NY Post: Radio news reader suit "booted"

The New York Post

GA read today's HR piece; right out of the gate, Editor Caren Matzner's poison pen used the word "victim" in place of  "Plaintiff."

On that note, GA could hear the honest efforts of Carlo Davis gasping for breath under a pile of Matzner bile.

Could it have been worse?  Sure.

Let's see... the article contained one fabrication: "Pincus said her belief that Bajardi was paid for political work came from a source she declined to identify..."   Um... never "said" such a thing, never wrote such a thing.  That is utterly false.  Had the case not been dismissed for being the steaming crap it was, I would have testified to the litany of facts which formed the reasonable basis for my belief Bajardi was being paid. And this excludes findings in the avalanche of records and documents produced by Plaintiffs during the litigation. 

That "Pincus said..." fabrication reeks of Editorial rancor.

What else?  The HR piece was a symphony of omission.

Now, if anything came out in the trial, it was that Lane Bajardi has been ghostwriting Hoboken411 political coverage for years. Of the 1,000+ Word documents produced by Plaintiffs in discovery, most were draft articles sent to Perry Klaussen of Hoboken411.com.  It is simply not credible that this "open secret", the words of Plaintiff on the witness stand, was not known at 1400 Washington Street.  The ghostwritten articles Plaintiff handed over in discovery are not benign.

But hey, ghost-writing inflammatory attacks against the Zimmer administration and allies- like Nancy Pincus and Roman Brice- does not fit the HR's narrative that Bajardi is a "victim" not a "Plaintiff."

The boot

The real victims here are the persons forced to pay for a defense  for 2 1/2 years of litigation so frivolous that the judge spent 40-minutes tossing it.

The real victims want their money back. 

Oh, how could GA forget... those emails.

GA has decided to wait for a copy of Judge Arre's opinion.

By the way, I did like Al's column except for the caption "Bloggers get off free."  When I complained, he told me the title was "ironic."  Maybe so.  I still don't like it.   But hey, his irony is protected by our First Amendment.

Thank G-d.