Put Her on The Stand

 Let's revisit the events of this week in 'Tape-gate.'

On Tuesday, GA disclosed that Beth Mason had videotaped Mayor Zimmer's court testimony, leaked it to the Hoboken Reporter, then posted it watermarked on Hoboken411. (Read it here)

On Wednesday, GA disclosed that Mason had sent a film crew- a videographer with an assistant- neither of whom identified themselves, to tape Mayor Zimmer in the court room.  And that the City's attorney attempted to have them removed in a sidebar discussion with the judge, because they were not credentialed press.  GA noted the plaintiff's attorney, Catherine Elston, did not object to the presence of the film crew.  The judge ruled in favor of the (unidentified) film crew; court room witnesses recognized the videographer as Beth Mason's.  GA raised a number of questions about the relationship of Mason to the case.  (Read it here) Following that, links to this post were deleted on the nj.com forum and Mason operatives (the ubiquitous Bajardi twins a.k.a. 'Mr. and Mrs.  Melanoma' escalated vicious online attacks on yours truly)

On Thursday, ALL of GA's nj.com links disappeared on nj.com and my IP was blocked; I was banned from posting. (Read it here)

Now, why would 'they'- an anonymous army of operatives- have been trying so hard to keep this story under wraps?

Perhaps they are afraid.

Because GA believes not only is there merit to the suspicion that Beth Mason has been 'involved' either directly or indirectly (through intermediaries) in the Campbell vs. Hoboken case, but perhaps there's MORE to learn about the nature of her involvement.

So what do we know so far?

That the plaintiff's legal argument is pitch-perfectly identical to the one behind the Mason email jihad's argument: that the City used their Communications staff and City Hall web site for partisan political gain. That the grueling 4-hour questioning of the mayor hit every note in the Mason symphony of accusations against the Mayor and 2 members of her staff regarding politicization of the communications office.  That Mason's effort to pursue this vendetta on the Mayor was stopped by the new City Council majority via resolution.

So... if the governing body of Hoboken has de-legitimized this line of attack on the Zimmer administration, what would be another avenue to legitimize it?

Through the courts.

If the court determines that Billy Campbell was fired for the politicization of he communications office, then the court has also validated Mason's claim.  And perhaps to her, that 'explains' her email pursuit to the satisfaction of a jury some day.

And of course, it makes the Mayor look bad.

GA believes at a minimum, the City should call Mason to the stand.

Because by sending a film crew to tape the mayor, then disseminating it to a virulently anti-Zimmer web site watermarked with its logo, the question of whether the suit is coordinated political payback with known Zimmer adversaries is a reasonable line of questioning.

Something really smells in this videotaping scenario.

GA wonders WHY the plaintiff's attorney didn't question the precense of the film crew.  Did she know their sponsor was 'friendly' to her client?

Now, if I were the City's attorney, I'd put Mason on the stand and here are some of the questions I would ask her:
  • Have you underwritten any of the plaintiff's costs for this lawsuit, either directly or through another person or entity?
  • Have you provided the plaintiff with any kind of remuneration- financial or otherwise- either directly or through another person or entity for filing this lawsuit?
  • Have you ever communicated with the plaintiff's attorney, Catherine Elston, on this case?
  • Have you ever offered her any information- even emails- for use in her case AGAINST THE CITY?
  • Have you coordinated with Ms. Elston, either directly or through intermediaries before and during this case, up to and including the presence of a video crew on January 3rd?
Would Not-Stempler agree with GA's cross-examination?

Who knows.  He calls  me his "little layperson" in an affectionately mocking way, which means I should leave the lawyering to him.

My pleasure!

But I do hope the City takes a serious look at what's happened in plain sight.

Mason and her bottom feeders' problem has always been they are so over-the-top.  Had she not gone that extra length to skewer the Mayor on Hoboken411 this whole matter would have flown under the radar.

She's done it to herself- again.


  1. She just can't help it! She is, at all times, consumed with an irresistable impulse to denigrate the Mayor any way she possibly can. Mason would use an elephant gun to kill a cockroach. I'd love to see her get nailed on this one, although I would not put it past her to lie under oath because she already has. Beth Mason took an oath to serve the residents of Hoboken as part of the Council's swearing-in ceremony in June. What she's done, however, is served herself and her multitude of loser minions.

  2. How true, Rudy.

    Your comment made me think about the problems she'd have if she lied under oath- since she's already been interviewed by the F.B.I. If the transcript of her court testimony contradicts anything she's told the Feds, she's screwed.

    Oh, I hope the City calls her to testify. Puh-leaze.

  3. Mrs. Richard G. Mason's pathology would not prevent her from perjuring herself.

  4. Isn't Corporation Counsel required to ask Mason if she is in any way involved in the Campbell case?

    If yes, she can't receive any more confidential email, and she is formally on record as hostile to the city's legal and financial interests.

    If no, she has to go through life hoping that Campbell and his lawyer never rat her out.

    Not my idea, someone suggested it on MSV. But it seems like fertile ground. Lying is SOP for Beth. But would Campbell perjure himself to protect that lie; would Elston risk sanction from the bar?


Post a Comment