Paging Jessica Cutler

Last month we updated you on the apparent difficulties that Jessica Cutler, a.k.a. Washingtonienne, has been encountering in paying her lawyers. Those difficulties persist.

On Friday, Judge Paul Friedman, who is presiding over the invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against Cutler, ordered the following:

[O]n or before July 7, 2006, defendant Jessica Cutler must personally respond in writing to her counsel’s motion to withdraw and/or advise the Court of her retention of new counsel or her intention to proceed pro se.

The judge issued this order after Cutler failed to respond to her lawyer’s motion to withdraw (for nonpayment of fees). So Jessica, if you’re out there reading this, please get back to the court — ASAP.

Personally, we would give multiple body parts to watch Jessica Cutler represent herself. It would be the greatest pro se performance since Anna Nicole Smith. We suspect Judge Friedman would become very sympathetic to Cutler after having an ex parte conference with her in chambers.

For all you law geeks out there, the text of the full order appears after the jump.

READ MORE: jessica cutler, law, law suits, lawyers, paul friedman, sex, sex scandal, sex scandals, washingtonienne

Jessica Cutler: Oops, She Did It Again

Slept with a bunch of people and blogged about it? Actually, no. She’s about to lose the legal services of the attorney representing her in Steinbuch v. Cutler — for the third time.

Back in April, attorney William Bode, who had been representing Jessica Cutler, withdrew (hehe) as her counsel in the case. There was some speculation as to why Bode withdrew, which he denied to the media.

Now Jessica’s latest lawyer, John Umana — who, by the way, is a “leading proponent of intelligent design,” as reported by the Legal Times — wants out. Unlike Bode, Umana has spelled out the reason for his withdrawal, and it’s the oldest reason in the book: nonpayment of fees. (The text of his motion to withdraw, which one of you helpfully forwarded to us, appears after the jump.)

This is not the first time Jessica has had problems paying her lawyers:

Umana, for example, is Cutler’s third attorney in a little more than a year. Her original lawyers, Thomas Wilson and Alexander Vincent of Washington’s Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, sued Cutler last month in D.C. Superior Court, claiming she owed them $54,271.19. Cutler had already paid $35,000, they said.

Where did all the money go — the Playboy payment, the six-figure book advance, the HBO dough? Jessica’s website, where she solicits PayPal donations, hints at the answer: “Please — I need money for slutty clothes and drugs!”

But even the biggest cokehead/connoisseuse of slutty fashions would have a hard time burning through the cash Jessica has accumulated since she emerged as Washingtonienne. Sounds like someone could use a visit from Suze Orman.

READ MORE: jessica cutler, john umana, law, law suits, lawyers, money, robert steinbuch, sex, sex scandal, sex scandals, washingtonienne, william bode

Robert Steinbuch Is Searching for Jessica Cutler’s True Spanker

Now, courtesy of the Legal Times, a quick update on a case that’s far more interesting than Enron: Steinbuch v. Cutler.

The article speaks for itself — res ipsa loquitur — and it’s well worth reading in its entirety. If you’re wondering about whether Steinbuch has a case and what Jessica’s best defenses are, they’re laid out in the piece, which features analysis from law professor and blogger Daniel Solove (among others).

Here’s our favorite excerpt, proving that truth can be stranger than fiction:

It’s hard to know why anyone would care to set the record straight about whether he is able to ejaculate with or without a condom or whether he likes to spank or be spanked. But [Steinbuch attorney Jonathan] Rosen says that’s exactly what Steinbuch intends to do.

“There are graphic and intimate details which are not true,” he said in a telephone interview. “Those are facts that are going to be litigated.”

To summarize the Legal Times piece: Steinbuch v. Cutler represents Robert Steinbuch’s attempt to clear his name. He wants the world to know that he’s good in bed. Really good.

Very well, Professor Steinbuch: you’re GREAT in bed. There, it’s established. It has been printed. In a blog.

Boy, that was an easy problem to solve. Did you really have to go make a federal case out of it?

A Man Scorned [Legal Times]

(For those of you who can’t get enough of Jessica Cutler, we share a random story about a reading she did last month in New York, after the jump. Note: It’s not for the squeamish.)

