Nancy Pincus

36 Willow Terrace
Hoboken, NJ
(201) **********
Email: pincus.prose@gmail.com
Pro Se Litigant

October 8, 2014
Honorable Christine M. Vanek, J.S.C.
Superior Court of the State of New Jersey
Law Division
Room 803A
Administration Building
595 Newark Avenue
Jersey City, New Jersey
RE:

Lane Bajardi, et al v. Nancy Pincus, et al

Docket No. L-3723-12

Your Honor:
Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a more formal letter brief as provided by Court
Rules, in Opposition to Notice of Short Motion for an Order to Quash Defendants Trial Subpoena
to Non-Party Ricky Mason.

1. Preliminary Statement
Mr. Mason has provided the following reasons why his subpoena should be quashed.
1. Mr. Mason complains service of a trial subpoena four business days before the
start of trial, during a week already shortened by the Rosh Hashanah holiday, on a
person who Ms. Pincus knows has a busy schedule, is patently unreasonable. [6]

Response:
a. Service was attempted five business days before the start of trial, but Mr. Mason would
not open the door to accept service on September 15, 2014.

Mr. Mason is

disingenuous; he knows that Defendant Roman Brice was not paying a social call. Mr.
Mason expects others to know he has a busy business schedule, which makes 9:00
pm a sensible time to serve him. Mr. Mason is an officer of the Court and should have
known to accept service; instead Mr. Mason refused service from Mr. Brice, then Mrs.
Mason filed a frivolous police complaint against Brice, alleging harassment. By
refusing his subpoena, Mr. Mason inconvenienced Mr. Brice, who then had to return
early the next morning to serve Mr. Mason.
b. Rosh Hashanah is not a Court holiday; the Court scheduled the trial during Rosh
Hashanah. I certainly will respect Mr. Masons religious observation and call him at
a time that does not conflict with our religious calendar. However, Mr. Mason is again
being disingenuous. Mr. Mason knows Plaintiff presents his case first, and would not
have been called during the High Holy days. With the trial adjourned to January 26,
2015, Mr. Mason has plenty of time to make room in his busy business schedule to
testify.

2. Mr. Mason complains the Trial Subpoena is impermissibly broad and seeks
irrelevant and cumulative testimony [7]
Response: Mr. Mason cites no rule by which the Trial Subpoena is either nonconforming or non-compliant. Impermissible to a particular rule or standard, or simply
to a professional talking down to a pro se? Mr. Mason states, The trial subpoena should

have identified the testimony Ms. Pincus seeks from Mr. Mason so that he could properly
evaluate its basis. For that reason too, the Court should quash the trial Subpoena. [27]
Were that true, Mr. Mason would be at odds with the State of New Jersey Superior Courts.
The NJ Court website provides the following Subpoena Ad Testificandum form1 to the
public:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/forms/11008_subpoena_ad_testificandum_cp.pdf

New Jersey Civil Action trial subpoenas do not require testimony sought. Mr.
Mason is entitled to his opinion, but there is in fact, no legal basis to grant the Quash
because Mr. Mason cannot properly evaluate [the Trial Subpoenas] basis. Imagine what
our Courts would look like if all witnesses evaluated the basis for their subpoenas instead
of obeying them. Mr. Mason may be a partner at a major law firm2 but he is not special
in the eyes of the law.

3. Mr. Mason complains If Ms. Pincus thought Mr. Mason had testimony relevant to her
defense, she would have sought his deposition. But she did not. This eleventh hour trial
subpoena should be seen for what it is, an attempt to harass Mr. Mason [7]
Response: False and misleading.
a. It was impossible to depose Mr. Mason on relevant documents produced after discovery,
hence Mr. Masons statement that we did not depose him because his testimony is not
relevant is untrue. Plaintiff Lane Bajardi and his wife, Kim Cardinal Bajardi, produced
a total of 49,089 responsive email documents on two dates: May 16, 20143 [Prod. 1] and
July 1, 20144 [Prod. 2]. Although Plaintiff and Mrs. Bajardi had 540 days of discovery
to produce these emails, they returned 24,395 emails 21 days late and 24,694 emails 67
days late5. The sheer volume of Plaintiff and his wifes communications with Mr. Mason
is seen below in Table 16.

Mr. Mason is a Partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz.

