Stephanie Adams Sues More People, Attempts to Stay Relevent

The supposedly "private" Stephanie Adams held another press conference to announce her lawsuit against an NYC Cabbie, the NYPD and the City of New York. If there's someone out there screaming louder for attention than Ms. Adams, I haven't seen evidence of it.

If anyone from the media would like to do some actual research about the overly litigious Stephanie Adams' harrassment of us and her baseless lawsuit to try and stomp on our rights feel free to contact us or our kickass lawyer, Neal (Freedom Warrior) Johnston (we don't want him to get spammed so contact us for his email if you'd like to speak with him).

Let's look at what some commenters over at HuffPo are saying about Ms. Adams:

By: TastyBanana on September 23, 2006 at 05:10pm: Oh God, not this idiot again. She's nothing but a washed up, haggered old playmate. For God's sake, she posed nude 14 years ago! Her time in the limelight should have long passed.

By: Steamboater on September 23, 2006 at 05:38pm: I read those posts TastyBanana and you're right. My first reaction was to support this woman's accusations but she's obviously someone who flies off the handle very easily and her anti-semitic rants at those posts aside, is easily offended if something doesn't go her way e.g., "Look driver, I said 66th Street., not 67th Street. Don't you speak english fuckhead! Now hurry before I report your dumb ass to your boss ... fuckin Jew-shit!) " Also, knowing 14 years after she first spread her legs for the camera she's still at it shows she demands a lot of public attention or has a very good plastic surgeon. In either case, the woman's a case without a case.

When was the last time Stephanie Adams was in the spotlight of a ligitimate news agency for something other than taking off her clothes or suing someone?

Metadish and Neal Johnston Respond to Martin Siegel's Sudden Attack of Cold Feet

In case you don't know, Martin Siegel of Brown Rudnick is the attorney representing Stephanie Adams, a former Playboy Playmate (way former), in her frivolous lawsuit against us in an attempt to garner publicity for herself.

Last week our lawyer, Neal "Free Speech" Johnston, spoke with Martin Siegel who was practically begging us to agree to a confidentiality agreement to protect his client from "embarrassing" facts that may come to light.

This from the lawyer who initially told us that we didn't have enough money to fight the case so we should just take down everything we had written and be done with it. What happened Mr. Siegel? Does the idea of actually taking this case to court cause your manhood to retreat somewhere deep inside of you?

If that is indeed the case, strap on a set and let's get this case moving. Stop being such a waffler and answer the interrogetories that are due before you piss off Neal "Fight the Power" Johnston and he makes you look like more of a fool than you already do for taking on this case in the first place. Let's get to it man!

You and your client are the ones who drug us into this lawsuit, not the other way around. For you to suddenly take the position of propriety is a bit too late. If you do indeed want to settle the case, as it seems you were hinting at the other day, all it would take would be written and sincere apologies from both you and your client, but Neal handles the specifics of that in his letter.

You can also see Neal's response to Mr. Siegel after the fold, it's another classic.

September 12, 2006

Via Telecopier (212) 209 4801

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

Re: Adams v. Poling

Dear Mr. Siegel:

When we spoke on Friday, you indicated that you did not intend to answer any of the interrogatories I have put to your client unless and until I agree to promise that my client will not post any of her answers on his blog. I took this case on as a First Amendment matter; were my client to agree to the kind of request you make, I suspect I would gently withdraw.

According to Ms. Adams' own press release, she was a millionaire before she was 30 through her Fortune 500 investments. My client makes all of his investments in news research, and can't afford to pay me any thing at all. Clearly, unless somebody steps to the plate to defend his right to comment on Ms. Adams, her career and her taste, she can litigate him into silence, whatever the merits of the matter. That is not going to happen. Stephanie Adams las long wanted to bask in the public eye; now she will again.

Stephanie Adams appears to have been avidly pursuing self-promotion since at least about the day she became a Playboy Playmate. The litigation between our parties has its origin in a minor taxi incident covered in substantial photographed detail in the New York Post and other journals, followed by another Post story with another lovely photograph of Ms. Adams, this concerning a news conference in another of her attorney's offices trumpeting news of her multi-million dollar law suit against the City.

