Monday, March 30, 2015

"Your big laugh for today..."

Click HERE to read the USA Today article

At 4:13 PM on Sunday, January 20, 2013, USA Today published an article about how Hoboken Sandy victims living in garden-level homes were battling the government and flood insurance industry's denial of coverage.  

Featured prominently was the Sobolov family.
Sitting at her kitchen table recently, Sobolov looked at a bathroom that no longer had walls, a sink or a toilet. Its door was propped up against a wall in her living room, a decades-old brown sign reading "please keep this door closed at all times" in both English and Spanish hanging from a nail. Previous owners put the sign on the door and added on the living room, which was deemed a porch by the insurance company. The floors and bottom of the walls are ripped up. The back door opens onto a few steps up into the backyard.

Sobolov said she is challenging the assertion that her home was flooded because of her claim that what came up through the toilet and drain damaged her home. But because the insurance company declared her home flooded, she is also fighting the basement classification. There was about a foot of water and sludge in her home.

Sobolov received $5,000 from FEMA, she said, and is supposed to get another $6,000 under her flood insurance. She said she has a $250,000 flood insurance policy. Contractors estimated the damage will cost $60,000 to $80,000 to fix. Additionally, many of the family's possessions, including the stove, dishwasher and furniture, were destroyed.
At 7:10 PM on January 20, Sara Stojkovic sent Kim Cardinal an email linking the USA Today article.

The subject line of Stojkovic's email:

"Your big laugh for today..."  Her message:

"Look at that photo and tell me she's not squatting in a basement. Seriously, she's pathetic."

At 9:05 AM on Monday, January 21, 2013 Kim Cardinal responds, "...She only lost her kitchen."

At 11:02 AM Sara Stojovic replies: "And I laughed when I saw the photo..." (referring to the photo of mother and son surrounded by the ruins of their partially-demolished home.)

read from the bottom up

Numerous emails between Sara Stojkovic and Kim Cardinal Bajardi discuss posts on Sobolov's personal Facebook page.

On December 1, 2012, Irene Sobolov posts that she received a denial letter from her flood insurance company.

At 10:32 PM Stojkovic copies the Facebook post and emails it to Cardinal:


On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Irene Sobolov posts on her Facebook page that she is ordering Dominoes pizza because her kids "like that."

At 4:12 PM, Sara Stojkovic takes this post from Sobolov's page, emails it to Kim Cardinal:


On Saturday, September 17, 2011 Irene Sobolov posted that her car was towed.

At 11:34 AM Sara Stojkovic takes the Facebook post and sends it to Kim Cardinal Bajardi:


On January 9, 2015, Irene Sobolov received this letter from the Bajardi's attorney, Jonathan Z. Cohen. 



Irene had provided two affidavits pertaining only to dismissed Plaintiff Cardinal-Bajardi: she had no testimony relevant to remaining allegations by Plaintiff Lane Bajardi.  Proof of this is that Cohen never called Sobolov to testify. 

Then why did the Bajardi's subpoena and letter demand that Irene Sobolov "appear in person" at 9 AM on the first day of  the trial, January 26, 2015, and "each weekday thereafter" until "you are excused by the court or me." 

What do you think?

Friday, March 27, 2015

"I bring my camera everywhere I go"

The following Affidavit was attached to Exhibit B of my Cross Motion to Compel or Dismiss Complaint for Plaintiffs' Failure to Produce Discovery filed on February 20, 2014.

AFFIDAVIT OF IRENE SOBOLOV







The Court dismissed Kim Cardinal Bajardi's claims on September 11, 2014.

The next day, on September 12, 2014, Cardinal-Bajardi was deposed under oath.





Note the abusive, unprofessional treatment ["you're going to look like a moron"] accorded to a pro se litigant. 

In retrospect, ironic words.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Lying under Oath Returns


On May 15, 2014, Plaintiff Lane Bajardi certified his answers to the interrogatories he was served in discovery:



On July 16, 2014, Plaintiff Lane Bajardi was deposed under oath.



On or before July 1, 2014 the following responsive email documents were produced by Plaintiffs.

This email exchange took place on June 2, 2008:

read from the bottom up

This email exchange took place on May 21 2009.

read from the bottom up

The lies keep piling up, don't they?

"...send them to her boss"


read from the bottom up

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

"nominate perry b"


Funny how a group of political operatives with a little legal help could churn out complaints against their various political targets.  It went like this:
  1. Step 1: Get the right legal mumbo-jumbo on said Complaint 
  2. Step 2: Nominate a willing signatory
  3. Step 3: Get it in the hands of Hoboken411's political ghostwriter.
A 4:54 PM on December 22, 2010, Mason "business partner" James Barracato emails Jaime Cryan, Tim Occhipinti and Lane "not an operative" Bajardi.

read from the bottom up

At 11:40 AM on December 28, 2010, Beth Mason's attorney Steve Kleinman sent a "Confidential Request for an Investigation" ELEC form to James Barracato. The form was filled out except for "persons bringing the request"; those (3) name fields were left blank. 

At 12:16 PM Barracato forwarded Kleinman's partially-executed ELEC complaint to Lane "not an operative" Bajardi.


ATTACHMENT



All ready for somebody's John Hancock!

"Nominate Perry B.!"

GA has not found the usual slime trail on Hoboken411; it appears no one volunteered to sign the ELEC complaint-- unlike the Bhalla complaint..."nominate Perry B.!"

Speaking of Ravi and well, Steve Kleinman, here is an email exchange from 2008.

 On February 22, Lane "Red Haven" Bajardi wrote Hoboken411:


Ah, 2008 when Bhalla was a "good guy."

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

"He comes to many meetings...Beware" (*NEW TITLE)


At 6:44 PM on August 23, 2010, Lane "Red Haven" Bajardi emailed Hoboken411:


Oh dear, a (potential) rat-posting!

