GA ran across another email exchange proving Lane Bajardi knew the identity behind another screen name 2 years before Bajardi tossed him into Paragraph 130 of Bajardi v Pincus, subjecting the anonymous individual to the financial and mental stress of defending his anonymity in court.
On October 15, 2010 Sara Stojkovic emails Lane Bajardi:
The "Lenz arrest record" Stojkovic refers to is an incident that happened on December 13, 2007.
At 7:25 AM on December 14, 2007 Sara Stojkovic writes Kim Cardinal:
At 8:16 AM on December 14, 2007 Sara Stojkovic writes Kim Cardinal:
Would you call that HPD unpaid-traffic ticket incident an "arrest record?"__________________________________________________
Original post: April 28, 2015
|Plaintiffs' Emails prove that Plaintiffs knew the identities of many screen names|
Few of us knew we were targets before we became Defendants.
I'm talking about the John Does and Paragraph 130's. They were persons whose identities were known to Plaintiffs, but they were thrown into Bajardi v Pincus ANYWAY.
GA believes to subject pro-Reform bloggers to harassment and the astronomical cost of defending their anonymity from whatever came next.
Here is what the Plaintiffs promised for the "unnamed Defendants:"
Get it? And the purpose of all this?
The purpose of identifying John Does and Paragraph 130s was to add them to the SLAPP as "named defendants."
In true SLAPP fashion, the Bajardis knew the identities of some "un-named Defendants." This is proven by their emails and depositions.
At his deposition, Lane Bajardi admitted to knowing or "having a pretty good idea" of who was behind screen names he threw in the litigation (like SS1959), but emails prove he lied at his deposition about others, such as InfotainMe.
At 10:27 PM on February 8, 2012, Lane Bajardi emails James Barracato his "Attorney Intro Note." Bajardi's "note" includes admissions he knows the true identities of InfotainMe and plywood- who were later thrown into Bajardi v Pincus.
"davidd" is another Paragraph 130 Defendant whose identity was known by Plaintiffs.
In this example, Sara Stojkovic tries to get the man behind screen name "davidd" booted from POG for his internet postings.
At 11:56 AM on March 13, 2011, POG President Alice Crozier sends an email blast to POG members, titled "candidate's debates."
At 2:05 PM, Sara Stojkovic forwards the mail to another POG member, Bob, with the message:
Why is David (redacted) included on this list? He doesn't live in Hoboken and he's one of the Zimmer people bashing POG on Roman and Kurt's site...and Patch! He uses his own name. Why does POG feel beholden to provide him with any communication?
Bob continues the exchange with Crozier.
At 8:04 PM, Stojkovic emails Crozier a davidd post, "one of many, many..."
At 7:44 AM on March 14, 2011, Crozier replies to Stojkovic:
"I am not up on Hoboken blogs, so the fact that I have not seen (redacted) there means nothing.At 8:59 AM Stojkovic forwards her exchange with Crozier about davidd to Kim Cardinal.
I can tell you how POG works though. When someone pays the annual dues he or she is a member until the next time dues are due, the following fall. The treasurer keeps a list of who is paid up. Where they go after that is not up to us..."
At 9:08 AM Kim Cardinal refers to davidd by surname and adds "He lives in France but is blogging about Hoboken..."
Kim Cardinal knew davidd's identity 17 months before she threw him in HER complaint as a Paragraph 130 defendant.
Stojkovic appeared to be ticked off by Crozier's expressed indifference to ddavid's postings and place of residence.
At 9:26 AM Stojkovic vents to Crozier alleging "offensive and destructive" online comments made by "Zimmer supporters."
At 9:29 AM Stojkovic forwards the email to Kim Cardinal.
At 9:03 AM Alice Crozier emails Sara Stojkovic, in an exchange which GA believes will become a classic.
Crozier begins the exchange: "By the way, Lane is a member in good standing."
These are not the only screen names whose identities Plaintiffs' knew before they threw them in Bajardi v Pincus.
It's in the emails.