBAI Community Advisory Board meetings, or the WBAI Finance Committee.  If Wonderwheel had attended these meetings, he would know that WBAI is a RICO entity- violation of federal labor laws, violation of federal tax laws, fraud to qualify for government benefits (this was discussed by two individuals prior to a meeting of the WBAI Finance Committee), violation of IRC 501 (c) (3) with the special note that financial transactions between a WBAI Local Station Board member and WBAI were not publicly disclosed, etc.


Gregory Wonderwheel appears to be one of the numerous WBAI camp followers, who have no knowledge of federal law and act as if federal law were unimportant.  If Wonderwheel had read The Report, which the CPB had issued concerning WBAI’s overpayment for premiums, in other words the premium exceeded the maximum percentage of the donation permitted by law, he would know “of what he speaks.”  Instead, Wonderwheel follows the usual WBAI practice of “writing from ignorance and malice”- a practice made infamous by the former pornography entrepreneur, Stephen M Brown, who controls the WBAI Local Station Board.


Wonderwheel makes no mention of the numerous violations of federal law, which permeate WBAI- the hiring of friends of Stephen M Brown without advertising the position; the requirement that in order to have a program at WBAI, one must follow the ideological party line of the party, which is in power; that Tony Bates required sexual performance from women to appear on WBAI’s radio program, “Occupy Wall Street;” that Berthold Reimers refused to act upon Bates’ illegal demand for sexual favors after the late Ibrahim Gonzales reported this sexual slavery to him; that Andrea Katz was hired without WBAI advertising the position, etc. because Stephen M Brown wanted her hired; that an “alleged, phony loan,” otherwise known as accounting fraud, was made by Stephen M Brown to WBAI so that his acolyte could be hired; etc.


Unfortunately, Wonderwheel does not know that the value of certain premiums exceeded the percentage of the donation as specified by law.  The CPB Report, with which Wonderwheel is not familiar, stated this fact.  Also, fictitious prices were attributed to some premiums.  Once again this was mentioned in the CPB Report.  These fraudulent acts are known as fraud.


Wonderwheel also conveniently neglects to mention the premium “Double Helix Water,” which contained no Double Helix.  The fraudulent premium was discussed by several individuals prior to meetings of the WBAI Local Station Board.


Of course we have had Stephen M Brown defending Gary Null and Null’s faux science that vaccines cause autism; AIDS is not caused by a virus; etc.


WBAI does not play by the rules.  Under the aegis of Stephen M Brown, former pornography entrepreneur, WBAI requires that everyone must accept the Pedophilia of R Paul Martin, a member of NAMBLA who openly advocates sex between 10 year old boys and 65 year old perverts who resemble plucked chickens but with the wattle of a turkey, to obtain a program.


Then we have the acts of violence with which dissenters have been threatened.


In one incident in January 2013 Jim Dingeman, a very large individual who played football in college and has a black belt in Judo, unkindly offered to throw me out of the 10th floor window of 120 Wall Street.   A discussion ensued in which I told him that he could try to accomplish this feat, but that I did not believe he could do it.  Dingeman then told me that there were killers at WBAI, etc. It must be noted that Jim Dingeman is a close associate of Stephen M Brown and unwittingly had provided me with some information about the pornography entrepreneur known as Stephen M Brown.


Stephen M Brown, who has been banned from doing direct mail business in several states, has approved of Wonderwheel’s illogical and ignorant statements.  Below I have copied the posting of Stephen M Brown, who only speaks with malice, ignorance and sexual deviancy:


RE: [WBAIelections] Response to CPB Ombudsman Report\

< Prev  Next > 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Posted By:



Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:28 am  |



Well, you have certainly crushed Mr Kaplan’s report. But does his report or “report” have any legal force?

Does the Ombudsman have any legal powers?

 Stephen M Brown






What is crushed?  Gregory Wonderwheel is not discussing federal law.  Wonderwheel has not even read the The Report issued by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.


Wonderwheel denies that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has jurisdiction over the value of the premium in relation to the donation.  Wonderwheel is wrong and he should read The Report.


Wonderwheel excuses the refusal of WBAI employees, Kathy Davis and Berthold Reimers, to respond to Kaplan’s phone calls.  Wonderwheel excuses this lack of response with the nonsensical statement that Joel Kaplan has not listened to WBAI.  Kaplan does not have to listen to WBAI; but Reimers and Davis are bound to respond to him.  If Kaplan wishes to listen to WBAI, he can go to the archives.


