Martin Siegel and Stephanie Adams are Trying to Let Their Frivolous Lawsuit "Whither and Die"

We got this letter today from our lawyer, Neal (Truth Ninja) Johnston. Basically he's worried that Stephanie Adams' attorney, Martin Siegel, has been so thoroughly embarrassed by this ordeal that he plans to let the case just linger and die. Neither Neal, nor myself wants to see that happen, and we presume that the people following along do not want that either. Neal wants to bring bear the fruit of this case and hold Martin Siegel accountable for his distasteful actions. The problem being, they continue to refuse to answer any of Neal's interrogatories.

You can read Neal's letter to me after the jump, but basically to sum it up, we need to raise $1,090 to make sure that Stephanie Adams and Martin Siegel are brought to account for their actions. In order to do that we need to file a Request for Judicial Intervention ($90) and do a deposition on Stephanie Adams, which will cost around $1,000 for the court reporter to transcribe the meeting.

UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who kicked in towards this cause, now Stephanie and her lawyer wont' be able to avoid our questions anymore. I spoke with Neal and he's going to keep the money in a trust and use it as needed. He also said we will probably need more down the line so feel free to keep kicking and know that it's going to a good cause. It will all be accounted for by the Neal (Truth Ninja) Johnston.

Also, here's a list of those questions that Stephanie and her lawyer are dodging.

Interrogatories 1
Interrogatories 2
Interrogatories 3

Dear James:

I finally got a letter from Martin Siegel, a copy of which I enclose. As usual, it says nothing. First, he is working on a motion for a protective order; he's been doing that for weeks. Second, he thinks it would be inappropriate to indicate which interrogatories he will answer or which documents he will produce until he knows whether we will keep all the answers a secret. This makes no sense and is really nothing more than legal noise.

This aside, I have heard nothing substantive from Mr. Siegel. I have no expectation that I ever will, unless something is forced from him. Which means that unless we do something, Stephanie Adams' preposterous lawsuit against you will simply languish until it dies an eventual death by attrition.

There are a number of reasons for this.

When I spoke to Mr. Siegel - for the only time - over a month ago -- he said a number of remarkable things.

First, he indicated that he would not be writing to me again unless I would promise him that you would never again post any of his letters. He does not share your interest in having a transparent litigation. I would not give him that promise, so he has kept his promise. Silence, save the short, contentless letter of October 6.

Second, in what I take to be an effort to force me into a quiet settlement mode, he told me that he could not afford to walk away from the lawsuit. It would be dreadful news to his other clients to hear that he had abandoned Ms. Adams. The purpose of his 'warning', I think, was to warn me that if I didn't force a settlement upon you, I would have to be prepared for a long and expensive litigation. He did not seem to anticipate that I was actually looking forward to this adventure. (It is so rarely that one actually gets to take candy away from truly undeserving children.) While Siegel cannot afford to be seen walking away from Stephanie Adams, allowing the lawsuit to die on the vine is another matter entirely.

Third, I have to assume that the litigation is a real embarrassment to his law firm, Brown Rudnick. That firm is not one of the top-tier, or even second tier law firms. But it is a national law firm with a decent reputation. Right now, if you Google Brown Rudnick, you have to get to the second page to find a link to Stephanie Adams (or the stale story of the NY partner charged with stock fraud), but that is quite too close entirely to the top to be the least bit pleasant to a firm with aspirations. This silly suit has to be a serious embarrassment to the firm.

As you tell me the story, a few months back, Siegel called you to tell you that you couldn't afford to defend a lawsuit, and so should roll over and play dead, being careful before you did to delete all of the references to Ms. Adams which displeased her. Unless he had a good faith belief that there was something defamatory in the quite innocuous passages you posted, that was a despicable thing for him to do. When you called his bluff, he went ahead a served a complaint seeking $100,000 in damages. He should be ashamed of himself. In all probability, he is.

There may also be some concern that if his complaint is ever actually adjudicated, he may be liable to you for sanctions for the hopeless frivolity of his complaint, or, perhaps, more serious, that he may have to answer for his conduct here to the grievance committee. None of that will happen if the whole shoddy affair just continues to lie a-moldering.

He has simply refused to respond to the interrogatories and document demands we have served. He may well have arguable grounds to object to a very few of the interrogatories, but no more than a very few. For the most part, he simply dreads having to put himself and his client on the line by answering the rest. And so, he will answer none unless forced to.

He continues to threaten to move for a protective order against this discovery, and also seeking to censor you from publishing any of Ms. Adams' answers to any of the questions. Other than threaten, he has done nothing of the sort. He won't until after the cows come home, and you know how rare it is to see a homeward bound cow even in downtown Manhattan.

Nothing will happen unless and until we cause something to happen. That will take a little time and a little money, but since I'm sure you don't want this strange saga to dry up and blow away, I think we have no choice.

Therefore, I shall do two things.

First, I shall notice the deposition of Ms. Adams for November. She will not show up on that date. Siegel will take the position that she won't appear unless you agree that the transcript of her testimony will not be posted on your web site, that her sworn oral testimony concerning her claims against you and her allegations that your pretty straight forward reporting has or will cost her $100,000. Until we notice her deposition, a Court cannot order her to give it; meanwhile, it cannot hurt for her to contemplate a full and painful day of answering under oath the probing and hostile questions we will put to her.

