Silence on the Lenz

GA had heard that a recent victim of libelous trash published on Hoboken411 had planned an 'action' against the trio he alleged was responsible: Perry Klaussen (owner), Lane Bajardi (political ghostwriter) and Beth Mason (financier).

Lo and behold, today a letter appeared on MSV.

The letter, dated February 16, 2012 and  written by Lenz to the trio, requested removal and retraction of  libelous statements contained in Hoboken411's hit-piece,  "Deconstructing Michael Lenz."  In his letter, Lenz listed the actual statements he wanted removed, and requested "prompt action".

The letters were sent to all three: Klaussen, Bajardi and Mason,  both by mail and by certified mail.

Well, guess what?

Only ONE certified mail receipt was returned. From Beth Mason.

From Bajardi and Klaussen... no receipt.  They did not pick up their letters.

And aside from receiving the one certified mail receipt from Mason, no communications were received from any.  Radio silence.

So-called retractions were made; slight tweaks which threw some water on the libel but didn't remove it.

With this unsatisfactory response, nearly 2 weeks later Michael Lenz sent a SECOND letter.  This letter, like the previous, went to all three by both regular and certified mail.

Here's the text:
February 29, 2012

To all:

On February 16, 2012 I sent each of you via Regular and Certified mail the attached letter. In it I put you on notice that the post on Hoboken411 entitled “Deconstructing Michael Lenz” is false and defamatory. I particularly objected to the February 11, 2012 update: “Michael Lenz Charged with Racism and Discrimination…” As of this writing I have received no response from any of you.

In my letter I itemized four specific false statements as follows: “Lenz approached Hudson County Executive Thomas DeGise…”; “DeGise reportedly refused to grant this request…”; ”Lenz, Marsh, and Peter Cunningham cut a deal…”; “one of the subordinates that work under Lenz has filed a complaint against him [Lenz] alleging racism and discrimination.”

On or before February 27, 2012, Hoboken411 posted edits to its story, presumably in response to the issues raised in my letter. 

I hereby put you each on notice that these changes are inadequate and do not rectify the damage each of you has caused to me by your false, defamatory and malicious posting.

Instead of retracting the false claims, the edited post merely hedges its language while retaining all of the false and defamatory implications of the original post. By editing the post you have tacitly acknowledged that you are fully aware that the allegations made were false. Yet instead of correcting the record you have made a cynical and transparent attempt to enhance your potential legal defenses while continuing to defame me as much as you dare.

The look and tone of the original story is retained, and the sole purpose of its continued publication is to inflict ongoing damage to my reputation. Any person who had seen the original story would likely not even notice that any changes had been made, and would likely continue to believe the false and defamatory claims made in the original post, including the reprehensible claim that I had been accused of racism.

In addition, the edited post – contrary to Hoboken 411’s standard practice – did not result in the story being “bumped-up” to the top of the queue. While the original defamatory story was seen at the top of Hoboke411’s home page by anybody who accessed the site on the day of the posting, the “corrected” post” was buried and could only be found by somebody actively searching for it. It did not, therefore mitigate in any way the damage to my reputation caused by the original false claims. 

I again demand retraction as to the specific false statement that I was charged with “racism and discrimination.” This retraction must be explicitly labeled as such and be the first item on your website for the period of time the initial post remained uncorrected. This retraction must be posted by itself with no additional defamatory or negative commentary or new charges. I further demand an immediate removal and cessation of future publication of “Deconstructing Michael Lenz” in its entirety, or any similarly themed thread or posting.

A simple Google search of my name yields the defamatory post as its first search result. The ongoing damage to my reputation can only be mitigated by an immediate removal of the entire post together with the retraction described above.

Your prompt response is anticipated.


Michael B. Lenz
cc: David B. Rubin Esq.
Can you all guess what happened next?  Can you guess WHO sent back a certified mail receipt?

You're RIGHT!

NONE of them.

No receipt, no response, no retraction.

But in fact, the silence speaks volumes.  Innocent men are NOT silent.  Innocent men protect their names and their reputations.  Innocent men defend themselves.

Innocent men fight back.

So what does the silence tell you?  (rhetorical)

GA takes a special interest in one member of the trio: the 'on-air personality' who works for the AM radio station 1010WINS.  The corporate owner of 1010WINS is CBS.  In fact, this on-air personality is a news reader.  And as such prohibited from engaging in local partisan politics.

This radio-guy's silence with respect to the Lenz letter, the absence of denial that he'd ghostwritten  the 'Deconstructing Michael Lenz' smear is an admission that he DID. 

He IS a partisan political operative participating in an online smear campaign.   And  knows he CAN'T deny it because there may be a sworn deposition in his future.  Or may not.

Who knows what Lenz will do next, but we ALL know WHO  is responsible.

The silence says it all.


  1. Perhaps Lane would respond better if his employer made him aware of the legal situation he faces? Just a thought.

  2. maybe lenz should send the letter to lane at his 1010wins work address, care of the HR department.

    1. Station manager would be my suggestion.


Post a Comment