01 June 2013

KingCast says Boston Lawyers Eric Karp, Joseph Berman and Nan Sauer are Facing Bar Complaint on Impounded Documents in Khan v Karp Adam Klein eMusic Child Support Lawsuit.

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.


Today's global email to all parties and counsel:
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. 

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2013/05/kingcast-sees-deadbeat-dad-emusic-ceo_30.html 

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. 

Ciao. 

[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?
  
HERE IS DAY TWO.

Today's Trial Summary is coming by 7:45p.
On Thursday the 30th I will be watching for impounded docs.
Meanwhile folks are watching KingCast coverage, as usual:



Daralyn Khan breaks down recalling how Adam Klein told her to have an abortion 
after he seduced her and the pair had been dating for several months.
As we see, "Dr. Klein" is adept at seducing, or trying to seduce younger women. 
Sometimes however instead of hanging drawers he is getting sued.
A pensive Eric Karp, Esq.
You know Adam Klein's own disfavored daughter called the guy a "Deadbeat Dad" right? The guy ("Dr. Klein" as some call him) paid according to support Agreement for six (6) years and then stopped paying, citing a clause in the Agreement that is something akin to Slick Willie's "Depends on the definition of is." Now the mother, Daralyn Khan, is suing her lawyer for leaving open such loopholes and for not making assurances that Adam Klein would not pay less than the support guidelines. This case has more twists and turns than Mulholland Drive, but for now simply check my Notice of Media Coverage. Excerpt:
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:  

1 comment:

Christopher King said...

Warning to Boston Area Lawyers: Ethics issues with Lee, Levine, Eric Karp, Joseph Berman, Nan Sauer.
Inbox
x


Christopher King
12:29 PM (19 hours ago)

to jbowman, dmanning, smarquez, jward, Michaele, elund, cwagner, new_info, bmc, tg, aa, rjm, Conor, mj, dbrophy, alumnae, trohani, development, gjensen, bbrizendine, cflageolle, ccolligan, agordon, sbarile, JdeJesus
Open letter to Boston area attorneys:

Middlesex Case being heard in Lowell Superior, 07-2625H
Courtroom stills, video and analysis of the issue:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2013/06/kingcast-says-boston-lawyers-eric-karp_1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3XorZjyHb8

I lead with the staff of Greater Boston Legal Services because I know you have a vast network and are able to share this information accordingly. As to the associates cc'd here, I'm just letting you know that if you choose to follow in these footsteps I'll be there for you too when the time comes.

I've got a lot of lawyers to talk to over the course of the next several weeks... and I want to make sure I go into Lexis to see who has had cases against these attorneys as well..... so I'll probably just hire an intern to put the word out, maybe I can make sure they get class credit:
http://www.avvo.com/probate-lawyer/ma.html

***********

We all know what Impounded documents are. They are documents to which only the parties and their present attorneys may view. Once the case is closed any prior lawyer on the case must file a new appearance in order to view them or to get certified copies.

So what do you (i.e. malpractice Defendant Eric Karp from Witmer, Karp et al.) and his attorney Joseph Berman (Looney & Grossman) do if you are an attorney facing a legal malpractice case for negligently drafting a support agreement...... when the mother is fighting eMusic CEO (and convicted felon) Adam Klein and when you did not represent her in the custody case where Klein tried to deny parentage?

You call your Lee Levine, your former adversary on the the child support case and have them go back into the file because they were counsel of record in the parentage case. They do this for you on the day of Trial. And they do it in such a way that their name doesn't appear on the docket sheet but you can clearly see that they paid for two Certified copies, $62.00. All that appears on the docket sheet is "pro se" when in point of fact it was Attorney Nan Sauer, and she was most definitely not "pro se."

They then -- acting as your agent and with no other purpose to be involved -- bring you the documents that you had no legal right to, in order for you to try to use put down the mother. The Court then even appears to allow it in as evidence...... although the final word is not yet in on that one but the Court allowed cross examination using these documents.

Morally repugnant, legally aberrant, and in my opinion worthy of sanction by the BBO and so I am filing a complaint against everyone involved and I will put this information out to as many local and national attorneys as I can find so that people know what kind of skullduggery they will be facing when they are across from these guys.

I was an assistant state attorney after working for large daily press. Then I hung a shingle. Now I combine all of that with some video DSLR cameras to shine a bright white light on corruption and deceit.

And this is about as bad as when I had to put down Jeffrey Denner when I was Boston Bob.
http://dennerlaw.blogspot.com/2008/12/citizen-media-law-project-covers-denner.html

Oddly enough, Denner is involved in the case at bar.... his office reneged on promises and failed to take action on several things that jeopardized her litigation.