READ MORE: jessica cutler, law, law suits, lawyers, paul friedman, robert steinbuch, sex, sex scandal, sex scandals, washingtonienne

Are You Sick of Jessica Cutler Yet?

Well, so is Judge Paul L. Friedman, who is presiding over the invasion-of-privacy lawsuit brought against Jessica by Robert Steinbuch, one of her former lovers. This afternoon Judge Friedman issued a testy memorandum opinion and order (PDF), in which he bench-slapped the lawyers in the case for their ridiculous and embarrassing conduct in the case, as well as their repeated violations of court rules.

Okay, it’s late in the afternoon, on a Friday before a holiday weekend. So forgive us for the somewhat half-assed treatment of an opinion that deserves more thorough scrutiny.

After the jump, excerpts from the ruling, along with our commentary.

READ MORE: jessica cutler, law, law suits, lawyers, paul friedman, robert steinbuch, sex, sex scandal, sex scandals, top, washingtonienne, william bode

For the Record: William Bode Too ‘Busy’ to Represent Washingtonienne

Earlier this month, we reported on the highly suspicious “notice of withdrawal” (hehe) filed by William Bode, former lawyer to Jessica Cutler, the Blogger Formerly Known as Washingtonienne. Now we bring you this update.

By way of summary: lawyers to Robert Steinbuch, the ex-lover of Jessica now suing her for invasion of privacy, moved to disqualify William Bode as Cutler’s lawyer. They argued that Bode had a conflict of interest, alleging that he was “W” — the middle-aged partner in a small Georgetown law firm, with whom Cutler had a sexual relationship, as described in her blog.

So what happened next? Bode withdrew from the case, filing a cursory notice of withdrawal that was conspicuously silent on the allegations that he was “W.”

Now Bode tells the Legal Times what he never bothered to tell the Court: that he is not “W.” Bode claims that he withdrew from Cutler’s case because he is “too busy.”

C’mon, Bill, do you really expect us to buy that? When was the last time a middle-aged male lawyer said he was too “busy” for Jessica Cutler? Unless you’ve found a younger and hotter intern to sleep with, we’re disinclined to believe you.

As for why Bode refused to address the allegations in any court filing, but was willing to discuss them with the media, our theory boils down to two words: Rule 11.

(Note to non-lawyers: Rule 11 is this rule that says you can’t lie to the Court, ‘n stuff. But lying to the media is okay — and everybody does it.)

Dirty Talk: Washingtonienne Blogger Loses Lawyer [Legal Times]
Love and Libel in Washington [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: A Spinoff from Her Sitcom: Jessica Cutler’s Legal Drama

READ MORE: corrections, for the record, jessica cutler, law, law suits, lawyers, robert steinbuch, sex, sex scandal, sex scandals, top, washingtonienne, william bode

Remainders: Young Century You Are So Tricky

• Post-modern age, oh how we love thee. Shall you be compared to a summer’s day? Or that which is more beautiful, like the poetry of the large intestine swooning for a burrito? [Poop Report]

• Viral marketing at its finest. A product that they would make if they could, but they can’t, so someone else does, then they sue, and reap double the internet memes. Smoking must make you smart. [TSG]
  
• Immigration just looks like an intractable issue. The solution is actually quite simple. [TSPR]

• Why couldn’t it have been DeLay? Watching “the Hammer” scale a chain-link in his wife beater would have been a dream. Run, Tom, Run! [WFTV]

READ MORE: Remainders, crime, events, florida, gary siplin, immigration, law suits, lawyers, the hammer, tom delay

A Spinoff from Her Sitcom: Jessica Cutler’s Legal Drama

Yes, we know you’re getting tired of her; so are we (and just wait until her TV show airs). But since this blog owes some of its prominence to reporting her misadventures, we owe you an update about Jessica Cutler.

According to the Associated Press:

A judge on Wednesday allowed a lawsuit to proceed against Jessica Cutler, the former Senate aide who posted details of her sex life on the Internet. The case brought by Sen. Mike DeWine’s former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Robert Steinbuch, alleges that Cutler engaged in an invasion of his privacy in 2004 by publishing sexually explicit facts about a relationship with Steinbuch.