Wonderwheel believes that WBAI does not have to obey the law in order to receive money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?  The CPB is giving WBAI money.  WBAI has to respond to the inquiries or the CPB can cut off funding.  The CPB is already reducing the grant, which WBAI receives because WBAI has violated the policy regarding the value of the premium in relation to the donation.


Wonderwheel should do himself a favor.  Wonderwheel should take a course in accounting and a course in business law.  Otherwise, he is just as ignorant as those paradigms of WBAI ignorance, Carolyn Birden and R Paul Martin.


I have reproduced below Wonderwheel’s fatuous statements:



From: [] On Behalf Ofgregorywonderwheel
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:05 PM
Subject: [WBAIelections] Response to CPB Ombudsman Report\


June 18, 2013.

The report by CPB Ombudsman Joel Kaplan titled “Fundraising Ethics and WBAI” (appended below) is very disappointing because the report is so vague, irresponsible, and unprofessional that is does not at all appear to be unbiased. I can only conclude that this petulant report is made in this manner because Mr. Kaplan feels personally slighted by the lack of response from the station, therefore he is putting his emotional reactivity into the report. Since we only have his side of the story, I would assume that his request for a response was as biased and vague as this report, and therefore it was reasonable to not respond at all without specific issues to which to respond.

1) In the first two sentences Mr. Kaplan presents a bald conclusion in the context of “it seems.” The question is, “Does WBAI play by the same rules or not?” To answer that question, the report needs to begin by setting out the rules, then discuss how community stations across the nation generally “play by these rules” and lastly show by demonstrated evidence how WBAI has not “played by” those same rules.

2) Mr. Kaplan then presents a complaint by a Mr. Bedrock of New Jersey. I fail to see any rule stated in Mr. Bedrock’s complaint that is alleged to have been violated. Without such a rule alleged, it was Mr. Kaplan’s responsibility to determine such a rule or to respond to the complaint as not rising to a level warranting investigation. 

3) Mr. Bedrock states “It used to raise money by offering memberships to its listeners and by soliciting donations in addition to membership fees,” Mr. Bedrock is now upset that in addition to memberships and donations, WBAI is also offering premiums as incentives for donations. Yet Mr. Kaplan fails to observe that this history of change applies to every single non-commercial station in the nation. 

4) The size of the WBAI payroll is an internal issue of economics for the station, yet Mr. Kaplan seems to give credence to this point as if it some how relates to the CPB ombudsman. It does not. Similarly, there is no CPB rule about how long “fundraising marathons” may last or what format that stations may use for fundraising marathons. NPR stations also engage in multiple fundraising marathons in an annual cycle and Mr. Kaplan makes no distinction between how Pacifica conducts its marathons and how NPR stations or other local community stations conduct theirs. 

5) Mr. Bedrock claims that WBAI is violating its “non-profit status” by “selling books, CDs and DVDs at greatly inflated prices.” First, “non-profit status” refers to the 501(c)(3) status of a non-profit corporation not to CPB rules. Non-profits are allowed to “sell” goods to members and to the public as long as the non-profit rules of percentage of income are followed. Mr. Kaplan has no jurisdiction and presents no evidence that WBAI is violating any rule related to its “non-profit status.” Mr. Kaplan’s report completely fails to make the distinction that CPB has nothing to say about “non-profit status” and only has jurisdiction over whether a station is to be considered to have “non-commercial status” for CPB purposes.

6) Mr. Kaplan’s report completely fails to distinguish between offering an item as a premium incentive for donations and offering an item for “sale.” Mr. Kaplan’s report completely fails to distinguish how any premium offered by WBAI is categorically or substantially different from premium’s offered by NPR and other community stations.

7) Mr. Bedrock complains that some of the premiums “are materials produced by employees of the station.” Mr. Kaplan’s report completely fails to respond to this allegation by making it clear that there is in fact no CPB rule relating to the offering of premiums produced by employees, or if there is such a rule, what the circumstances are that would make such an offer a violation of any CPB rule. If Mr. Kaplan had presented such a rule, the anyone reading the report who knows WBAI fundraising practices could evaluate for themselves whether or not WBAI is violating the rule. 

8) Mr. Bedrock complains, “As a recovering cancer patient, I am offended by the hawking of materials that offer outlandish ‘alternative’ cures for cancer.” Yet Mr. Bedrock provides not a sigle specific example of what he calls “hawking” or an offer of a “cure.” Mr. Kaplan’s report completely fails to respond to the vacuity of the allegation, including the lack of any specific date or time of such an offer made on the air. Mr. Kaplan doesn’t report that he looked into the claim and heard discovered any evidence of “hawking” cancer cures on the air. Mr. Bedrock’s complaint is specifically made in the context of his support for establishment treatments for cancer and he is personally offended that non-establishment treatments are discussed in the context of freedom of speech. Mr. Kaplan’s report completely fails to address this point of freedom of speech and that the CPB is not the arbiter of the First Amendment or that the CPB would be overstepping its own jurisdiction if it were to attempt to enforce a restriction of speech to that speech which is approved by the government and the “official” medical establishment. 