Plaintiff Lane Bajardi and his wife produced 24,396 responsive documents, on May 16, 2014.
4
Plaintiff Lane Bajardi and his wife produced 24,694 responsive electronic documents on July 1, 2014.
5
Plaintiff Lane Bajardis full and complete responses to interrogatories were due on January 18, 2014. Plaintiff
Lane Bajardi remains in default of emails which post-date November 20, 2013.
6
Table 1 data analysis performed with third-party software UltraFinder.
3

Table 1- Occurrence of email addresses in Plaintiffs Productions 1 and 2

Mr. Mason conducts political communications from a second office email account7:
rgmason2@wlrk.com. Mr. Masons email address, rgmason2@wlrk.com occurred a total
of a total of 12,480 times in 3, 989 individual emails.
b. Voluminous non-duplicative communications are between Mr. Mason and Plaintiff Lane
Bajardi and/or Mrs. Bajardi that exclude Mrs. Mason. Emails show Plaintiff Lane Bajardi
and his wife have been contacting Mr. Mason since at least 2007 to ply him with tales of
threats and violence to them and their child, perpetrated by a revolving cast of Reform
bloggers. The Bajardis familiar routine is to invoke threats of violence and
harassment to the wealthy Mr. Mason prior to asking for help to sue the alleged
offenders- all political bloggers. For example, on December 18, 2007, Mrs. Bajardi emails
Mr. Mason writing, Lenz8 is now posting using my name and smearing me on nj.com.
This really has gone on long enough. I want to speak to a lawyer. [N.P. MSJ- Exhibit 2,
BAJARDI_00026920]. Mr. Mason responds:

Mr. Masons business email account is rgmason@wrlk.com. He appears to use a second office email account to
conduct political affairs, rgmason2@wrlk.com
8
Former Hoboken CFO, BoE Trustee, and Councilman Mike Lenz.
7

I don't have familiarity with good attorneys for defamation cases. If you would
like, I can circulate a request around my firm, on a no-names basis, and see what I
get. Let me know.
Ricky
Richard G. Mason
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
212-403-1252 (phone)
212-403-2000 (fax)
rgmason@wlrk.com (email)
Mrs. Bajardi ramps up the rhetoric in her reply to Mr. Mason; she is now threatened by Mr.
Lenz:
I really need to do something at this point. Lenz is attacking me on line and he
charged at me at the council meeting last Thursday, got an inch from my face and
threatened me. He's out of control. Frankly, it is starting to get a bit scary.
Mr. Mason responds with the names of three attorneys:
Ok, here is what I have. Three names Hope this all helps.
On October 20, 2010, Plaintiff Lane Bajardi asks Mr. and Mrs. Mason for help [N.P. MSJExhibit 2, BAJARDI_00019066] to sue Roman Brice:
I need a lawyer who knows how to deal with this. Not a Hudson County hack, but a real
lawyer who will get the job done
On March 13, 2010 Lane Bajardi writes to Mr. and Mrs. Mason, about hiring a reputable
attorney to send a message to bloggers Kurt Gardiner and Roman Brice for continuously
attacking him, such as calling him a looney leprechaun [N.P. MSJ- Exhibit 2,
BAJARDI_00037078]:
The time has come to hire a reputable attorney who has experience in these matters to
begin to file suit against these people. The people attacking us count on the fact that legal
action is time consuming and expensive, so they continue their slanderous attacks with a
vengeance If I am to continue to be involved here I need legal assistance. The line has
been crossed many times, and it's time to seek damages and send a message that this activity

should not be condoned. Any assistance you and Ricky can give me in this matter would
be welcome and appreciated.
In 2007 Mr. Mason provided the Bajardi with attorneys names; clearly the assistance
Mr. Bajardi wants from the wealthy Masons is financial.
On April 11, 2011, Ricky Mason is copied on Lane Bajardis email to political operative
James Barracato. The subject line: RudyDawg aka Deborah Hulbert advocating violence
against me. [N.P. MSJ- Exhibit 2, BAJARDI_00043493]. Mr. Bajardi writes [emphasis is
Plaintiffs]:
Please forward this to Catherine. She is advocating people attack me physically at
the next City Council meeting on NJ.com. I can't let this stand without a response.
Should I file a harassment charge against her?
25437.

