The court battle between Mike Missanelli and JAKIB Media’s Joe Krause continues into its seventh month, with no resolution in sight. At last check, the judge presiding over the case had denied Krause’s motion to dismiss, after Missanelli’s lawyer refiled his initial complaint with a full copy of the employment agreement between the two sides.

Missanelli says he’s owed more than $50,000 in unpaid earnings, while Krause argues that the 97.5 the Fanatic midday host breached the deal by not fulfilling his contractual obligations. Missanelli previously hosted JAKIB’s Philadelphia Eagles postgame show alongside Seth Joyner, Derrick Gunn, Marc Farzetta, and Devan Kaney.

The latest update is that Krause is filing once again to dismiss, this time writing in a February 18th filing that Missanelli’s amended complaint “is based on an incomplete, unsigned agreement, which the Plaintiff has improperly characterized as a fully executed contact..” Essentially he’s saying that the entire case should be tossed because the contract was never signed in the first place.

Meantime, in the two months between the first denial and this new motion, Missanelli’s attorney asked the judge to sanction Krause, who is representing himself in court, alleging that Krause was citing legal cases in his defense that actually did not exist. The topic was discussed in court on Thursday, January 30th, during a “motion for sanctions” hearing that lasted about 15 minutes. In a transcript obtained by Crossing Broad, Judge Jeffrey Saltz rejected Missanelli’s motion for sanctions but admonished Krause for using Google instead of an online legal service:

KEVIN WRIGHT (Mike’s lawyer): In essence, Your Honor, in multiple pleadings in this matter, defendant has cited what he contends are cases to support his position, and despite our best efforts, we cannot locate those cases. In fact, we believe they do not exist. On several occasions I’ve written to the defendant asking him to send me a copy of the decisions he’s referring to, and rather than doing that, he continues to file pleadings, citing cases that do not exist. If he were a member of the bar, I would simply refer him to the disciplinary board, but since he’s pro se (representing himself), I cannot do that. That’s why we filed the motion.

THE COURT (Judge Saltz): Alright. Mr. Krause?

JOE KRAUSE: Yes, Your Honor. Good morning.  Thank you very much for,  first, rescheduling from last week. I appreciate that. In my response to the plaintiff’s attorney requesting motion for sanctions, I have included in each exhibit a specific breakdown of each case that has been referenced in any of the previous filings. I am pro se in this case. Should there have been any error in how I identified the cases, I apologize for that. But all of the cases that have been identified — all of the cases that the plaintiff has specifically identified in this motion are not only legitimate cases; they’re actual cases in Pennsylvania with rulings, and I’ve identified not only the cases as exhibits, but I have also identified a breakdown of what each case is about. 

THE COURT: Mr. Krause, are you using an online service to access these cases? 

KRAUSE: Yes. General online research. I don’t have the legal research that —

THE COURT: You’re not using Westlaw or Lexis or — 

KRAUSE: All of the cases are cross-referenced through that. So the cases — in terms of online, you can cross-reference any case, which is one of the reasons why I’m not even sure why  this motion was brought. 

THE COURT: Well, I will tell you that I looked up every one of the cases cited in the motion and I, too, was unable to find any of these cases on Westlaw, so I don’t know where you’re getting your cites from. I mean, let’s start with Doyle v. North Penn School District —  where did you — how did you access the opinion in that case? 

KRAUSE: Just through Google search. Through Google search. If you copy and paste the case and put it into Google search, you will get the complete breakdown of the case, which is why I included as exhibits the specifics for each one of those cases. I’m not familiar with Westlaw, but… 

THE COURT: I just Googled Doyle v. North Penn School District — there are, as usual in Google, multiple results, but none of them —

KRAUSE: I have also broken them down and listed them in each exhibit with a complete breakdown: The facts, the issue, the court decision, the reasoning, the conclusion. Everything for each case. So unless — I’m not making up or creating this amount of detail and/or these individual case laws. I’m specifically going off of research that is available to me, which I think would be less than it would be available to the plaintiff’s attorney. I believe there are a total of 11 or 12 cases, and all 11 or 12 cases are legitimate cases in the state of Pennsylvania. 

THE COURT: Are you using Google Scholar or just the normal Google? 

KRAUSE: Just Google. And Google is fueled now by multiple AI chat services that provide a defined layer of research. So when you go into Google — I think Google is fueled by ChatGPT, so the cases are being researched through their online portal. And even following the petition by the plaintiff for the request for sanctions, I then double cross-referenced each specific case before filing my  answer. I asked specifically does this case exist? And the answer for each case was — with the details provided in each exhibit — well, yes. If the case didn’t exist, then the amount of detail that was provided — I certainly wouldn’t have the amount of detail that was provided in each exhibit. 

