 |
| BETH MASON CERTIFICATION: Where o where did that "truth" stuff go? |
Under 'normal' circumstances, 31 months of litigation against 3 (separate) Defendants would be astronomically expensive.
Yet, nothing is 'normal' about Bajardi v Pincus. GA counted a total of 67 motions filed (not including responses: oppositions, reply briefs) prior to trial on January 28, 2015.
The Bajardi's attorney, Jonathan Z Cohen filed 30 motions alone, after replacing Whitney Gibson of Vorys, Seymour Sater and Pease, LLP and Amy D. Cox on November 20, 2103. Adding to their costs, Plaintiffs hired a lawyer in California, Jackie Rose Kruger (to subpoena Google) and a New York City firm, Seiger, Gfeller, Laurie, LLP. Then there were the subpoenas: 5 media companies were served at least once [AOL, Google, Cablevision, Advanced Digital Media, Hudson Reporter] , 6 non-parties served, John Does and Defendants. Plus 5 depositions, 3 videotaped... not to mention Cohen's travel and hotel expenses. Oh yeah, and discovery- I was served 6 separate requests, Horsey almost as many.
GA's estimates Plaintiffs' 31 month litigation cost at least $300,000.
The actual cost is probably closer to $400,000. That is at the core of Defendants' belief that the litigation was underwritten by somebody else- because we obtained Plaintiffs' financial documents: bank statements, credit card records, tax returns, through November 2013. That's where they stopped. Plaintiffs withheld over a year of financial records and emails, coinciding with the entry of Cohen and the scorched earth pummeling of motions, subpoenas, etc. In short, Plaintiffs provided no financial records to explain how they were paying for Cohen's explosion of litigation in 2013 and 2014.
Hence, Defendants tried to obtain information from Plaintiffs under oath, at their depositions.
LANE BAJARDI DEPOSITION
July 16, 2014
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)
Lane and Kim "don't know" much, do they? As the Bard would say, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
ReplyDeleteIf I were involved with years of litigation, I have to believe I would have a very accurate idea of what the exact costs accumulated were, if I was footing the bill of course.
ReplyDeleteEspecially if I had made a point in a number of emails that the costs would be daunting to my family
I guess, technically, if person A gives money to a shell company and the shell company gives the money to person B, and then person B uses a very similar amount to pay their legal bills, then person A has not (technically) paid for person B's litigation (or paid them for friendship). Technically.
ReplyDeleteLook Beth is cleared on this completely as she doesn't even make 25K on the City Council. It's her hubby who is at issue so you know, no worries.
DeleteThe smoking gun is the stuff they didn't give you.
ReplyDeleteIf you read Lane's testimony in Patrick Star's voice it makes more sense.
ReplyDeleteIf they were paying with their OWN $$$$, they would KNOW exactly what they spent. Obviously they aren't.
ReplyDeleteAsk GA and Horsey- I'll bet THEY know exactly what their SLAPP expenses were in 2012, 2013, and 2014.
The Masons must now go to bed every night knowing that if the defendants counter sue this whole plot will unravel. Complete exposure awaits. They funded this SLAPP suit.
ReplyDeleteThe Masons funded this SLAPP suit.
Mason was AWOL from tonight's council meeting.
DeleteOh they definitely dont make enough money to pay those bills. So I am wondering, if someone give another person say 100k to pay off said person's loan, is that money taxable income? And if so is it to be reported to the IRS? If said persons did not claim the added income and the IRS discovered that said persons might need an audit, what would the likely penalty be? My oh my what a tangled web we weave when,,,
ReplyDeleteThat amount of money is definitely taxable. Plaintiffs report paying with a credit card that was zeroed out every month. If they didn't pay it off, interest charges would mount up quickly. Between condo, condo fees, private school and lifestyle, they simply don't make enough with one salary to keep the litigation paid off month to month.
DeleteIf they are sued, they can't hide the financials that they shouldn't have been allowed to hide as it is. At that point the suit will unravel and the Masons will be shown to be the financiers. That links the suit to someone whose political ambitions necessitate silencing critics. IE, it makes it a clear SLAPP suit.
This is all a house off cards at this point. Plaintiffs kept this suit going on the basis of needing to see discovery. Discovery ruined them and everyone connected with it. In a countersuit, would they make that mistake again? Or would they fold as soon as they were court-ordered to turn over the documents that would prove the conspiracy?
And would those financials also prove that their attorneys were in on it?
Great Reporting these Days GA! The Horse is lagging behind, you are beating him by more than a leg with these posts.
ReplyDeleteOh c'mon, Anon @8:47. We're all on the same team, it's not a competition. MSV has broken a ton of news, both he and GA are knocking' it outta the park!
DeleteAnon @ 8:47 AM- Nonsense. There is no 'beating'. Horse and I do different stuff, and there is no competition between us.
DeleteBob Woodward: Hunt's come in from the cold.
ReplyDeleteSupposedly he's got a lawyer with $25,000 in a brown paper bag.
Deep Throat: Follow the money.
Bob Woodward: What do you mean? Where?
Deep Throat: Oh, I can't tell you that.
Bob Woodward: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, I'll confirm. ill keep you in the right direction if I can, but that is all. Just... follow the money>
All The President's Men
So they can tell you which comments came from what screen names, on what days and so forth going back years, but they don't know how much their attorneys are costing? Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse Meeeeeeeee??????
ReplyDeletePuh-lease! Legal bills are like taxes, no one wants to pay them and if it's your dime you know exactly what you've paid.
ReplyDeleteBetcha Ricky knows how much the plaintiffs litigation costs.
ReplyDelete