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

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!

BREAKING: Playboy Playmate is Suing BlogNYC for $100,000

Wait, we're being sued by Martin Siegel of Brown Rudnick? The same guy that defended Ken Lay in his bankruptcy proceedings? Rock! We really are the good guys! We also may be the first website in history to officially be sued for saying that we "owned" someone. Pwned!

I know some of you have been asking about what's going on in the Stephanie Adams case, sorry for the delay but we were waiting to hear back from Stephanie and her Lawyer Martin Siegel. Well we finally heard from them, and to the sound of jaws dropping all over NYC, nay the world, Martin Siegel has signed his name to a laughable complaint alleging that we have libel and defamed and ruined Stephanie Adams.

Possibly the most ludicrous part of the lawsuit is their claim that she is not a public figure, presumably because it's much harder to prove libel and slander against a public figure. They're making this claim despite everything she has posted on her THREE FUCKING WEBSITES ABOUT HERSELF boldly declaring that she is a "Playboy Playmate", a "spokesmodel", a "celebrity author" as well as prominently displaying news clips about herself and providing a media and press inquiries link. Also, in the initial letter we received from her lawyer one of the complaints was that we claimed to have "communicated with Stephanie herself" rather than her PR DEPARTMENT. How many "private individuals" do you know that have a fucking PR DEPARTMENT?

Please everyone, Stephanie Adams is merely a simple, private person, can't we all just let her be? Are we in the fucking Twilight Zone?

Now here comes the fun part. Since Stephanie Adams and Martin Siegel chose to go forward with this lawsuit, we get to do a fun little thing called discovery.

"Discovery? That sounds like fun, how can I get involved," you say. Easy. We have to think of anything and everything we want to know about Stephanie Adams' life that even remotely relates to our case. Her book sales, how much money she makes, etc. So if you have any questions that you think would help us defend ourselves against this baseless lawsuit please send them to defend.freespeech@gmail.com.

Also, and this could be important, one of the claims that Martin Siegel makes in the complaint is that Stephanie Adams never put up on her MySpace account for people to come here and "bash" us regarding our original article about her. She has since taken it down, I copy/pasted it word for word, but didn't take a screencap of it so if anyone remembers seeing her MySpace post and are willing to testify or sign an affidavit please let us know at defend.freespeech@gmail.com.

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

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.