Trending

Mike Missanelli vs. JAKIB Media: Who Lunged First? (Also Featuring an Affidavit and Deposition)

By Kevin Kinkead

Published: Aug 28th, 2025 · 3:16 PM EDT

---

And now –

The latest on the Mike Missanelli vs. JAKIB Media legal battle, which has entered its second year. Missanelli is suing JAKIB owner Joe Krause for what he says is $65,000 in unpaid compensation, while Krause says Mike never signed his contract and didn’t fulfill all of its requirements.

At the end of July, with depositions completed, Krause motioned for summary judgement in his favor, saying that the $25,000 he paid Missanelli was a demonstration of good faith despite the continued allegation that Mike did not do everything he was supposed to do. Nothing hit the court system for almost a full month, then Mike’s lawyer, Kevin Wright, filed a response, introducing three exhibits:

1. an affidavit from Missanelli’s agent, Steve Mountain of Cornerstone Management
2. the full transcript of Krause’s deposition
3. email correspondence between Missanelli and Krause that includes a payment schedule

The affidavit is about five pages long.

It includes this passage:

“Although this contract included Mr. Missanelli’s commitment to participate in some ancillary functions, the essence of this agreement was that Mr. Missanelli would appear and participate in each of these shows following each of the 17 regular season games as well as following any post season games in the event the Philadelphia Eagles qualified for the playoffs in exchange for a payment of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars per show by Mr. Krause.”

Here, Mountain is disputing Krause’s claim that Missanelli was required to do other functions, including a weekly recap/lookahead show, an appearance at the Marks Jewelers grand opening, social media promotion, and a special live broadcast from Pond Lehocky.

Mountain goes on to say that he spoke with Krause on the phone, and that they had a verbal agreement on contract changes, which Krause was meant to re-draft in the contract proposal. He’s essentially saying that the correspondence between the two amounts to a “meeting of the minds,” which makes the essential terms and conditions of the contract valid, something Krause has denied in previous filings.

The deposition itself is a beast, about 42 pages long and dense. Missanelli’s lawyer goes through some email correspondence with Krause, suggesting that outstanding payments were intended to be made. He talks about previous and current litigation that Krause has been involved in, such as the October 2024 filing from Audacy, seeking $400,000 for alleged non-payments for programming agreements. More specific to this particular filing, Wright references the deposition in alleging that Missanelli completed 18 postgame shows at $5,000 per show, making up the $90,000 total number that has been referenced over the course of the past year. That includes 17 regular season games and the pitiful first round loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

What’s particularly interesting is a line of questioning in which Missanelli’s lawyer asks Krause how he could be reputationally harmed by this litigation when he himself has commented publicly on it, referencing an October 8th Philadelphia Inquirer article by Rob Tornoe:

Crossing Broad is also referenced 18 times in the deposition. Missanelli’s lawyer continues with the concept of reputational harm, which leads to this exchange:

Krause: It looks, to me, like Crossing Broad took a statement off of our platform.

Wright: What does that mean, sir?

Krause: I didn’t go to Crossing Broad as you referenced. Crossing Broad took a statement that I put out and published it.

Wright: So when you say you put it out, on, what, your website?

Krause: Or social media. It was put on a website or social media. I did not go to Crossing Broad.

Wright: You put it out on a website, hoping people would read it?

Krause: I put it out on the website as an update to what’s happening in the case.

Wright: Why were you updating people on what’s happening on the case if you don’t want people to know about the case?

Krause: To combat the slew of attacks in the market from this case, specific to the publications that Crossing Broad has done about the case.

…

Wright: In any event, if you didn’t want information about this lawsuit made public, why would you publish this, knowing it would be picked up by Crossing Broad, and why did you file a police report?

Krause: Well I filed a police report because I was attacked by your client.

Wright: Really? He physically struck you?

Krause: He physically lunged out of the elevator.

Wright: I was in the elevator. I kind of remember you lunging at us.

Krause: Look at the video. Did you look at it? I’m sure you haven’t. I have.

Now that’s a good exchange. Did Missanelli lunge first, or did Krause? Who lunged first! It’s the new Han Solo vs. Greedo debate for the 21st Century, only much more esoteric. We’ll have to acquire the video somehow, even though it’s almost a year old at this point.

Anyway, Missanelli’s lawyer proceeds to ask Krause if he owes Derrick Gunn $12,500. Krause says he’s not going to talk about anything unrelated to the current litigation, but explains that Gunner had to step away to attend to his wife’s health. They go through a bit on independent contractors and various responsibilities and talk about communication with Mountain. Krause repeats a few times that he determined in March of 2024 that Missanelli did not fulfill his obligations and would be receiving no more money. Missanelli’s lawyer accuses him of lying and they go around in circles with that for a few pages.

The third exhibit is an email from Krause to Missanelli, outlining a payment schedule for “2023 post game dollars from the 2023 season.” This is referenced several times in the response and the deposition as well.

In the immediacy, Wright is asking the court to deny Krause’s summary judgment, and instead enter judgment in favor of Missanelli “in the amount of $65,000 Dollars plus 6% interest beginning on January 15, 2024.” If the judge does not rule for either side, then this likely goes to trial.

(FYI – we don’t have Missanelli’s deposition, but perhaps it will be entered as an exhibit in a future filing, and therefore made public)