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know how to square what you’re telling me with what I am finding in my own case searches. 

KRAUSE: The case that you just asked about, Exhibit A in my response, Doyle v. North Penn School District — 

THE COURT: Well, Exhibit A gives your overview of the case. Do you have a copy of the court’s opinion? 

KRAUSE: It’s referenced in my information there, but I didn’t — 

THE COURT: Do you have a copy of the court’s opinion? 

KRAUSE: Not with me.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have it at home or in your office or wherever you did the  research? 

KRAUSE: Your Honor, I’m just doing — I’m doing research, I didn’t realize that I needed to also provide a copy of the court’s opinion. 

THE COURT: I’m not saying that you do. I am looking to get to the bottom of the problem here — 

KRAUSE: Let me lay it out for  you — 

THE COURT: — because neither Mr. Wright nor I am able to locate the opinions that you are citing. 

KRAUSE: Well, let me take you through my process just so you understand it. So I’m responding to a motion from the plaintiff. I then as a pro se do my research to each one of his reference points on any paper that he has filed. I then compile that and create my own answer. That is what I did with these multiple filings. The plaintiff then — his attorney says, no, these cases don’t exist. So I go back in and I take the cases and I put them into Google and specifically ask them do these cases exist, and if they do, give me a breakdown of each case. And that’s what you’re seeing in each exhibit. So I don’t know specifically what else can be done. Whether it’s any of the cases that are  referenced or any of the future cases that I would use to support my argument, I’m not sure what else I’m supposed to do other than the research that I’ve done. 10 

THE COURT: Are you reviewing the court opinions or simply reviewing what Google says by way of summary? 

KRAUSE: Well, I’m accepting Google for what is being provided. And that would be — I would say that would be true on initial responses for initial answers. But when the plaintiff then files for sanctions and makes a statement that these cases don’t exist and then I go back and cross-check it and get a complete breakdown summary of the court case, to me that is checking the box that the case exists. Now, I’m not an attorney, so I don’t know what the third level of that would be, but that’s my process. 

THE COURT: Well, the first level is that you cite a case based on your review of the Court’s opinion, and not some third party, whether it’s a human being or a computer, not what a third party says by way of summary or analysis of the Court’s opinion. All right? You know, if it were one or two cases it would be one thing, but it’s virtually every case cited in your papers. 

KRAUSE: Are you saying that the cases here don’t exist? Because the cases that — the documentation that I’m providing — 

THE COURT: Yes, I’m saying that the cases as you have cited them do not exist. What you found and how you found it, I cannot fathom, but I am telling you that. I will say two things: Number one, you have an absolute right to appear in this court without an attorney, and we’ll give you every consideration. But I suggest that you consider, given your lack of familiarity with legal research and your reliance on a general search rather than a legal search platform, maybe it would be wiser to have an attorney here. That’s a decision for you to make. Number two, I am going to direct that in the future — I am going to expect that in the future you will cite cases only that you have personally reviewed. Again, if you have an attorney, that’s a different matter. But if you continue pro se, only cases that you have personally reviewed by reading the Court’s opinion, not simply some third-party analysis of the opinion. 

KRAUSE: And, Your Honor, can I just ask for a piece of clarity with that? Is it practice that a Court’s opinion on a specific case would obviously be public record and then that public record should be accessible through online research, right? 

THE COURT: Yes. And it is not accessible through online research of one of the two leading legal research firms. I have never encountered a situation like this before. That’s all I can tell you.

What’s interesting is that the motion from Missanelli’s lawyer was denied on what appears to be a technicality, the judge explaining that it did not comply with the applicable rules. Saltz went on to explain that “a motion cannot be filed for violation of 25 1023.1 unless the applicant has served written notice and demand that the challenged paper be withdrawn.” So nothing actually happened here outside of the judge giving Krause a bit of a lecture and suggesting that he should consider hiring an attorney instead of using Google for legal research. 


Which leaves us in a position of waiting to see what happens next with the renewed motion to dismiss the case entirely. Krause is on record saying he turned down a $40,000 settlement offer last year, while Missanelli is also on the record saying he turned down a settlement offer. After the November court hearings, Krause alleged he was threatened and intimidated by Missanelli, requiring a courthouse officer to “intervene and physically restrain him to prevent further escalation.” Missanelli denied the accusation, saying that there was “no physical altercation other than his failed, belligerent attempt to get into the elevator with my attorney and myself.”