9) Mr. Kaplan then complains that he has not had any of his inquires responded to by the station. Mr. Kaplan fails to include any statement about whether or not he actually has listened to WBAI or to any of the on-air offers that Mr. Bedrock is complaining about. Mr. Kaplan fails to indicate whether he actually asked Mr. Bedrock for recordings of the on-air offers that he was complaining about and whether or not Mr. Bedrock responded to his request. This lack of evenhanded requests shows an apparent bias in Mr. Kaplan’s report.

10) Mr. Kaplan then includes this outlandish statement: “Chris Albertson, a former general manger at WBAI in the 1960s, agrees with Mr. Bedrock that the station has strayed from its mission and says it has become unlistenable.” There is absolutely nothing in this comment that relates to any jurisdiction of the CPB Ombudsman. What the “mission” of WBAI is and how the interpretation of that mission has changed in the last 50 years is of no concern to the CPB. Similarly where or not Mr. Albertson finds the programming to be “unlistenable” is completely outside of any activity of the CPB. What is “unlistenable” to one person is very listenable to another, and Mr. Kaplan must be assumed to know this. Mr. Kaplan’s report is unprofessional to include this sentence as if it has any relevance whatsoever and is irresponsible to fail to respond to it by stating how it is irrelevant to anything related to his own job as an ombudsman. The Ombudsman does not have the job of determining if a station’s programming is “listenable.”

11) Mr. Kaplan states that Mr. Albertson “agreed that WBAI may have “stepped over their legal bounds” when it comes to fundraising. Mr. Kaplan’s report is completely irresponsible and unprofessional by not stating what CPB “legal bound” is being alleged to have been “stepped over.” Mr. Kaplan’s report does not even distinguish if the “legal bound” being asserted has anything to do with the CPB regulations or some other kind of “legal bound.”

12) Mr. Kaplan includes Mr. Albertson’s statement “I started the marathon in 1964 because we needed funds. We weren’t offering any premiums; WBAI was the premium.” Yet, Mr. Kaplan’s report utterly fails to state how this is relevant to anything that the CPB or the CPB Ombudsman is concerned with. Mr. Kaplan’s report fails to state that this “complaint” about the offering of premiums applies to every non-commercial radio station in the nation that uses on-air fundraising “marathons.” Mr. Kaplan’s report fails to respond to Mr. Albertson’s complaint by informing Mr. Albertson that there is absolutely no CPB rule against offering premiums. Failure to state the objective rule about the use of premiums shows the bias of Mr. Kaplan’s report.

13) Mr. Kaplan then includes Mr. Albertson’s complaint about the use of the on-air premium “called Double Helix water.” I have no idea what this is about. However, again, Mr. Kaplan’s report does not include any reference to an inquiry to Mr. Albertson about whether he has any recording or time of such an offer or a transcription of what was actually stated. Mr. Albertson’s memory of something stated on the air is not reliable without further corroboration. People often “hear what they want to hear” on the radio and I have frequently hear radio people marvel at what callers say that they heard someone saying when no such thing was actually stated. 

14) Mr. Kaplan says “It would be nice to hear from WBAI” which seems reasonable out of context. But in the light of Mr. Kaplan’s biased and unprofessional report, I can sympathize completely with the station not responding to Mr. Kaplan’s inquiries. Mr. Kaplan bemoans that he can’t get the “the station’s point of view” but since he has done absolutely nothing to clarify, respond to the irrelevancies, or seek any evidence whatsoever from the complainants regarding any support they might have about their “point of view,” the reader can have no confidence at all the Mr. Kaplan’s report would be benefited by another point of view. If Mr. Kaplan wanted to have a response then he should have outlined a single CPB rule that was being alleged to have been violated, stated the manner in which the allegation if true would have been problematic, and then asked for a specific response to a specific allegation. 

As I read this purported report, I can only see it as a result of either a personal vendetta or just plain slipshod attention to the Ombudsman’s job.

Gregory Wonderwheel

In your capacity as Ombudsman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, you must not back down from your responsibility to ensure that WBAI adheres to the requirements of the Communications Act.


Stop the flow of federal money to WBAI until WBAI obeys federal law.





                                                                   Edward Manfredonia


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: