11 June 2013

KingCast and SJC 1:19 Advocate Janet Aldrich Review Eric Karp and Joseph Berman's Use of Straw Man Nan Sauer to Obtain Impounded Documents.

April 2014 Update:

This dirty motherfucker is no longer with eMusic and switched jobs and is doing so in a way to avoid paying child support/insurance benefits. More to come.


Dow Jones, really?

From Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's 
Emergency Motion to Revoke Authentication


I noted in this journal entry that Ms. Aldrich would be sending me the final day of this trial in video, and she has done so. Here we are in Boston as I was on my way to Seattle for a fortnight. As you may recall, this is the fallout from the dirtbag convict cum eMusic CEO Adam Klein's refusal to follow the terms of the agreement he had set up with Daralyn Khan after he tried every trick in the book to deny parentage and lost. More about married man Adam Klein and his recent legal troubles, including the settled sexual harassment eMusic lawsuit by former employee Aimee McCormack here. Defendant and counsel freely admit to using Attorney Nan Sauer to obtain a document that Plaintiff did not agree to put into evidence from the Impounded file at the Middlesex County Probate Courthouse, i.e. the home of corruption. See generally John Buonomo (i.e. the f_____g thief who still gets his pension hahaha joke's on us) and read this journal entry.

In their Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff Khan's emergency motion, they claim that Nan Sauer obtained the gold seal document "as a professional courtesy" because only attorneys of record could obtain the sealed document. And according to the clerk I spoke with, the rules are even tighter once the case is CLOSED..... and this case was indeed CLOSED. So contrary to the implication in Defendant Karp's Memorandum that "current counsel" could have access, the clerk flat told me that only the actual Parties could obtain the documents, not even their counsel. And that's No Word of a Lie, give me a goddamn polygraph and I'll rock it 24/7.

Well the problem with that "professional courtesy " argument is that Nan Sauer never was attorney of record. But she was a law clerk at the Middlesex Courthouse who apparently wielded her influence to obtain a nasty opinion from Judge Borstein about Ms. Khan. As noted in the movie, the journal entry next to her name read "pro se."  Well surely she knew she was not "pro se" because the firm she works for (Lee Levine) was actually opposing counsel to Defendant Karp, who was at the time in question, representing Ms. Khan. And surely the clerk's office knew that Attorney Sauer was not "pro se" because she was a f____g law clerk there, right. Everyone knows who she is. So why didn't the record reflect who she was? 

Because everyone knew that she was there to obtain documents that Attorney Karp had no legal right to obtain, that's why.

Anyway, the Jury then heard how that Judge felt that Ms. Khan spent too much of her time litigating against the jackass "deadbeat" (according to his own daughter) father, Adam Klein. I believe some of this vitriol may have been redacted on the actual exhibit, which was then put into evidence in spite of the fact that no certified copy could be found.

The fact that these documents were admitted into evidence is not surprising to me because according to Ms. Khan, Judge Christine McEvoy, while not drunk, did demonstrate some unlawful bias in this case because she made certain statements that included: 
"I was married for 17 years and I never saw money like this....."
To which Counsel for Plaintiff said "Your Honor, I am not certain of the terms of your divorce but it has nothing to do with this case." 

I dunno. For all I know, maybe that bottle had something to do with it. This book is going to be a hoot. As a video book it must contain a segment from me schooling an unruly Boston area (Suffolk County) Court Clerk. Sometimes these clerks get out of hand...... such as when they allow former law clerks like Nan Sauer to come in and sign out and certify impounded documents without even putting her name on file. I wonder where they get it from, right. I'm certain the ACLU agrees with me even though they won't publicly say it; my work has graced their pages on more than one occasion. 

No comments: