More Fun with Stephanie Adams, Martin Siegel and Brown Rudnick

Martin Siegel is taking his ball and going home, he doesn't want to play with us anymore because we are open and public about our correspondence. Click here to read Martin Siegel's response to our initial request that he specify exactly why he is suing us. It basically says that he doesn't want to because we keep publishing all of their "correspondence".

Siegel says, "Your client persists in publishing communications by you and me on his blog". Communications between "you and me"? Other than the original threatening letter and the initial summons we've heard nothing but crickets since we retained an attorney. That does not communication make Mr. Siegel.

Maybe we'd just like to know why the fuck we're being sued. Does Martin Siegel and Brown Rudnick have something against free speech? You want to keep something secret on Tuesday that must be made public on Thursday? Fine, we'll wait, but what we will not do and what we have refused to do since the beginning is give up our right to free speech even in the face of intimidation and bullying!

So stay tuned, we should have something fantastic to print on Thursday considering we actually get a complaint from them, which I have my doubts about.

That was our response to the letter. You can see the official response from our lawyer, Neal (champion of free speech) Johnston after the jump. For the complete backstory of check out our Stephanie Adams archives.

Martin S. Siegel, Esq. Brown[ Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036

Re: Adams v. Poling

Dear Mr. Siegel:

I have a statement from Mr. Poling indicating that prior to my becoming involved here, indeed, prior to the service of the summons, you and he had a telephone conversation where he pressed you to identify what was wrong with his June 7 posting, and you responded by telling him that it was clear to you that he could not afford to litigate, and
that if he didn't take down the posting about Ms. Adams as she wanted, he would be sued. He was so served.

The summons bore your name and the name of your firm, Brown Rudnick, a sizeable institution which has to be taken seriously.

It was at this point that my son asked me to step in. I did.

I imagine you would be delighted to see this matter melt away. In May, a similar threat to Richard LeCour worked: he removed all reference to your client from his blog, Richard's Ramblings. However, this time it didn't work, and it's not going to work again.

Now that it has gone this far, James Poling is not going to be satisfied until he gets an apology from you, a general release from Ms. Adams, or a complaint. Any complaint, of course, must satisfy the provisions of 22 NYCRR 130: you must sign the complaint, and by doing so certify that the paper is not frivolous.

It will not be so easy to get out of this mess except with an apology and a general release.

If litigated, your claim is going to be litigated in what the French still call en pleine air. I have asked what it is in Poling's posting that your client objects to. If you serve a complaint, you are required to be quite specific about that. CPLR R 3016(a). The complaint is a public document. It is due on Thursday. I simply cannot imagine that you would want to be secretive now about information you must disclose this week.

You object that my client "continue[s] to joke about what [you and your client] regard as a serious matter." Though he tried to do so with good humor, Mr. Poling regards the First Amendment issues you have raised as very important. Me too. It is for this serious reason that Mr. Poling insists that the discussion be public.

Sincerely yours,

Neal Johnston
NJ:ig

cc. James Poling