You chose to file and serve a public complaint charging James Poling with printing defamatory statements about a supposedly 'private' person, Ms. Adams. The interrogatories you don't want to answer in public seek to pin you down as to just what statements you think were defamatory, just how Ms. Adams was monetarily damaged by any of Poling's statements, and just why the self-promoting "spokesmodel in the gay community. . . author of 16 books . . . and renowned international psychic/astrologist. . ." thinks she can seriously contend that she is not a public person. If she is not a public person, it ain't for want of rather desperate trying.

Ms. Adams clearly wants all the publicity she can get, as long as it is doting. The lawsuit she has started will be covered as a news event in Poling's and other blogs, and I dare say it will be more daunting than doting.

If you think there is something improper about my interrogatories, if you believe you have some right under the Civil Practice Law and Rules to cherry pick the questions, or if you believe that my client's right to obtain the information he wants to defend against your action can be conditioned upon his abandoning his right to comment on your client's conduct, then you may move for a protective order. Until you do so, things will be on hold.

However, I rather fear that this is the goal: having started the case, you can no longer abandon it, but you could hope to watch it wither. However, if you do not move against my questions within a professionally reasonable time, I will pick up your burden and move to compel answers.

In our Friday conversation, you several times indicated that it was a conversation in search of settlement. Lawyers sometimes so speak because settlement conferences are generally treated as confidential, and the shadow of settlement is sometimes used to screen exchanges which would otherwise be public. Therefore, let me state that the only way this case can possibly be settled is through the issuance of unqualified and sincere apologies not only from Ms. Adams, but also from you. Any document purporting to be a settlement proposal which does not comply with these terms will be deemed a fraud and will be treated as perfectly public.

Under the circumstances, I think that our future communications should be by letter. If nothing else, it will give our heirs something of interest to read.

Sincerely yours,

Neal Johnston

NJ:ig
cc. James Poling
5311A9BA.066

Stephanie Adams and Her Hack Attorney Are Scared to Answer our Discovery Questions

If you'll remember a couple of months ago we asked for your help in coming up with questions you wanted us to ask Stephanie Adams during the discovery phase of her lawsuit against us. It seems like Stephanie doesn't like some of the questions very much, her attorney is trying to get us to agree to a joint confidentiality agreement.

Martin S. Siegel, Esq.

Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP

7 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

Re: Adams v. Polins

Dear Mr. Siegel:

I have just returned from Eastern Europe and am writing in response to your proposed confidentiality stipulation.

You want an agreement that either party may designate as confidential any "information that: (i) may not be obtained from other sources, (ii) could injure such party's personal, trade or business interests should be disclosed."

First, while you have set this up as a joint stipulation, I can advise you that there is no relevant information which we will seek to treat as confidential, therefore what you seek really is a favor for your side, not a joint protection.

Second, I am unclear whether the comma in the quoted passage is intended to be an "and" or and "or".

Either way, however, it seems that you want to be able to shield any information which Ms. Adams might think to be embarrassing. I am familiar with confidentiality agreements which protect trade secrets or propriety information. I have never known of an agreement which threw a blanket of secrecy over information simply because it could injury a party's personal interests.

Such an agreement would be particular strange in a situation where the party seeking to protect her privacy is suing for alleged injury to her reputation. Your client has put her reputation on the line.

However, it may be that I am reacting to your choice of words and not your real request. The answers to my seventy or so interrogatories are either due or all but due, and by now you must have your responses pretty much prepared. You know, as I do not, which specific interrogatories give you concern.

Why don't you let me know what it is that you are concerned about by reference to specific interrogatories?

And, why don't you now give me answers to those interrogatories you do not seek to keep secret.

Sincerely yours,

Neal Johnston

NJ:ig

cc. James Poling

What are you scared of Stephanie? You sued us? Answer the fucking questions already!