Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Connecting Dots

The Mayor's Jan. 3rd 2012 court testimony filmed by Beth Mason videographer and posted 'exclusively' on Hoboken411.com, branded with his logo. The entire 3:58:58 long clip is being hosted there- GA is told that hosting video streams of that length is NOT cheap. (Why streams are often broken into segments) WHO is paying Hoboken411 for the COST of hosting the nearly 4-HOUR video? 

GA watched some of Beth Mason's video of Mayor Zimmer's testimony in the Campbell vs. City of Hoboken lawsuit, after a friend texted me that my name came up. 

Well, it was very brief.

GA was the only Hoboken blogger plaintiff's attorney Catherine Elston mentioned.  The exchange went like this:
(2:46:30)

Elston: Are you aware of people that blog on your behalf, mayor?

Mayor: There's no one that blogs on my behalf. people in Hoboken state their opinions and sometimes they agree with me and sometimes they disagree with me. No one blogs on my behalf.

Elston:  Nancy Pincus doesn't blog on our behalf?(GA Note: BWAAA-HAW-HAW!!! Show me the money, honey!)

Mayor:  There's no one that blogs on my behalf.

Elston:  You're absolutely sure about that?

Mayor: I'm absolutely certain They're a very active engaged community in Hoboken and they're often stating their opinions and they're not doing it for me. 

That was it.

And not the point of this post, but a point of interest because it's odd.  Like sticking my name in there was somebody else's agenda item.    Hmmm... 



But it was just one stroke in the larger picture emerging.  

Beginning with yesterday's discovery that Beth Mason hired a videographer to film Mayor Zimmer's testimony.

Not altogether surprising on it's face, not after Mason sent her videographer to film my Board meeting, which Hoboken411's  Perry Klaussen 'warned' me about in one of a series of threatening posts:


(F.B.I. guys, I have a whole batch of these.  I'd be happy to share my story with you over a falafel at Mamoun's!)

Well, guess what?

That videographer showed up!  Courtesy of Beth Mason.   Just like I'd been warned.  The funny thing was, I'd been recused from the hearing that night and left before the camera stared rolling.  So Mason's footage from the evening was never used.   Ha!

Think about it, F.B.I.  The Klaussen post says "WE'LL see you with a video camera... " not  I'll see you with a video camera..."

WE.

Evidence of a conspiracy, no?  

 Of the kind where someone 'obtains' confidential information from the City and abra-ca-dabra it appears on Hoboken411.com. For example, the "HOBOKEN411 EXCLUSIVE"  about the terms of the City's  $2 million settlement in the SWAT Team case (F.B.I. guys, read GA's post about that)... hmmmm. 

Well guys and gals, YOU'VE got our servers so YOU figure out the chain of custody of this sensitive City business, you tell us HOW this confidential information came to be published on the Mason-sponsored web site.


So, where was I... oh, yes!

Beth Mason's videographer that showed up at the Jan 3rd court appearance of Hoboken Mayor Zimmer.

According to a source, Mason's videographer brought an assistant with him, and neither identified who they were.  The City's attorney asked to have them removed unless they were credentialed members of the press.  After a conference, the judge made the determination to allow them to stay, and without trying to identify them.  However, witnesses recognized the videographer.

Now...  this is a very strange law suit.  Because the legal arguments seemed to be synced perfectly with the 2010-2012 political strategy of Beth Mason, not the 2010 dismissal of plaintiff Billy Campbell.  I listened for about 20 minutes past my own name, and kept thinking: what does ANY of THIS have to do with the firing of Campbell?

At best, the legal argument is highly speculative. But the attacks on Melli read like a Bajardi Hoboken411 hit piece.   How appropriately-coincidental the video 'exclusive' appeared there just days later.

Based on the nature of the questioning, and the presence of Mason's film crew, GA wonders if Beth Mason may have actually been coordinating with the plaintiff's attorney AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY.

Which raises these questions.
  • Has Mason ever communicated with the plaintiff's attorney, Catherine Elston, on this case?
  • Has Mason ever offered her any information- even emails- for use in her case AGAINST THE CITY?
  • Has there been ANY coordination of ANY kind between Mason and Elston, either directly or through intermediaries?
  • And if the City's Attorney objected to the presence of cameras, why didn't he plaintiff's attorney?  Was it because she already knew who had sent them?  That they were 'friendly' to her client?

GA hopes that the City's Attorney feels it appropriate to call Beth Mason to testify, to explain under oath why she has used personal funds to videotape the Mayor and disseminate the tape on an 'unfriendly' web site.

And ask Mason if she has participated in the plaintiffs case AGAINST the City she was elected to govern.

Why?

Because if the plaintiff is arguing that the City fired him to politicize their communications staff, the City can counter that the plaintiff's lawsuit is coordinated political payback and has no merit as such.

Getting the Mayor's chief critic to testify to her participation in the action against the City would prove this point.  

Well, GA doesn't get paid $850/hour for obvious reasons.  I am sure Not-Stempler will laugh at me later.

I can tell you is this: the link to yesterday's announcement that Mason sent the videographer  keeps getting deleted from the nj.com message board.  Which means 'her people' don't like questions about Mason's relationship to this case or to the plaintiff's attorney.  I call that a smoking gun.

One final point  for my F.B.I. friends...

Do you see a behavior pattern here? With the same cast of characters.


2 comments:

  1. This thing, once again, stinks to the High Heavens. What the hell was wrong with that judge. He should never have allowed that videotaping unless the unidentified persons engaging in it were clearly identified and they stated for whom the videotaping was being done. The implication behind that line of questioning by the plaintiff's attorney really gives the whole thing away... "Of course people MUST be blogging on your behalf, Mayor Zimmer, because there are those with multiple screen names busily blogging on behalf of Beth Mason all the time." The attorney possesses the subtlety of a jackhammer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The question regarding who blogs on the mayor's behalf is very revealing.

    So deep is Mrs. Richard G. Mason's pathology that she cannot believe that decent folks would actually support the mayor's efforts while being fully disgusted with Mason's.

    This pathology is amplified by Mason's attorney's questions. She who pays the piper calls the tune, no matter how politically tone-deaf it may be.

    Yes, Beth. You are reviled that much.

    ReplyDelete