I. "My Goodness"
by rudydawg, 04/11/11 10:29 AM
You and your motley crew will never have the last laugh, Mr. Bajardi, because your
pathetic little world of hatred is fast crumbling. Your performance at last week's Council
meeting smacked of absolute desperation, with you falsely accusing your real and imagined
political enemies of the same unlawful conduct as that engaged in by your benefactress,
Beth Mason and her idiotic partner in crime, Michael Russo. It was a typical coward's
performance of refusing to respond to accusations by making the same accusations against
innocent people having nothing at all to do with the issue at hand, like Councilwoman
Marsh.
Face it, Mr. Bajardi, you're really losing it this time. No one wants to waste anymore of
their time in listening to your hateful diatribes which have no place in Council meetings.
Of course, the City Council President has no interest in doing her job and reigning you in.
If she will not do so, some residents present at the next Council meeting may take matters
in their own hands. Now, won't that be something to write home about...little ole' you
inciting a riot.
Any reasonable reading of the above rudydawg post does not show Ms. Hulbert advocating
violence of any sort to Mr. Bajardi. The pattern of Plaintiffs email communications to Mr.
Mason, show Lane Bajardi is a man in search of Ricky Masons cash to sue political enemies to
7

punish or silence them. In Ms. Hulberts case, Bajardi feigns threats of violence to silence
free speech. Mr. Masons testimony about Mr. Bajardis years-long campaign for cash to sue
political enemies while Mr. Bajardi is concurrently engaged in political work with Mr. Mason is
the context within which assistance can be seen as compensation to Lane Bajardi for his
political work. As Lane Bajardi wrote Ricky Mason on April 6, 2009: Ricky, you are not
preaching to the converted. You are preaching to the devoted. We are devoted to the cause
[N.P. MSJ- Exhibit 2, BAJARDI_00032987.htm] One year later, on March 13, 2010, Mr. Bajardi
writes Mr. Mason, If I am to continue to be involved here I need legal assistance.
That legal assistance came in March 2012.
On March 4, 2012 by Lane Bajardi emailed Beth and Ricky Mason [N.P. MSJ- Exhibit
2, BAJARDI_00010862.htm]:
Thanks for meeting with me last week. It was good to see you
I don't need a million dollar attorney who needs $20k to write a letter, but I do need
help to take action before one of these crazies really loses control. The time to take legal
action is long overdue. History shows us lies left unchallenged become perceived truth,
and repeated public threats left unchallenged become violence. I cannot let that happen.
Plaintiff Lane Bajardis Verizon Wireless records show calls to Mr. Mason at law firm Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz on March 15, 16, and then on March 23 (Plaintiffs phone records show
these were the only calls made to Mr. Masons office in 2012). Then on March 27, 2012, Lane
Bajardi emails Mason operative James Barracato [N.P. MSJ- Exhibit 2, BAJARDI_00046572]
On Mar 27, 2012 9:42 AM, "Lane Bajardi" <lbajardi@aol.com> wrote:
Hey. Been trying to reach you. Ricky wants me to get info from you but you aren't
returning messages. I hope everything is OK. L
Barracato replies:
Hey sorry just been crazy with school. I will call you later today. Hope these Republican
primaries are keeping the newsroom busy.
8

Ricky Masons testimony about Plaintiffs years of lobbying for lawsuit money, Mr.
Masons deal with Mr. Bajardi, followed by Mr. Mason directing Lane Bajardi to get info from
political operative, James Barracato is not duplicative or non-relevant.

Emails show the

Bajardis have been shaking the tin cup at the Masons for years. Emails suggest in 2012 Mr. Mason
relented. Mr. Bajardi and his unemployed wife cannot afford this six-figure litigation9. Mr.
Masons considerable wealth is the engine driving this SLAPP. That is clear in the February 8,
2012 email where Lane Bajardi assembles this litigation with Mrs. Masons political operative
James Barracato [N.P. MSJ- Exhibit 2, BAJARDI_00046239.htm]. Bajardi writes:
Please see attached and tell me what you think I focused on Pincus' Blog over the past
year and her most recent Patch posts. Let me know if this is an acceptable format, and if I
need to add or subtract anything. I realize going with an attorney who Ricky and Beth
are comfortable with is key.
Mr. Mason pays for Mr. Barracatos services. Mr. Barracato assembled this lawsuit with Lane
Bajardi. Mr. Masons testimony on the assistance hes provided to Mr. Bajardi is relevant to
our defense and to showing Mr. Bajardi cannot prove statements were made with actual malice.

2. Mr. Masons testimony is required for other non-duplicative issues

Among the nearly 4,000 individual emails between Mr. Mason and Plaintiff Lane Bajardi
and/or his wife, are many which require Mr. Masons testimony.
In this email, Mr. Mason discusses the dispensation of illegal street money [GOTV cash]
or vote-buying with Mr. Bajardi. [N.P. MSJ- Exhibit 2, BAJARDI_00033185] On April 17,
2009, Mr. Mason writes:

In 2010 the Bajardis joint declared gross income was $25,152. In 2011 the Bajardis joint declared gross income
was $28,187.
9

