Pants on Fire

"It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble." 

WHYdid GA circle the date May 11, 2015?

Because the "specific evidence" alleged to exist by Appellant Whitney Gibson of Vorys, Seymour, Sater and Pease LLP in his sworn certification (para. 3)  was produced 7 months later by Appellant Jonathan Cohen.  

So, did Gibson's "specific evidence" show that the "subject statements... prompted a threat of termination?"


The "subject statements" (Defendants' allegedly-defamatory statements) were absent entirely from the alleged "evidence"-  an email exchange between Lane Bajardi and his boss. Ben Mevorach. The email was sent Bajardi's AOL account on October 11, 2011.

What is the significance of the email being sent from Bajardi's AOL account?

Numerous documented requests for the email were made during and (even) after discovery and prior to trial,  but the "Mevorach email" was never produced.  

Here's the explanation Plaintiffs' Attorney Jonathan Cohen  provided on September 13, 2014 for why I had not received the "Mevorach email":

My September 13, 2014 deposition

Get it?

The "evidence" was accessible in Bajardi's AOL account the whole time.

"I will look into this."

What about "this"?

But hey, it's summertime.  Who needs pants?


  1. Can you publish the Mevarack email?

  2. Kafka couldn't have written a better plot.

  3. Cohen lied to the judge. You posted specific evidence that you asked for it at least twice. Is there an ethics penalty when an officer of the court lies to a judge?

  4. Truth is the best defense and the best offense.

  5. ..."the subject statements caused concern for Lane Bajardi's part time employer, prompted a threat of termination, and prevented Bajardi from working on certain types of stories"

    Are you sure he wasn't talking about Beth Mason and the ghostwriting of stories for H411?

  6. Was it with Christie's cell phone?

  7. thrilling stuff


Post a Comment