GA was contacted by an incredulous out-of-state resident who was visited 3 times at his Pennsylvania home by a process server hired by the Bajardis' attorney, Jonathan Z. Cohen to subpoena his testimony for deposition.
Another NJ resident was served a subpoena at her New York City business office by a NYC law firm hired by Cohen, Seiger Gfeller Laurie, LLP. New York City is considered by most New Jerseyans to be "out-of-state".
So why did an officer of the court, Jonathan Z. Cohen, Esq., tell a trial judge that Lane Bajardi's supervisor, Ben Mevorach, "could not be compelled" as a witness because he "doesn't even live or work in New Jersey"?
The Bajardis had no problem serving an out-of-state subpoena to this Pennsylvania resident:
 |
| Bajardi subpoena served at witness' suburban Pennsylvania home |
 |
| Bajardi out-of-state subpoena |
 |
| Appearance fee |
The Bajardis had no problem serving an out-of-state subpoena to this New Jersey resident:
Now people, I want you to note WHERE the Bajardis wanted to depose this NJ resident: at 330 Madison Avenue, New York, NY.
Most New Jersey maps would agree that is out-of-state.
Folks, this is only part of the story. These subpoenas were accompanied by unsolicited email contacts which recipients called "harassing."
Unsolicited contacts included witness' personal Facebook pages.
Mr. Cohen seems to know there are many ways to pursue witnesses in another state.
Maybe he was told to make all of you as miserable as possible. Looks like they spent plenty of money. Radio must pay real good.
ReplyDeleteHow did Lane pay these bills after almost 2 years of unemployment and only back to work about 1 year at 1010 WINS for 120,000 plus a small raise ?
DeleteMortgage, Taxes, Food and Private School Tuition for the child can hardly be covered on that single salary.
Unless of course someone was freelancing without Boss Ben knowing....
I heard the Bajardis filed subpoenas in California and Virginia. Wow, money was no object! Boy oh boy. How many states were they litigating in?
ReplyDeleteit seems that Cohen is a real big lying asshole.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.law360.com/articles/525276/alleged-online-defamer-sanctioned-in-e-complaint-tiff
ReplyDeleteanother stellar performance by cohen, esq
Law360, Philadelphia (April 4, 2014, 6:35 PM ET) -- A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Thursday that a woman accused of defaming a Pennsylvania financial advising firm in online comments had failed to preserve files related to the company’s electronic servicing of the complaint, awarding sanctions to the plaintiffs.
DeleteAs a consequence, Judge Joyner ordered Brennan to pay the costs of the forensic exam as well as the plaintiffs’ attorneys fees associated with the motion for sanctions.
The plaintiffs also sought sanctions on Brennan's attorney Jonathan Cohen over several concerns, including an affidavit that Brennan signed but later admitted to not reading, but they were denied in Thursday's opinion.
Cohen declined to comment on the case on Friday.
Brennan is represented by Jonathan Z. Cohen.
In case you don't have a subscription or what to sign up for the seven-day trial access, see below. Gets good at the end:
DeleteAlleged Online Defamer Sanctioned In E-Complaint Tiff
By Dan Packel
Law360, Philadelphia (April 4, 2014, 6:35 PM ET) -- A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Thursday that a woman accused of defaming a Pennsylvania financial advising firm in online comments had failed to preserve files related to the company’s electronic servicing of the complaint, awarding sanctions to the plaintiffs.
U.S. District Judge Curtis Joyner ruled that defendant Krista Brennan — who created websites critical of the business practices of First Senior Financial Group LLC, founder Philip J. Cannella III and financial adviser Joann Small — had acted inappropriately by failing to protect a computer that had been slated for forensic examination.
“When looked at in its totality, Brennan’s course of conduct rises above mere negligence and inadvertence to effectuating actual suppression of evidence,” Judge Joyner said in the opinion.
