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
No comments:
Post a Comment