Normally a would keep a person’s personal life off limits on such a forum. Divorce is an ugly, nasty mess. When lawyers get involved, it sees that nothing will be settled amicably, and any chance of maintaining a friendship after separation is destroyed. A person’s family should be off limits in politics. however, Jane Jannarone and Lou Magazzu both have viciously and persistently dragged others personal misfortunes into the public limelight for their own political gain. So I figured Jane is fair game when I stumbled on this gem today.
The findings of the court in this case support my assertion that Jannarone is not fit to sit on any elected board, and that Lou also shows a lack of good judgement by assiting Jane in spurious court proceedings:
[T]he Court . . . finds most of [plaintiff’s] positions in this case to have not been reasonable. The Court has held to the favor of the majority, if not all of the defendant’s positions — his arguments were reasonable.
The main item that caught my attention, however was the utter hypocrisy of Jane and Lou to argue the following:
However, according to plaintiff, defendant’s reported income was “not the whole story” because he failed to “disclose all of the perquisites he receive[d] through his business,” which amounted to “approximately $40,000 per year.” Specifically, plaintiff alleged: “Mr. Jannarone always has . . . received car payments from his business. They pay the health insurance…
With Jane and Lou both grandstanding about elected and appointed officials receiving health benefits, it is extremely disconcerting to understand that of the seven elected freeholders, ONLY Lou and Jane partake of the taxpayer funded health plan. Either one could have voluntarily opted out, as have all of the other freeholders, but reading these court transcripts, one can now see clearly that greed is a prime motivating factor. Jane was allowing the taxpayers to pay her health insurance while crying poverty to the courts – all the while still earning WELL ABOVE the median income for this area. But she criticizes her husband for having health benefits paid by his employer… Sheer hypocrisy on her part.
Anyway, the Leagle.com website is slow, so it takes patience to wade through this document. But trust me, it is very interesting reading. It demonstrates sheer audacity on the part of the plaintiff and her attorney. I don’t see any reference in her complaint about the restraining order placed against her by the court on behalf of her estranged husband during this entire lurid ordeal. Since Jane took the gloves off last election season, however, I think that is fodder to be included in a future article.