Yesterday we learned that on May 17, 2012, future-SLAPP Plaintiff Kim Cardinal asked 2nd Ward Councilwoman Beth Mason's chief political operative, James Barracato:
"Has she been served yet?"Barracato replied:
"Not sure shes been served yet, I'll find out tomorrow."
How was Barracato to "find out" whether I had been served? Was Barracato contacting attorneys directly himself or through (another) third party? How many others were involved?
Judge Arre called it a "SLAPP suit disguised as a defamation case." The full cast of characters involved in the plot to silence the Reform blogosphere in 2012 has yet to be revealed.
But known facts are indisputable. The fact that the Bajardi's attorney, Jonathan Z. Cohen of Wayne, Pennsylvania, refused to produce court-ordered discovery (including, but not limited to, the Bajardi's bank records, financial statements, credit card statements, wireless phone records, emails) from the date he entered Bajardi v Pincus on November 21, 2013. ALL of these records witheld would have shown the movement of money through the Bajardis' bank accounts to pay for the litigation.
A total of 68 motions were filed in Bajardi v Pincus, nearly all after Cohen's entry for the Bajardis, a period during which no court-ordered discovery was turned over to Defendants.
GA estimates the blizzard of litigation in several states, including but not limited to retaining a NYC firm, the retaining a California firm, subpoenas to Google, AOL and other media companies, videotaping depositions, endless motion practice, trial preparation and a 2-week trial for a total 446 days (November 21, 2013 - February 10, 2015) cost roughly $500,000.
The question of how Plaintiffs Lane Bajardi and Kim Cardinal paid for 929 days of litigation (July 26, 2012 - February 10, 2015) goes to the proofs that a SLAPP was perpetrated by them on over a dozen Hoboken residents.
On July 14, 2011, Lane Bajardi discusses his financial status with Hoboken411, including his [Bajardi's] need to focus on "revenue-generating opportunities" so that he does not "end up having to dip into [his] 401K" to pay his mortgage. This exchange took place one year before he and his unemployed wife, Kim Cardinal filed Bajardi v Pincus.
6 months and 25 days later.....
The following was published previously on GA, "Under Oath: Plaintiffs "can't recall their litigation costs"; both Plaintffs respond to questions under oath about their litigation expenses and payment:
LANE BAJARDI DEPOSITION
July 16, 2014
In short, he don't know nothin' bout birthin' no babies, nor the cost of his lawsuit.
Lane Bajardi did confirm that his Bloomberg 401K was not being tapped for the litigation, he payed for the last payment on his credit card and he expected his 2014 salary to be "in the neighborhood of $120-130K.
KIM CARDINAL BAJARDI DEPOSITION
September 12, 2014
September 12, 2014
Did you follow that? Me neither. But I'll take a shot.
According to Cardinal Bajardi:
- Lane reviews the litigation bills, she only pays them from her credit card.
- Lane and she have credit cards linked to the same account.
- All litigation bills are charged on her credit card.
- Their litigation bills are paid in full each month.
- She writes checks for the litigation bills from her TD checking or HBI account.
- On September 12, 2014 there was $5 left in her "Hubbard" bank (HBI?)
- She gets the money to pay her credit card off in full each month from "Our account. My checking account in Minnesota" [page 250]
- Her lowest monthly legal expense has been $7-8K, the highest monthly expense "over $40,000"
- Her legal costs are "devastating"
- She "can't recall" their litigation expenses in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
- She "can't recall" her last month's legal expense because "Lane paid it."
- Lane is not authorized to write checks from the Minnesota account[page 247] (Note, TD Bank has no branches or ATMs in Minnesota.)
- The Bajardi's disposable household income (after taxes) in 2013 was approximately $85K. (page 259)
Original post- 08/11/2015