GA can hardly believe the trial of Plaintiff Lane Bajardi was one year ago!
Where did the time go?
Well folks, here's what's on my mind...
SLAPP victims everywhere: fight back! Even if you must go it alone. Do not fold; "The [SLAPP] Plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the Defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism."
Further, it is a matter of public interest and public concern that our courts be relieved of costly and resource consuming SLAPP suits expensed to the taxpayer.
The trial of Plaintiff Lane Bajardi is instructive to SLAPP victims. In the event frivolous [defamation] claims survive to trial, one sees an example of how a trial court works in these cases.
In GA's opinion, Bajardi v Pincus is a textbook cautionary tale about the perils of litigating a SLAPP suit disguised as a defamation case.
The following is a discussion between the judge and Plaintiffs' attorney that occurred in open court on the morning of January 29, 2015. The jury had not yet been brought in. Note, exchanges on the two allegedly defamatory words "political operative." Note further, the Plaintiff's lack of an "expert witness" and introduction of "anonymous witness[es]."
Unreal. I know absolutely nothing about the law and could have done as good a job as Cohen. Either the guy has no idea what he's doing, or he's agreed to go along with a clearly bogus case that has no evidence, witnesses or reason to be.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe both.
Oh you cut it off just as we were about to hear the lil fella's life story.
ReplyDeleteOne hell of a lawyer he hired. Yowza.
My favorite quote from the Court: "That's nice. So what?"
Lane Bajardi stated that in his early childhood he was in a secluded wooded area. This is proof that he was raised by wolves! Case dismissed! Lol
ReplyDeleteDr. Evil(Lane): The details of my life are quite inconsequential.
ReplyDeleteTherapist: Oh no, please, please, let's hear about your childhood.
Dr Evil: Very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Some times he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy, the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical, summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds, pretty standard really. At the age of 12 I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum, it's breathtaking, I suggest you try it.
Therapist: You know, we have to stop.
This was the quote I thought of immediately after reading that last sentence. And, I've already used it in another conversation today. Unreal.
DeleteCohen must have got his law license in a Crackerjack box. Funny how he tries to snow the judge, like Plaintiff can't compel an out of state witness or doesn't have an expert because the facts are "obvious." You know what they say, clients end up with the lawyers they deserve.
ReplyDeleteQuite an excerpt. I expect some of the dozen or so will file malicious abuse of process complaints. I understand a number of defendants didn't have a single allegation cited, but were thrown in irregardless. I am guessing the Bajardis will be hit with 3-7 seperate lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteGood idea. They were all John Does, would they have to reveal their identities to file those suits?
DeleteMalicious abuse of process complaints? That sounds scary. How would a little expert liar cope with a half dozen or so more of those? What will Beth and Ricky do then?
DeleteOh my.
They don't. I hear some are furious and want justice. they're not going away.
DeleteWhy shouldn't they SUE the Bajardis for malicious abuse of process or else violation of their civil rights? Lane and Kim dragged in a dozen screen names with NO allegations,as in ZERO!!!! without an idea WHO they were screwing with. Karma's a BITCH ain't it
ReplyDeleteBut again I ask, would these John Does be able to file a suit without revealing their identities? Someone being sued has the right to face their accusers, don't they?
Delete@anon 8:39pm - in criminal court I know that's true. But this would be civil court. Maybe someone knows for sure.
DeleteThat would be VERY funny if those 2 lovelies got sued by the many anonymous names somehow
DeleteWhen does NJ finally implement anti-SLAPP legislation? This is crazy. This kind of garbage lawsuit filed by 1010WINS news reader Lane Bajardi and his unemployed wife Kim Cardinal should be nipped in the bud. As a NJ taxpayer, I am furious my hard earned money is WASTED on trying these junk lawsuits. What does it cost the state to seat a jury?
ReplyDeleteEmpaneling a jury for a two week trial is an enormous expense to NJ taxpayers. I estimate the Lane Bajardi trial cost New Jersey residents at least $500,000.
DeleteWe had a plan to get the screen names and nominal damages and the judge thwarted us every step of the way with his knowledge of the law and sound legal arguments. I was so in over my head I never looked at the jury to see if they were buying my client's BS. Now my clients may sue me because as defamation lawyers go I really suck. Maybe I should give up my law career and become a political operative and part bar owner. I hear there is good money if you can find the right paymistress.
ReplyDelete