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

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