Wonkette

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.

MORE »

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.

MORE »

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.)

MORE »

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.

MORE »

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. MORE »

* 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] MORE »

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.

MORE »

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

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.” MORE »