At  7:16 PM Hoboken411 replies:


Phew, not a rat, but what  about the posting?

"Both are essentially in violation of the rules..."  ZAP!  All gone!  

So, pro- Zimmer posts "violate" the rules.  What happens to rats? 


They get sued. This rat is "Defendant No. 3" in Bajardi v Pincus.

Speaking of Pincus...



Rats must be stopped.  

At 1:00 AM on November 16, 2010  Lane "rat-catcher" Bajardi emails Hoboken411:



At 2:13 AM, Lane "Red Haven" Bajardi sends his "fresh story" to Hoboken411.


Thanks for using the "horrible picture!"

As rats go, GA must be special, because on November 20, 2010:


SeeSara Stojkovic (whom GA had never met) had her father get "new Pincus info out" to the Director of Anti-Defamation League of NJ, Etzion Neurer.   Dad even invited Neuer to lunch...
rat-catching is a family affair!  Or as Stojkovic put it: "HA HA!"

If Dad reads this, I hope you had a nice lunch with Etzion- "HA HA!"

So that's how they did it.

Hoboken411 was a primary source of opposition research  on Zimmer supporters and/or Beth Mason critics- the "rats."  Our posts were deleted, we were banned, and our personal registration information was shared with the rat-catchers.

Then MSV, GA and Patch came along, and with it a galaxy of new "rats."   

The obsessed rat-catchers could no longer control online political speech; they could not delete, moderate, ban, or otherwise stop you and I from expressing our First Amendment-protected speech.   They could not access our identities to subject us to opposition research and Lane Bajardi's ghostwritten attacks on Hoboken411.  The obsessed rat-catchers convinced themselves that City Hall was directing MSV and GA.

Enter, Bajardi v Pincus It was supposed stop the rats,  identify them and, nail the Zimmer administration.

How did it work out, rat-catchers?

Monday, March 23, 2015

"finally"- UPDATED

Does anyone doubt that one intent and purpose of Lane and Kim Cardinal Bajardi's SLAPP was to silence Reform speech online?

Bajardi v Pincus was filed on July 26, 2012.  I was served on August 3, 2012 and on August 19, The Hoboken Reporter published their version of the story.     

At 10:27 AM on August 26, 2012:


Kim Cardinal Bajardi responds at 1:22 PM.  At 6:03PM, Sara Stojkovic replies that is it "Too late...:"


Ugh.
_________________________________________

Update:
GA noted this anonymouse @ 1:45 PM comment to HobokenJourney below:
Hoboken411 definitely didn't like you commenting there. I recall a comment directed toward a woman with vision problems. It was a condescending vicious comment out of nowhere and no semblance to anything. How could the other commenter know anything about another commenter?
Good question.  I just looked and found this (GA digitized one inflammatory adjective) :


It appears to me that Journey's identity was shared.  Journey honey, you have company- GA is legally blind.  Boy, that's mean.

Oh yes, and I forgot this one from August 12, 2012- 9 days after GA was served with Bajardi v Pincus:



Sunday, March 22, 2015

Say "Cheese!"

Peekaboo?



Hey, I know that enchanced-guy!

GA nearly busted a gut this morning at the Dark Side's "diversion"  from the epic political disaster known as Bajardi v Pincus.  

You know, that SLAPP suit with the unintended consequences?  Meaning a mother-lode of intel on Dark Side political operations entered in the public domain, like the Bhalla-Condon smear for example.   Have you Dark Siders thanked Beth Mason, James Barracato and Lane and Kim Cardinal Bajardi yet?

Mmmm... the smell of cooked geese is wafting over Hoboken. 


Friday, March 20, 2015

Under Oath- the Sequel


These are true and correct excerpts from sworn certifications filed on June 30 and July 3, 2014.

The certifications were filed as exhibits in support of  Plaintiffs' opposition to my Motion to Compel Plaintiffs To Produce Discovery Ordered on April 25, 2014 or Dismiss or Strike Complaint.

 PLAINTIFF LANE BAJARDI
Plaintiffs' EXHIBIT E-Lane Bajardi certification

WITNESS PERRY KLAUSSEN
Plaintiffs' EXHIBIT H-Perry Klaussen certification

On August 4, 2014, the following were included as exhibits in support of my Motion for Summary Judgment.

At 10:31 AM on November 19, 2010, Perry Klaussen emails Hoboken411 political ghostwriter, Lane "Red Haven" Bajardi "to help out" with a "political year in review piece."


"Red Haven" Bajardi replies 7 minutes later at 10:38 AM.


Who's "the boss"?

Eenie... meenie... miney... moe

On March 22, 2011, Perry Klaussen emails his political ghostwriter, Lane "Red Haven" Bajardi.


At 4:47 AM on May 2, 2011, Hoboken411 emailed Lane "Red Haven" Bajardi: 


At 3:52 AM on June 28, 2011, Perry Klaussen emails Lane "Red Haven" Bajardi.   "Red Haven"  replies at 11:47 AM.


Rattle rattle rattle.  Red Haven's shaking his tin cup.

At 12:47 PM, Klaussen responds.


Well folks, you get the idea.

Based on these email documents, a reasonable person would believe that Klaussen's ability to compensate Bajardi for his ghostwriting correlated with Hoboken411's revenue stream from ads.  For example, ads bought by businesses like City Bistro ,Lua, and political ads from candidates like  Beth Mason.    A reasonable person might also believe the beneficiaries of a healthy ad revenue stream would be Perry Klaussen and the political ghostwriter he offers "monetary compensation" to, Lane "Red Haven" Bajardi.

Which may explain why Klaussen asks Lane Bajardi for his "thoughts" and "advice" on advertising strategy.