Friday, December 9, 2016

The scrubbing of screen name "Mark on Park"



Do you like mysteries?   Get ready!

Hoboken411 has scrubbed the screen name "Mark on Park" from its website.   

Maybe you've never heard of that Hoboken411 screen name. The origins of the "Mark on Parkare told in the following email.


read from the BOTTOM up

In June of  2014- prior to Lane Bajardi's trialGA documented a total of 14 comments by screen name "Mark on Park:"

  • 3 "Mark on Park" comments in 2011, 
  • 8  "Mark on Park" comments in 2012, 
  • 2  "Mark on Park" comments in 2013,  
  • 1  "Mark on Park" comments in 2014
Why is this relevant? 

Because on March 8, 2013, Plaintiff Bajardi certified that he was hired in  the"Fall of 2011" and "shortly after [he] was hired" was warned by his supervisor that "any future activity of any kind in Hoboken (using your name or anonymously) will be cause for termination."

In June of 2014, the Bajardi pseudonym "Mark on Park" who posted after the "fall of 2011" was discovered in the massive email discovery dump.

GA notified the court in a motion, and  Bajardi responded with a certification swearing that he only used the "Mark on Park" screen name in 2011, before he was hired "in the Fall of 2011".  



   
That should be the end of the story.  Right?

WRONG!

Here is  the status of "Mark on Park" posts on Hoboken411:
  • 2012, 2013 and 2014 "Mark on Park" posts have been SCRUBBED  
  • 2011 "Mark on Park" posts are still online but... this is what's happened to all (3):

 click to read


"Mark on Park" screen name for 2011 posts changed to "Mark on Pork"

WHEN was Lane Bajardi's admitted screen name, "Mark on Park" scrubbed/edited?

WHY was it scrubbed/edited?

Was it scrubbed/edited at the request of someone?  

If so, WHO?

WHAT is the INFERENCE of scrubbing/editing the "Mark on Park" posts that were entered in Bajardi v Pincus litigation?  

 GA is a layperson so I don't know the legal inference of destroying evidence in active litigation,

I can only prove it has happened.

21 comments:

  1. If I were to guess, and it's only speculation o my part, it seems like "someone" didn't want their employer to know they violated the guidelines set up by that employer. it also sounds like they (allegedly) tampered with evidence. buuuusssssttttteddddd!

    btw, love how perry sends an email date stamped 14:48 and says he's still in bed. yeah, him and lane, that's the political a-team right there, LOL!



    ReplyDelete
  2. Ever breath you take and every move you make
    Every bond you break, every step you take. I'll be watching you
    Every single day and every word you say
    Every game you play, every night you stay, I'll be watching you


    ReplyDelete
  3. Is this one of the reasons that the judge said that the Bajardi's (ahem, Mason's) SLAPP suit approached a fraud upon the court? Just wondering. BTW, anyone seen any moving trucks on Park between Observer and First lately?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did they sell? Now that would be merry news for this holiday season!

      Delete
  4. Some unsolicited advice to the Bajardis

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-best-and-less-best-ways-to-tap-the-equity-in-your-home-2016-04-01

    ReplyDelete
  5. It looks like an admission of guilt to me - scrubbing things is usually a last resort to try to restore a reputation. I'm not an expert in this stuff though, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BAM! The gavel comes down once again!

    http://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-couple-must-sell-home-to-pay-225k-owed-to-hoboken-man/

    ReplyDelete
  7. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can we start a gofund me page to help them move?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mark on Pork? aka Lane on KIMBO

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lane and Kim lost their condo!!!! http://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-couple-must-sell-home-to-pay-225k-owed-to-hoboken-man/

    ReplyDelete
  11. OMG Happy holidays!!! THIS IS WONDERFUL NEWS for GA, Horsey & the other defendant!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, Snoopy. Maybe now some of the old gang will start to reappear and post.

      Delete
  12. I wonder when the NY Post will pick this up?

    "Radio guy Loses House over Self-Inflicted First Amendment Lawsuit!"

    "Thin Skinned Pricks Get Just Desserts!"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Normally, I would have compassion for good people losing their home, but in this case I don't think they qualify as good people.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'd bet good money they don't lose their condo. A benefactress will magically appear. They will owe her their unthinking allegiance til the end of time. A new twist on putting the band back together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't that put her and Wachtell partner spouse in the cross hairs of a slapp back? At least they can be deposed under oath. lf I were them I'd stay far away.

      Delete
    2. Someone posted on HCV that the couple will file for bankruptcy and that the defendants will get nothing. Pretty bad legal advice. But the Bajardis keep claiming that their lawyers misled them, so nothing new there. They will lose the condo as, according to their own motion papers, there is plenty of equity in their home to cover all of the payments to the defendants. So, no running from the the judgement, even in bankruptcy. The condo still gets sold and the defendants get their money.

      Delete
    3. I'm pretty sure if you declare bankruptcy the court liquidates your assets and pays off your creditors (unless you're Donald Trump). So same net effect - they lose everything, GA, Horsey & 3rd person get their legal bills paid.

      Delete
    4. It a benefactress shows up, wouldnt they have to declare that on their taxes as a gift? What is the tax rate on a gift of such size?

      Delete