But even though the judge declined to dismiss the suit, his ruling on the statute-of-limitations issue may not bode well for Steinbuch:

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled that Steinbuch had one year from the time of the Internet postings to bring the matter to court. Almost all of the material at issue in the case was posted on the Internet more than a year before the lawsuit was filed May 18, 2005.

Steinbuch, by the way, is now a law professor at the University of Arkansas (where Bill Clinton used to teach). Kinda gross to imagine your professor entering through the back door, isn’t it?

Yawn, this is boring; we don’t care about this technical legal crap. Where’s all the juicy stuff?

After the jump, of course.

Update: This post is the subject of a correction.

READ MORE: ass fucking, jessica cutler, law, law suits, robert steinbuch, sex, sex scandal, sex scandals, top, washingtonienne

Blogger: Difficulty of Practicing Law Overrated

Practice pointer: Judges also like it when you call opposing counsel’s argument “dumb-ass.”

Who says the practice of law is hard? It took us about ten minutes to crank out a constitutional analysis of Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s immunity from arrest under Article I, Section 6. And we gave it to you for free. A law firm would have charged you several thousand bucks!

It’s Friday, as well as April Fool’s Day (observed). You didn’t think we’d let the day pass without a CNN headline post, did you?

Lawyer: Apple Trademark Claim Silly [CNN]

READ MORE: CNN, apple computer, constitutional law, friday, funny headlines, law, law suits, trademark law

Trent Lott Swings on his Front Porch

It’s been pointed out to us that statements that Trent Lott has made in his past, such as: “The Democrats seem to think that the answer is a lawsuit. Sue everybody.” And: “If their answer to everything is more lawsuits, then yes, that’s a problem, because I certainly don’t support that.” And: “It’s sue, sue, sue… That’s not the answer.”

Do not jibe with the measures he’s taking to rebuild his famous front porch: “Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott and his wife sued State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. to force the insurer to pay for damage to their house in Pascagoula on the Gulf of Mexico, which was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.”

So, if you’re scoring at home: Sending the Solicitor General to advocate on behalf of golddigging whores — vital to the national interest. Megarich Senator spends taxpayer dollars suing to have his “in harm’s way” gulf state home rebuilt — terrifically important. Valerie Lakey nearly vivisected by a pool pump — surely she can pull herself up by her bootstraps!— DCEIVER

READ MORE: law suits, top, trent lott

None Dare Call It Frivolous

Priorities, yo. They used to count for something in these parts. Yet with all the trouble in the world, it’s hard to understand why on earth the White House is dispatching U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement to argue before the Supreme Court on behalf of famed anthropomorphic-fugue-state-with-tits Anna Nicole Smith in her seemingly interminable quest to take home dead tycoon J. Howard Marshall’s millions.

Surely the administration realizes that participating in this oddball legal venture makes it so they can never, ever, ever, ever, ever argue that citizens are getting killed economically by frivolous lawsuits. Wait. Forever ever? Forever ever? Ever, ever? Ever, ever? Ever, ever? Ever, ever? Yes. That much forever.

CNN’s Law Center has no compelling answers for why assisting this case is in the national interest. The central issue, “when may federal courts hear claims that involve state probate proceedings”, is deemed a case “only a lawyer would love.” That’s not fair, however. This case is also beloved by anyone passionate about drug-addled skanks.— DCEIVER

Anna Nicole Smith gets White House boost [CNN]

READ MORE: SCOTUS, law suits, sex and drugs, suprising earnestness

Fox News Executive Curses Like Quaint Sailor

We were very excited to see the details of the sex harassment suit filed against a Fox News executive, but those looking for another loofa will be disappointed. No falafel porn, just some PG-13 office cursing, the most ribald of which was his comment that “a pregnant woman had ‘tits’ that were ‘f—-ing huge’ and like ‘cannons’ or ‘melons.’” Well, were they? Isn’t truth a complete defense? Maybe that’s something else. In any case, Fox only disputes one detail in the case:

The EEOC says that Chillemi use the phrase “as useless as tits on a bull” in front of women. Mintz said that’s not the precise language. The phrase isn’t ‘as useless as tits on a bull’;  it’s ‘as useless as teats on a bull’. It’s something that’s useless. It’s not a sexual commment.”

Fox News: Bad Language Isn’t Illegal [B&C]

READ MORE: fox news, law suits, nsfw