One of the mysteries of Bajardi v Pincus (aside from why it was ever filed) concerns Hoboken Patch screen names, prosbus and Curious Gal.
If you don't know, prosbus and Curious Gal authored hundreds of provocative posts attacking Dawn Zimmer, her administration, her allies, Kids First, and me.
There were dozens like this one by prosbus:
And dozens more like this by Curious Gal:
Well, you know GA whacked them back. Like ping-pong. Whack! Whack! Whack! I've never been sued for a rough volley and no one's ever claimed to be defamed by my wicked serve. Whack!
Not these opponents. These hothouse flowers alleged they were "defamed" because I addressed prosbus as "Lane Bajardi" and Curious Gal as "Kim Cardinal."
So here's what happened...
On September 11, 2014, Judge Christine Vanek ruled:
Yep, the Court removed the issue of prosbus and Curious Gal's identity as a legal issue from the case.
Now here's the great mystery:
Eighteen days after the judge determined it didn't matter who posted under screen names prosbus and Curious Gal, Plaintiffs produced the person claiming to be "prosbus" and "Curious Gal:"
Paragraph 5 of the Petrosino certification:
"Curious Gal" and "prosbus" were online fictional characters intended to provide a civil counter-narrative to comments posted on Patch."Did he say "civil counter-narrative?" You mean like this?:
Yeah, that's "civil." GA's archived over 200 pages of Curious Gal and prosbus posts. I would call that collection many descriptive terms but "civil" is not one of them.
Then of course, there's the deposition of political operative Tom Bertoli back on January 9, 2014.
Bertoli testified under oath that Lane Bajardi admitted to the screen name identity prosbus.
Eenie, meenie, miney moe... I pick Tommy.