Brennan, under the internet pseudonym Watchdog, created several websites including truthaboutcannella.com and truthaboutcannella.net, that she claimed revealed the truth about the company’s activities, according to the opinion. But the company filed a John Doe complaint against Watchdog in March 2012, alleging that the contents of the sites were disparaging and defamatory.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to service a complaint via email in August of that year and then entered a default judgment against Watchdog in December 2012, according to the opinion.
Brennan identified herself in February 2013 when she filed a motion to vacate the default judgment, claiming that she had never received the complaint via email.
Judge Joyner then ordered Brennan to identify and preserve all computers that she used to access two email addresses connected to the websites, and submit them for a forensic examination — at the plaintiffs expense — that would help determine whether the complaint had been received.
But during the examination, the one computer identified was found be devoid of any data created by Brennan, and it was determined that Windows 7 had been reinstalled on the machine, according to the opinion.
The plaintiffs then moved for sanctions against Brennan, contending that the evidence in the case surrounding the servicing of the complaint had been spoliated.
Brennan had argued that the computer belonged to her mother and it was frequently out of her control, especially when she headed out of state.
But Judge Joyner found that even though she did not own the computer, she was still responsible for protecting it and did not give up that obligation simply by giving up physical access to the machine.
The judge did not go as far as to conclude that Brennan had destroyed the data, but he did conclude in the opinion that because of her failure to look after the computer and to promptly deliver it for the examination that she had acted in bad faith.
As a consequence, Judge Joyner ordered Brennan to pay the costs of the forensic exam as well as the plaintiffs’ attorneys fees associated with the motion for sanctions.
“The judge definitely found that she failed to preserve the computer, which is very clear in the order,” said Sid Liebesman, a partner at Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP.
The plaintiffs also sought sanctions on Brennan's attorney Jonathan Cohen over several concerns, including an affidavit that Brennan signed but later admitted to not reading, but they were denied in Thursday's opinion.
Cohen declined to comment on the case on Friday.
The plaintiffs are represented by Sid Liebesman, Carrie Sarhangi and Stephen Pachman of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP.
Brennan is represented by Jonathan Z. Cohen.
The case is First Senior Financial Group LLC et al v. Watchdog et al, case number 2:12-cv-01247 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
--Editing by Emily Kokoll.
Ha! Hey CohenIsANitwit, great minds think alike! :)
DeleteHey man, did you call me a nitwit? :)
DeleteDidn't I see here a while back that Lane Bajardi had written an email to Beth Mason's political advisor and partner in a Weehawken bar that he was very concerned that Richard G. Mason a partner at the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz was OK with the choice of his lawyer ?
ReplyDeletedude looks about 15 years old.
DeleteI am! 15 + some more numbers. Hey, this was my first trial! I practiced on Lane and Kim, kind of like lab rats. How'd I do?
DeleteThe firm Ricky had to be ok with was Vorys. Vorys was in for the initial "shock and awe" phase when Beth and Ricky and Lane and Kim and James hoped to win by fear and intimidation without the defendants firing a single shot. In fact they were so convinced it would go down that way that the endless humiliation potential of discovery never crossed their minds.
DeleteOnce Vorys saw shock and awe wasn't happening as planned, they backed out and turned it over to Cohen who was dumb enough to take it. Like Vorys, Cohen knew the checks would clear.
The ones who really deserve a countersuit are Vorys. Hopefully that happens.
I have to agree with Anon 8:29. Google Whitney Gibson of Vorys and see what comes up. Check a site called Salty Droid. There are others. Vorys filed a fraudulent suit without a minimum of due diligence which would have proven his clients were liars and the claims a fraud, and the whole thing a politically-motivated slapp.
DeleteIs this boob is still practicing law? Take "practicing" in the literal sense.
ReplyDeleteReally, this jackass ought to be sanctioned by the Pennsylvania Bar Association or better yet, disbarred.
ReplyDeleteThat's a old pic of Cohen, he was much fatter at the trial...
ReplyDeleteContacting witnesses through facebook?
ReplyDeleteI hear Cohen also subpoenas witnesses via TINDER, e-Harmony, J-Date, Christian Mingle, Craigslist, flyers on telephone poles and smoke signals....