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.
Khan v. Klein Day Three Preview: Probategate and a Bar Ethics Complaint.
Yes, indeed it is. Now I know why Defendant Karp would not answer my question in the hallway.
Why am I not surprised? I have seen big time well-connected lawyers get away with all matter of illegalities in several states as a lawyer and as a journo. Attorneys Karp and Berman had absolutely no legal right to several documents in question, so they used a strawman and prior law clerk of the Middlesex Probate Court from a law firm on a case other than the one at trial to get them, and she apparently listed herself as pro se to do so.
[Nan Sauer's] sole purpose at the Middlesex Probate Courthouse on 28 May 2013 (trial day) was to act as agent of Defendant Karp, who had no goddamn right to these documents are we clear? At least that much is unambiguous, right Wherefore, I am reporting all of you to the BBO with a copy of today's movie.
As to whether the Court allows any of this material in is question for the Court and reviewable on appeal (See generally Prescott v. Register of Probate 395 Mass 274 (1985) but I would hate to think that Her Honor would grant imprimatur to these back alley sleazeball tactics. It is axiomatic in criminal proceedings that illegally-obtained "evidence" should not be used. See Commonwealth v. Picardi, 401 Mass 1008 (1988). I am not certain how things should have proceeded in this civil context, perhaps a Motion should have been filed back in the day, per Commonwealth v. O'Brien 27 Mass App. Ct. 184 (1989), I don't know.
What I do know is that using a straw man to obtain the documents is shady at best. Having observed the Middlesex courthouse yesterday I know everyone there is talking about and watching this case. And they are not the only ones. I'm back to finishing today's movie production, but first a ride on the Triumph to clear the head from all of this sleaze. Everyone needs a break. But to my review of this case over the past six (6) years, Daralyn Khan never got hers. Apparently John Buonomo sets the tone for how things work around here, nice. Just a bunch of criminals in suits and ties, basically. The same as Adam Klein, and that's a fact.
[Email #2] And I'm not done with you yet: I will look for the sound clip from what I recall as Defendant Karp on redirect from Attorney Berman, discussing Lee, Levine and he says "They are a formidable foe.... and you can trust them when they say they are putting something forward, they have integrity, blah blah blah."
In point of fact Karp was probably in bed with these creeps all along. They are not his foe. They are trying to protect him and slice up Ms. Khan.... when did it turn like that.... or was it like that all along, I wonder. I'm pretty sure I still have that wonderful video file. I'll guess you have to stay tuned, as I am sure you will.
[Snip! Much more with days one and two below the fold].
Day three preview:
How did the Impounded documents make it to trial and why are they relevant?
On Thursday the 30th I will be watching for impounded docs.
Meanwhile folks are watching KingCast coverage, as usual:
I have been following this case for more than five (5) years now as it involves the fullest extant of a situation in which the CEO of a multinational corporation and journalism professor at Columbia University has a substantial criminal background as an International felon out of South Africa, and has recently settled a sexual harassment lawsuit at his current place of employment, eMusic. The fact that he exerts substantial power of influence over hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, is a matter of public interest given his public transgressions. My research further indicates that he lied about his residency in order to avoid service in the underlying case. I'll post that link today.
Interestingly, the Court held yesterday that this is not a guidelines case. But that begs the question: Can private parties ever negotiate a contractual obligation that results in payment of less than what the State guarantees as the minimal requirements for the health and welfare of the child? The answer I am told, is yes... but only with prior court approval. And why on Earth would a millionaire entertain such a notion in the first place?
I don't know, maybe perhaps he's the type of guy would would be (and is) a felon. Maybe perhaps because he is the kind of guy who, at 60, and more importantly while married, tried to smash up on eMusic underling Aimee McCormack and ended up settling a sexual harassment lawsuit just several months ago!
From Dylan Love's Business Insider story 24 Jan, 2012.
The Courts, especially by and through one Spencer M. Kagan, have coddled this man and punished the mother empirically. My position as a former trial attorney is to say that the American and World Public has a right to know how the Court systems works when the rich and powerful are involved and that is precisely why I am here. eMusic follows my journal page, Chris King’s First Amendment Page and watches my videos: