Bill Simons

Goodness, we all have intense Gimelstob fatigue.

But just when you thought all was quiet on the Justin front, his case reared up again today. You see, after Justin pleaded “no contest” to a charge of felony battery, Judge Upinder Kalra explained to him and his lawyer that by doing so he was accepting guilt in the brutal brawl he had with Randall Kaplan on Halloween while the financial investor was trick-or-treating in Brentwood with his pregnant wife and two-year-old.

Because Gimelstob was so rattled and upset, (repeatedly shaking his head and saying, “No”) as the Kaplans read their victim impact statements in court on April 22, the judge again and again made it crystal clear that Justin must not now turn around and in public deny responsibility for the crime. The message from the bench was direct and strong. Justin’s lawyer stated she understood.

But on that same day, Gimelstob sought a Temporary Restraining Order against his victim – Kaplan. In a sworn statement, he said that on Halloween Kaplan had said “vile and derogatory” things about his recently deceased dad and violently shoved him. Gimelstob stated that they had had a brief fight and Kaplan was embarrassed that he lost so quickly.

Justin said that Kaplan then tried to “misrepresent and obfuscate what happened.” Gimelstob claimed he “fears for his physical safety and believes that Kaplan is willing to go to great lengths – both physical and non-physical – to hurt him.” Justin also referred to an earlier incident in May 2018 in which he asserted, “Kaplan angrily confronted him at a Brentwood restaurant.”

In light of this, prosecutor Lucrecia Boado stated that Gimelstob “appears to be asking that court to consider prior incidents in support of an argument that he acted in self-defense in the commission of the offense to which he pled no contest…[which is] the legal equivalent of denying responsibility. The defendant is providing a legal excuse for his actions and is proclaiming that he is not guilty because he acted in lawful self-defense. The defendant is supporting the reasonableness of his self-defense claim by including circumstances in the form of a prior incident…Thus, the statements made by the defendant…on the very date the defendant was sentenced appear to be in direct contravention of this court’s admonishment, as he is now denying responsibility for the underlying charge…For the reasons stated…the People respectfully request this Court take action in a manner the Court deems necessary, fitting, and appropriate in response to what appears to be the contemptuous conduct in the wake of this Court’s admonishment.”

Interestingly, the DA did not reference an interview with the New York Times or an assertive letter Gimelstob’s lawyer sent to the ATP which was entitled “There is no finding or determination that Mr. Gimelstob committed any crime.” In both many observers felt Justin seemed to deny responsibility. There will be a hearing relating to Justin’s probation on May 22nd and sources say it is likely the judge will then consider the DA’s complaint.