For some reason, we haven’t yet covered the Washingtonienne libel suit, where Little Rock law professor Robert Steinbuch revealed he was “R.S.” by filing suit against the infamous blogger, causing Judge Paul Friedman to comment, “I don’t know why this guy thought it was smart to file a lawsuit and lay out all of his private intimate details in an appendix to the complaint.”
Now Wonkette reports that Cutler’s third set of attorneys in the litigation Robert Steinbuch has filed against her, and has not yet retained new attorneys. Why might you care? Because Steinbuch, who waited until May 16, 2005 to complain about a May 4, 2004 blog post, is planning on arguing that every new blog post restarts the statute of limitations for a plaintiff wishing to complain about a blog. (T.R. Goldman, “A Man Scorned”, Legal Times, May 22). If Cutler defends against this argument pro se, Judge Friedman could be induced into an erroneous ruling that makes life difficult for bloggers everywhere. And there’s no reason that Steinbuch’s logic wouldn’t equally apply to computer databases like LEXIS that “republish” mainstream media articles upon request. One hopes Friedman will see through the Steinbuch argument.
2 Comments
I wonder if Mr. Steinbuch’s entire strategy is to use the high cost of administering the law to get a form of retribution against Ms. Cutler.
Regardless of how the case turns out, Ms. Cutler has already been monetarily punished.
Her first attorney withdrew because she only paid $35,000 of his $54,271.19 fee. Her second attorney withdrew for unknown reasons. Her third attorney is also withdrawing for nonpayment of fees. (Link to source below.)
The legal administration system shouldn’t charge a defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars for a decision.
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/jessica-cutler/jessica-cutler-oops-she-did-it-again-175697.php
Judges don’t always see through self-serving lawyers’ arguments, see Boca Investerings P’ship v. US, 167 F.Supp.2d 298 (DDC 2001), rev’d, 314 F.3d 625 (DC Cir 2003).