If you don't know, Mr. Petrosino provided a certification for Plaintiffs Lane Bajardi and Kim Cardinal on September 19, 2014.
On or about February 6, 2014, Petrosino flew in from Austin, Texas to appear as a trial witness for Lane Bajardi in Hudson County Superior Court.
|Anthony Petrosino certification|
Note, a central allegation of the Bajardi lawsuit was that they were not posting as "Curious Gal" and "prosbus." In 2011 and 2012, there were hundreds of comments by both screen names posted on Hoboken Patch; I filed the entire collection in my Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibits KK and LL (see below).
If we believe Petrosino's certification (and why would he lie under oath?), then the Curious Gal and prosbus posts written by him are a reasonable basis to believe he is a partisan political operative with a rabidly anti-Zimmer, anti-Kids First agenda.
Why does it matter?
Because Petrosino sits on a charter school board which handles the expenditure of public money, which makes it a matter of public interest and public concern. Read the "prosbus" and "Curious Gal" comments below, and see how you feel about his judgment as a steward of your money.
The most basic question raised by Petrosino's certification is: why didn't he ever come forward to correct the alleged mis-identification of the Bajardis as prosbus (Lane) and CuriousGal (Kim)? Petrosino had literally hundreds of opportunities to do so during his constant online presence on Patch. Yet he never did. Not once in 2011 nor 2012.
On March 2, 2012 Sara Stojkovic emails Kim Cardinal:
"I don't think they believe for a minute that Lane has left politics... They assume the two people, probus and curiousgal, are Lane and you and unfortunately, those two bloggers have not denied it. Those two bloggers feel their anonymity is safe because the zealots think they are communicating with you and Lane everyday. By leading the zealots on, the zealots are even more sure that those two bloggers (or one) are you and Lane.""Leading on" is one way to put it. I'd use the word "baiting."
Curious, no? Why did Anthony Petrosino continue provoking or "leading on" others to think prosbus and CuriousGal were the Bajardis over many months?
Further, Petrosino's postings seemed deliberately constructed to elicit a fiery response from particular Zimmer allies, many of whom ended up as Defendants in Bajardi v Pincus . Many of his most vicious postings were directed at me, and I ended up being 60% of Bajardi v Pincus .
|HoLa Trustee Anthony Petrosino certifies he posted as "Curious Gal" and "prosbus"|
As all the baiting and barking was going on in threads hundreds of posts long, Petrosino never stepped up with a post to 'help' the Bajardis and stop the alleged defamation. He could have done it while protecting his anonymity. He could have done it through a third party.
But he did fly in from Austin to testify for them.... does it make sense?
What do YOU think?
Here are the comments compiled by my attorney in 2013, sourced from the Patch ACCOUNTS for prosbus and CuriousGal.