Thursday, July 9, 2015

New York Post: "1010WINS anchor owes $225K in legal fees for failed defamation suit"

Here we go.

Published early this morning on the New York Post online, and likely to appear in a later print edition:


20 comments:

  1. Leave it to the NY Post to misstate the dollar amount and include the ridiculous quote from Kim, but hey I'm surprised they covered this settlement at all, and so quickly. I thought Lane and Kim had an "in" with the Post after their previous coverage of the trial. I guess they enjoy sticking it to a public figure at a competition news organization (1010WINS) more than the Bajardi's bargained for.

    Karma, baby.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, if they drag this out with appeals, can you ask for more legal expenses to be paid by them? Sounds like a very expensive legal proposition if they have to pay more the longer they drag this out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with the comment above! I hope that frivolous appeals are also chargeable to Lane and Kim. Keep that meter running baby!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. It appears that the distributed amounts are quite low to both you and Brice. Why is that?


    Mark Heyer was granted the bulk (over $200k).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was answered in yesterday's breaking news story

      Delete
    2. Again: the Court ordered Plaintiffs Lane Bajardi and Kim Cardinal Bajardi to pay me 100% of the legal fees I applied for. Yep, 100%.

      I can't/don't/won't speak for others.

      Delete
    3. Your legal fees were only in the 20k range?

      Delete
    4. If I read the decision correctly, and from past coverage by GA and Horsey (especially the e-mails), the plaintiffs knew who Mr. Heyer was (and knew his on-line moniker because PK disclosed it to the plaintiffs) back in 2007. However, they never named him personally as a defendant in the complaint, just another screen name, along with about 20 or so other screen names, and then, according to the judge, chased him through 5 states and 68 motions to determine his identity. That sounds like a whole lot of legal fees to me. I bet now that they wish they never bothered with him. Also, he was just a private citizen, not someone who was publishing a blog. He just posted his opinions anonymously, for effing sakes, just like the other screen name defendants, who did get to keep their anonymity.

      Delete
  5. Remember all of those condescending emails that went back and forth between the plaintiffs, their pals and Team Mason? I wonder how the tone of their emails were yesterday and today?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am guessing there may be a pink slip in someone's near future.
    Such greedy bitter fools!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1010WINS give us twenty minutes and we will give........

      Delete
  7. "This case has always been about hatred and lies"

    Apparently the judge agreed with Kimberly Cardinal-Bajardi assessment of the case and that is why he threw it out and slapped her and her husband Lane Bajardi with over a quarter of a million dollars is penalties.


    ReplyDelete
  8. Will the Hoboken Reporter bury the story ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wouldn't surprise me if it's ignored, can't see it getting more than a one-paragraph blurb in the hoboken news briefs roundup section, after it jumps to page 15 buried in the back.

      i wonder if al sullivan will do something separate for his column? despite all the BS he's published, he does occasionally like to take a poke at the local political characters.

      either way, don't look for him or the HR news coverage to mention the masons in connection to this case, though.

      Delete
  9. Wow, Kim's quote sounds really nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey I wonder if the man who posted under a woman's identity behind the names of Prosbus/Curious Gal will be chipping in to help defray costs? After all the comments under those names were the bait to goad people in to this scam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point, Anon@11:17. Prosbus/CG was clearly there to entrap other commenters, I'd be hitting up the Nutty Professor for a healthy contribution if I were the Bajardis.

      I'd also get Fishhead to kick in, his pathological hatred of GA was probably a driving force behind filing and then perpetuating this multi-year case, IN MY OPINION.

      Delete
    2. You nailed it 11:37. IN MY OPINION this was a set up and those were the likely players.

      Sure didn't turn out the way they had probably hoped though

      I remember someone showing me a Facebook post by Mama 5 bucks a tow when the lawsuit was first filed. Mama was hoping GA would be run out of town. So sorry to disappoint Mama

      Delete
  11. Anybody know if this story in the print edition yet?

    ReplyDelete