Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Mason Trial is Tomorrow

The first of (2) frivolous complaints filed recently by Councilwoman Beth Mason against a prominent Hoboken blogger will go to trial at 1:00 PM tomorrow in Jersey City Municipal CourtMason will be represented by her longtime personal attorney, Steve Kleinman.

Here is the actual complaint:


Mason alleges to be "victim" of an assault with a deadly envelope.  The "victim" acknowledges the envelope contained "court documents."

This is true.  The envelope contained a trial subpoena for Bajardi v Pincus.  Sadly, both Masons lost their motion(s) to quash them and would have been forced to testify.  Then, our September 22nd trial date was moved to January 26, 2015...

But I digress!

Will NJ courts protect victims of SLAPP suits and frivolous complaints from the predatory out-of-town law firms and/or vindictive politicians who file them? 

A step in the right direction, today the NJ Supreme Court announced:


Yep, today the NJ Supreme Court put a stop to the practice of piling on 'actual' damage claims with 'presumed' damages to equal a huge sum ($2,000,000 for example).  Such enormous in terrorem claims are often used by predatory lawyers for leverage in settlement talks with SLAPP victims. Simply put, the predators' 'settlement' offer is to pay a huge sum (to the SLAPPers) to end the litigation or else face unsustainable, ruinous costs of a protracted legal battle. 

That is the essence of a SLAPP.   Intimidation to stop free speech combined with economic extortion: pay us to exit stage left.  A predatory lawyer might even threaten endless appeals then advise you it is 'cheaper' to pony up a pile of dough now.

And so, GA is heartened to see that courts are limiting the 'leverage' to extort SLAPP victims by limiting defamation damages.

GA wonders how today's ruling impacts "intentional infliction of emotional distress" claims.

Does it?

For example, say a guy files a SLAPP suit, and claims to be hounded by diarrhea and debilitated by dread.

Does the 'limits on defamation' ruling limit the diarrhea claim?  Are there exceptions like proving the diarrhea wasn't caused by a bad taco?  Does he shit in a bucket and bring it to court?  What if the SLAPP-guy  has Montezuma's Revenge?  Shouldn't he sue Montezuma?   And the dread...  couldn't it be a manifestation of psychosis or an untreated personality disorder?  Perhaps the diarrhea is causing the dread.  Or the dread is causing the diarrhea.   I get debilitated thinking about it.  Maybe that's why Mr. SLAPP might claim "nausea."  Thinking about his gastrointestinal distress makes me nauseous. But really, what kind of a lunatic would actually submit such idiotic claims to a NJ court?


8 comments:

  1. The "victim" is offended and alarmed?

    No, Mrs. Richard G. Mason, it is we who are legitimately offended and alarmed.

    Offended that you have never performed the job you were elected to
    Offended that you misuse your husband's wealth to mount frivolous lawsuits
    Offended that you change religions and ethnicities like underwear
    Offended that you pay for votes to swing elections
    Offended that you flout election laws and tax laws
    Offended that you and your husband have been destructive forces in Hoboken

    Alarmed that you would bring our City to the brink of bankruptcy
    Alarmed that you have bought attention from elected officials
    Alarmed that you used the blogosphereand press to defame private citizens
    Alarmed that you have influence in the HPD
    Alarmed that you would buy your way into another political job
    Alarmed that you and your sycophants are still amongst us

    Perhaps the citizens of Hoboken can mount a class action suit against you. Except in your case, there is no class or action.

    ReplyDelete
  2. sounds like you're writing from experience. the part about letting you pay them a fortune to drop the suit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. I know you can't say but it sounds like out of town predators put a big price tag on making the bogus complaint go away.

      Extortion is legal?

      Delete
  3. Hopefully the judge doesn't toss this whole case in the trash where it belongs until after he requires her to spend several days testifying under oath.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perjury can be very expensive.




    ReplyDelete
  5. WISHING THAT PROMINENT HOBOKEN BLOGGER ANOTHER COURT VICTORY TOMORROW.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Best of luck Hoboken Horsey. May your Kentucky Derby be followed by the Preakness.

    And then may you in GA share in the Belmont!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "First of 2" ?

    Really?

    ReplyDelete