-----Original Message----From: RGMason@WLRK.com

To: lbajardi@aol.com; garciakeim@msn.com; sastojkovic@gmail.com
Cc: kcardinalmn@yahoo.com; jstuiver@gmail.com
Sent: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 3:57 pm
Subject: RE: Revolt questionnaire/Kids First
just on one issue (I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak to the rest), I am told that to do
it right and not look weak, the GOTV would have cost a bunch of thousands (i heard
somewhere betw $10k and $25k, dunno where in that range), which is not money that we
really have to spare.
Ricky
Richard G. Mason
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
212-403-1252 (phone)
212-403-2000 (fax)
rgmason@wlrk.com (email)

Plaintiff Lane Bajardi responds:

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Lane Bajardi <lbajardi@aol.com>

Friday, April 17, 2009 7:33 PM
RGMason@WLRK.com; garciakeim@msn.com; sastojkovic@gmail.com
kcardinalmn@yahoo.com; jstuiver@gmail.com
Re: Revolt questionnaire/Kids First

Ricky,
The GOTV cash was a secondary issue to the original endorsement strategy. We
could have done one without the other.
Today we made a decision to cancel your door knocking in the Fifth Ward this
weekend because we knew you and Dave Carty would be bombarded with questions
about why Beth is not supporting Kids First. Perhaps that was a mistake and you
need to be hearing it from your neighbors to understand this is a real problem.
Have you walked through the uptown neighborhoods east of Washington street in
the last week or so? Kids First posters everywhere, and Zimmer posters in quite a
few windows as well. We have many KF posters downtown in the first ward as well.

10

We also have a lot of people in the first ward leaning toward Dawn because they've
never seen Beth down here, and the way this campaign is going they won't.
In Beth's zeal to placate all things Old Hoboken to avoid a runoff I'm very
concerned she may instead be damaging herself so badly with New Hoboken that she
won't be able to win a runoff if there is one.
This email raises questions about Mr. Bajardis involvement in the distribution of illegal
GOTV cash on campaigns for Beth Mason. It also shows Lane Bajardi in a senior leadership
position on the 2009 Mason campaign [today we made a decision to cancel your door
knocking]- a status Mr. Bajardi has denied. Mr. Masons testimony on this and other emails
will expose Mr. Bajardis status as a political operative involved at the highest levels of the Mason
campaigns inner circle. That is relevant and non-duplicative testimony.

3. Mr. Mason claims the sole issue to be tried is whether Mr. Bajardi was paid by Mrs.
Mason [21]:
False. I have addressed this at length in my brief opposing Mrs. Masons quash. The Courts
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [E. Mason, Exhibit C] ruled the following statements
which may be subject to defamatory meaning include: [emphasis mine]:
Paragraph 87:
the statements that Plaintiff-journalist Lane Bajardi has worked for years on the
campaigns of a wealthy local Councilwoman named Beth Mason is defamatory to this
Plaintiff should he prove that the statement is false.

Paragraph 87:
the statement that Mr. Bajardi has been questioned by the FBI, thus implying criminal
conduct, and that he is believed to be part of the criminal conspiracy to steal our mayors
email and trafficking [sic] confidential city information are defamatory to the extent they
are not true and require that Pincus defenses as to these comments be presented to a jury
at the time of trial.

11

Paragraph 56:
Therefore the Court finds that all of the statements in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint
except the statements as to political operative Lane Bajardi are not actionable.
Paragraph 31:
The Court finds that the statement in Paragraph 31 that Lane Bajardi is a Beth Mason
operative... [is] defamatory as to Lane Bajardi if proven to be false.
The issue of payment to Mr. Bajardi is not the sole trial issue; it is one issue.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Masons sense of entitlement [his busy business schedule] does not show good cause
to quash my subpoena. Other trial witnesses have jobs- even more demanding than Mr. Masons,
such as Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer, and have not complained.

Moreover, Mr. Masons

objections to being served four days before trial ring hollow when it was Mr. Mason who refused
service of his subpoena the night before. That is outrageous behavior for an officer of the Court.
Finally, the trial has been adjourned until January 26, 2015 so Mr. Masons scheduling objections
are moot. The Court should see this as what it is: a well-funded and improper effort to evade
testifying and harm my defense.
I respectfully request that the Motion of Notice on Short Order to Quash Defendants
Trial Subpoena of Richard G. Mason be denied.

Dated: October 8, 2014

By: Nancy

Pincus

Nancy Pincus,
Pro se Litigant
36 Willow Terrace
Hoboken, NJ
(201) *******
Email: pincus.prose@gmail.com

12

Cc: Mathew West, Esq., Kerry Flowers, Esq., Alex Booth, Esq., Jonathan Z. Cohen, Esq.

13