R.I.P. Neal Johnston

I learned some very sad news today. Neal Johnston passed away this week. For those of you familiar with the Stephanie Adams case against me back in 2006 you know doubt are a fan of Neal's. His quick wit, sharp tongue and unwavering support of the first amendment were all on full display during this case. Neal's ability to shred bare the stupidity and gall of this lawsuit were truly amazing.

For those of you not familiar with the case here's a brief synopsis. I was an independent blogger/writer in 2006 when I wrote, what I thought was a fairly innocuous post, on an H-list celebrity. Boy was I wrong. That post was the catalyst for what turned out to be a $100,000 defamation/slander lawsuit against me. Neal heard about the case from his son and agreed to take my case pro bono. I could have never imagined how perfectly suited he was for the job. He took great pleasure in publicly humiliating Ms. Adams and her attorney. His letters were more poetic dripping with sarcasm than legal memos and that was the beginning of a three year long salvo of what amounted to a hill of beans.

Eventually, knowing there wasn't a leg to stand on, Stephanie quietly dropped the case and nothing much came of it. What is documented here is what I managed to salvage which, I believe, is most of the good stuff. The posts are in reverse chronological order so if you want to start from the beginning start with June 2006 and work your way up.

There's no way I could put into words what it meant to have Neal stand up for me when and how he did. It gave me the confidence and will to know what was right and stick to my guns. Every bit of time I was able to spend with Neal was always an extreme pleasure. Whether we were revving our engines at his law office or discussing life over a glass of wine at his house I always felt humbled and honored to be around such a truly wonderful and caring person.

You will be missed my friend.

Sincerely,
James Poling

Stephanie Adams Update

You guys rock! You have Stephanie Adams, Martin Siegel and the esteemed law firm of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels running scared from your reactions! The money we raised to force a deposition scared them enough to actually get a protective order against us.
What this means for the short term as far as I understand it is that we cannot deposition her now but she still has to answer our interrogatories. Whether or not we will be allowed to publish them immediately is yet to be seen. What is certain is that they are adamantly opposed to keeping these proceedings open and honest.
You can download the PDF's that were filed by Martin Siegel here: download download

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 (Iron Horse) Johnston Spells Out What Siegel's Frivolous Refusal to Answer is Costing Him

Re: Adams v. Poling

Dear Mr. Siegel:

A week back I received your letter and court papers telling me, in essence, that you would respond to my interrogatories and document requests to the extent that they were not objectionable for one reason or another provided I agree to keep your answers a deep dark secret.

You do not indicate which of the questions nor which of the documents you do intend to produce eventually. It would be greatly helpful if you could indicate what it is that you are talking about. Without such a statement, your Responses are really utterly useless formalities.

You also say that as of September 20, you were working on a motion for a protective order.

I think you know that in August, my wife and I were on a cruise up the Danube from Bucharest to Budapest. Sadly, she was in increasing discomfort as the trip progressed and immediately upon our return I took her to the doctor, where, within hours, she was found to have developed a pancreatic cancer. She is of the very lucky and very small minority of people with such a tumor where it is operable, and a week ago she underwent what seems to be successful surgery.

I mention this because my time is, for the foreseeable future, less my own than is usually the case. It would be very useful for me to know when to expect your motion so that I can plan my time around it.

Of course it may also be, given your client's participation last Friday in a very successful press conference concerning the very matters defendant here had the bad luck to write about, that you may wish to rethink your argument that your client is a quiet, private person who should not be subjected to having her name, face and affairs made public by journalism.

Sincerely yours,

Neal Johnston

NJ:ig

cc. James Poling

On another note, our thoughts are with Neal and his wife and we wish them all the best through this time in their lives.

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

Neal (Mad Dog) Johnston Shows Up Martin (Sad Clown) Siegel

Re: Adams v. Poling

Dear Mr. Siegel:

Sometimes the left hand just doesn't know what the right one is doing!

Last Friday, you were no doubt working away at the papers you have promised to serve pretty shortly where you argue that Stephanie Adams is a very private young lady who deserves to have her privacy protected by a judicial order preventing my client and presumably other news agencies from printing any of her answers to any of the interrogatories put to her concerning her threatened law suit against the City of New York. It was my clients coverage of this event which triggered your demand that he take down his postings concerning your client, and which prompted your $100,000 law suit when he ignored your heavy handed attempt at coerced censorship.

Last Friday, your client, in the company of another of her lawyers, was holding a press conference in Brooklyn announcing her $5,000,000 law suit against the City.

The conference received very extensive news coverage over the weekend. Google shows the story picked up by 150 or so newspapers, tv stations, etc. You may be unaware that Ms. Adams has for sometime maintained a web page containing press clips of her many forays into the public arena. She just added a couple dozen news electronic clips to this sizeable page since Friday.

I attach a second set of interrogatories relating to this press conference.

Since they concern a press conference attended by your client relating to the very events discussed in my client's news story involving her, I cannot imagine that there can be any objection on your side to the relevance or appropriateness of any of these inquiries. Since they all relate to your client's news conference, I cannot imagine that you could seriously contend that you client is entitled to ensure that the details of her participation in this event are obscured from the public eye.

I can appreciate the stressful choice Ms. Adams had to make. However deeply she loves her privacy, her retirement from the hurly burly of the world, her ability to shut herself off from the sturm und drang of the modern world, she also clearly loves the glitter, the tinsel, the limelight.

I'm sure you wanted her to lay low, at least until your motion was heard. Alas, she marched to a different drummer. Or, at least, another lawyer. As Robert Burns famously said, The best laid schemes o' mice an' men/ Gang aft a-gley."

Sincerely yours,

Neal Johnston

NJ:ig

Enclosure

cc. James Poling