Second, I shall file what is called a Request for Judicial Intervention, an "RJI". This will cause a judge to be assigned to the case who will, fairly promptly, schedule a conference at which a discovery schedule will be set. If Siegel has serious objections to answering our standard discovery demands, he will have to make his case to a judge and will not be able to sit back on a unilateral refusal to comply with the rules.

It costs $90 to file an RJI. It costs nothing to notice a deposition, but when we actually get to have one, I will have to hire a court reporter to take and then transcribe Ms. Adams testimony. That cost will come close to $1,000, depending in part upon how much she talks, and how much her lawyer attempts to intervene. (In this connection, the rules have recently changed and lawyers have recently been told by the judges to behave themselves and not attempt to disrupt a deposition with intrusive and instructional interruptions.)

If you can raise the money to pay for these costs, I will be pleased. If you can't, I will simply have to pay for them myself. What has been attempted here, by Stephanie Adams and her attorney simply cannot be allow to succeed. Success for them would be bad for journalism and bad for the law - and I have a pretty high opinion of each.

Sincerely yours,


Neal Johnston

NJ:ig

Stephanie Adams Stinks Up the Learning Annex, Speaks at a "How to Be a Gold-Digger" Seminar

Stephanie Adams is the guest speaker at a Learning Annex course called "How to Marry Rich: The Rich Are Going to Marry... Why Not to You?"

To be shortly followed up with wildy successful "Sue Your Way to Wealth 101".

The only problem is A. J. Daulerio, a reporter who sat in on the course says that Adams sucked so bad that he had to demand his money back from the Learning Annex.

As stunning as Adams may be to look at, it was apparent that her public-speaking skills were gleaned from middle school. She spoke softly and read from a script that was surely in outline form, most likely with big Roman numerals and possibly written in crayon. She made minimal eye contact and had all the charm and charisma of an extremely attractive woman with absolutely nothing to say. Although she was a former pinup model, she had the sex appeal of a colostomy bag.

Adams then suggested stores for classy yet inexpensive clothing (consignment shops) and offered ideas for tracking down the rich men (charity events and art galleries). Nightclubs, she opined, were not the places to go a'hunting. Most people at clubs are looking for one-night stands, not long-term, wallet-padding relationships from which one can eventually drain their bank accounts.

Daulerio says, "A few days after the seminar, the Learning Annex basically admitted the class sucked and credited me $25."

Gold-Digging 101 [NY Press]
How to Marry Rich: The Rich Are Going to Marry... Why Not to You? with Stephanie Adams [Learning Annex]

Neal (Freedom Fighter) Johnston's Letter to the Daily News

News Desk

Daily News

Re: Stephanie Adams

Dear I Should Probably Look it Up:

This weekend you ran a story emerging from a news conference held last Friday where Stephanie Adams, former Playmate turned out Lesbian, announced the filing of her $5,000,000 law suit against the City and others.

You missed the good part.

Last June, Ms. Adams held a news conference announcing her intention to serve such a suit. You picked up that story too, as did the Post. So did a blogger named James Poling. His coverage was less than really respectful and Ms. Adams didn't like it a bit. She got an attorney at a sizeable enough mid-level national law firm to write to Poling threatening to sue him if he didn't take down the blog.

When Poling held on to principle, Ms. Adams kept to her word and started a $100,000 suit against him. At the request of my first-amendment-y son, I took on the case pro bono.

Ms. Adams has refused to answer any of my interrogatories there unless I agree that everything she might say in her law suit will be held in the strictest confidence. She is, she argues, a private, not a public, person.

You can get a much richer sense of Ms. Adams by checking out her web page at either myspace.com or at her commercial link, goddessy.com.

You could read about her extraordinary encounters with a West Coast blogger who had the temerity to criticize her remarkable web page at richardsramblings.com. (Search for Stephanie Adams.)

You could see what some of the other bloggers have printed about this weird matter by checking out gothamist.com or huffingtonpost.com.

Or better still, you could take a look at the Poling blog which started this round of not quite free-wheeling litigation: metadish.com.

If I can be of any assistance, please call.

Sincerely yours,

Neal Johnston

NJ:ig

cc. James Poling

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?

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!

Martin Siegel, Brown Rudnick and BS oh my!

Just to keep you all up to date on the latest happenings, here is the newest letter from my lawyer to Martin Siegel of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP fame. Mr. Martin Siegel was the one who told us, after we received the initial letter threatening to sue us, that "it looks like you don't have enough money to fight this, so just go ahead and take everything down."

It seems that perhaps their tune has changed slightly because since Neal Johnston took on the case as our attorney and we personally served Martin Siegel with papers, we haven't heard a peep out of him or Stephanie Adams. They do realize that filing a summons does not a lawsuit make don't they? You actually have to file a complaint and let us know what the hell you're suing us for!

Martin S. Siegel, Esq. Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10001

Re: Adams v. Poling

Dear Mr. Siegel:

I wrote to you last week asking that you identify the defamatory material in the Defendant s postings, even before you serve your Complaint. You have neither answered nor acknowledged my letter.

A key element of defamation is injury to the plaintiff. By going even this far in a litigation, the claim is made that the defendant published something which caused an economic injury to the plaintiff.

Publication here was on the internet. If the material was injurious last week, it will be injurious next week too - and it will still be there, unless and until something is done about it.

But, we don t know what it is.

If my client defamed yours, he wants to eliminate that defamation immediately. If he published a falsehood, he wants to correct the error. He would want to right the wrong, whether or not he were sued. But we can do nothing without knowing what the problem is.

Please, for my client s sake and your client s sake: what is the problem?

Sincerely yours,
NJ:ig
cc. James Poling

Along the same lines, a generous reader has offered to send us over a free copy of Stephanie Adams' book, Empress, which we are excitedly waiting to review.

Even the books description of itself almost makes you giddy with anticipation:

"Never before has a book been written that depicts the life in ancient Rome from an intensely sapphic perspective. Never before has a book been written that tells the story of a woman's journey to the highest rank of nobility in ancient Rome along with the love and devotion of another woman."

Never has a book been so down the stack at Amazon that you can't even find it by typing in the title, you have to look for the author instead. Try that with any other book you can think of.

Also, in case you're ever interested in publishing a book of your own, try Stephane Adams' publisher. All you have to do is completely format the book in MS Word yourself according to their rigid guidelines then send them a check or money order for a deposit and voila', you've got yourself a published book (or 16 published books).

I'm so naive. I always thought publishers paid you to publish your book, not the other way around.

BlogNYC's Official Reply to Stephanie Adams' Attorney Martin Siegel

Check out the Stephanie Adams archives for the full backstory leading up to this letter.

VIA EMAIL ONLY AS WE ARE TOO LAZY TO ACTUALLY MAIL THIS
Mr. Martin Siegel
Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP
7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036

RE: Stephanie Adams vs. BlogNYC

Dear Mr. Siegel,

I am not an attorney but I will be acting as one on my own behalf until I find one I can pay in hugs and karma. While this is James Poling, the blogger, I am acting as James Poling the lawyer and ask that you refrain from any further correspondence with my client, James Poling the blogger. As you can see by new e-mail address, james.the.lawyer@gmail.com, I will now only accept any correspondence from you through that e-mail address. It really helps us keep things straight around here. Any correspondence to any other email address will not be acknowledged.

You claim that we claim to "own" Ms. Adams and we in turn claim that that claim is utterly preposterous. Not only is it illegal to own people, we find even the suggestion morally reprehensible, and even if you could own people, which thank God you cannot, we would never, ever own Ms. Adams.

You furthermore claim that we claim that Ms. Adams communicated with us personally, again, we claim that your claim is absolutely without merit. Although we may have unknowingly communicated with her and just not known it, you may be on to something there. According to Amazon.com her Book GODDESSY: 2007 Psychic Reading Predictions for Every Astrological Birth Sign claims that "Unlike most horoscopes or readings, these predictions apply to every individual, regardless of religion, race, sex or sexual preference. You know your past. You know your present. Allow me to tell you your future. GODDESSY is the first ever to bring you Yearly Psychic Reading Predictions in a book format." If she could do that, it is quite possible that we have unknowingly communicated with her on a level which we can not yet comprehend.

You say that Ms. Adams has authorized you to commence legal action against my client, James Poling the blogger. That makes us laugh as we will demonstrate here...lol...lol...lol. My client is a very busy and very important blogger and does not have the time to be pretending to be his own lawyer.

If you feel from what you have said that you actually have a case against my client (which is actually me the blogger) then not only do I fear for the well being of your law firm, I say bring it on. My client is a good and decent citizen, for the most part, and will not be intimidated into giving up his right to free speech by a woman who claims to be a "Sorceress" and uses bullying lawyers to try and intimidate people with her baseless lawsuits.

Good day to you Sir.

I said Good day to you Sir!

Very Truly Yours,

James Poling (the lawyer)

*DISCLAIMER: I am not in any way a lawyer, but for the context of this letter I play one since I am technically still representing myself.

Former Playboy Playmate is Suing the NYPD for Use of Excessive Force

I guess when pretty much the only thing you're known for is taking off your clothes 14 years ago, suing anyone for $5 million is a pretty big windfall.

Stephanie Adams, Miss November 1992 and open lesbian, is suing the NYPD for "forcing her to the ground, pushing her face into the pavement and pressuring her back." Oh, and "leering at her".

The photo of Stephanie with the handcuffs is directly from her MySpace site which also, ironically enough says, "AGAIN, DO NOT ASK TO BE ADDED AS A "FRIEND" UNLESS YOU'RE A FEMALE OR YOU WORK FOR THE MILITARY OR NYPD." The entire site is covered with background of police in full riot gear not only making it one of the shittiest looking sites on MySpace but also making it one of the hardest ones to read.

Playboy Playmate Suing NYC Over Injuries Allegedly Sustained in Rough Arrest [FOX Life]