Here’s a look at the City Center settlement with emphasis on how MGM, despite having paid out to Perini, might have been the real winner. [RJ]
In response to a lawsuit [A688898] filed by Adam Kutner, an anonymous blogger from the defunct Wild Wild Law blog has filed a motion to dismiss. Kutner is represented by Bradley L. Booke, while the blogger, Legal Eagle, is represented by Maggie McLetchie. [RJ]
According to one study, American workers waste more than two hours a day at work. Surely this is higher at law firms, no? [Vegas Inc.]
Forecasters are predicting Las Vegas will get 1-3″ of snow this week. Plan accordingly. [AccuWeather]
How/why did the CityLife article about Kutner get removed? Was that at Kutner's request or something else? Kutner is apparently unaware of the, "Barbara Streisand Effect."
I had to Google "Streisand Effect" – that's funny.
It's equally possible that Kutner seeks to capitalize on the Streisand Effect. Kutner does love being a celebrity. If one seeks to attract the type of unsophisticated clients that Kutner generally represents, any publicity is good publicity.
Kutner deserves credit for being financially successful as a lawyer, over a long period, despite apparently having limited legal skills, poor judgment, little self-control, and questionable ethics.
(Please don't sue me, Adam. This is intended as a compliment and it's only my opinion.)
Guest
Anonymous
December 29, 2014 9:51 pm
Gotta love me some anti-SLAPP!!!
Guest
Anonymous
December 29, 2014 11:39 pm
Attorney Troy Fox aka Legal Eagle must be thanking God that Judge Doublekickstands didn't get this one assigned to her department! Funny how he got his next door neighbor, Maggie From the 8th Street Block to represent him on this one. Is she any good?
Troy Fox??? WRONG ATTORNEY STUPID…It's James E. Smith, Conexa Law!
Guest
Anonymous
December 30, 2014 1:00 am
The posts about Adam Kutner and the Wild Wild Law Blog raise the issue of the anonymity of posting anonymously and whether it can be ascertained. The blog would have the IP address but not sure if the person or the e-mail account can be accessed. Which raises the question whether anything posted on the blog is anonymous. There was a case that I was involved with concerning yahoo. Yahoo claimed it only kept archives for three months and could not produce anything when requested.
I tend to think nothing on a blog is anonymous and post at your own risk. Any thoughts anyone.
I think when you own/run the blog and not only call someone "a bag of douche" but put an illustrated sticker on your post for good measure, you have a responsibility to have checked and verified the facts before so asserting. How about you?
P.S., I've heard from more than one source that Kutner is a disaster to work for, so maybe it's all true. In any event, you blew the statute of limitations and you're going to lose.
@ 5:55- It would be hard for me to disagree with you more. I don't think anyone running a blog providing opinions and gossip for entertainment – not news purposes – has a "responsibility" to verify publicly-reported facts before sharing an opinion on same.
The republication of someone else's defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it's source. For example, if you quote a witness to a traffic accident who says the driver was drunk when he ran the red light and it turns out the driver wasn't drunk and he had a green light, you can't hide behind the fact that you were merely republishing the witness' statement (which would likely be defamatory).
On the other hand, if you repeat what someone else said or wrote in an official hearing or official document, there’s an important privilege that may protect you provided you attribute the information you gathered and are accurate in your reporting.
Yes, thank you for the recap of torts 1, but you miss the point here.
The blog posts at issue simply repeated and expressed an opinion on the FACT that Kutner was sued (multiple times) for allegedly doing these obnoxious and illegal things. In other words, that Kutner was sued is a fact, and it won't become less true with time or because Kutner managed to settle those lawsuits.
The blogger didn't accuse Kutner of doing these things, and Kutner didn't sue the blogger for defamation, because he couldn't. Kutner essentially sued for false light and invasion of privacy, because he doesn't want people to know these unflattering facts about him.
Kutner is simply trying to erase or hide history, which thankfully, the law does not allow.
We have hired multiple survivors of Adam Kutner and all of them have echoed what was written on WWL. Now, I don't know if they were telling the truth, but I believed what they said. Either way, I would never refer him a case.
@6:33 I don't believe the statute of lims has run when you consider the blogger was latent, hidden and wearing a paper bag over his head, intentionally evading meaningful discovery of his identity so the plaintiff could discuss his concerns with him. Those appearing to run the blog in 2008 were ambiguously labeled Legal Eagle, Beantown, and Joseph W. Law, Esq. Incidentally Troy Fox was admitted to NSB in October 2008 and Joe Law registered with Google as comanaging the WWL blog right after that in Nov. 2008. Kutner's issue arose earlier in 2008, but that is not conclusive as to who published it. So it will be an interesting discovery period if the judge allows before foreclosing Kutner's opportunity to seek reparations.
"so plaintiff could discuss his concerns with him." Yeah, because discussing concerns is what tolls the statute of limitations. The post was in 2008, with a mention of the allegations in the in 2009. Kutner doesn't file until 2013, and then he only claims for false light. Assuming Kutner can even find his way to the courthouse, the court should throw Kutner a big ol' raspberry. For me, the money quote in the Motion to Dismiss: "Further, the opinion that Adam Kutner may be a douchebag constitutes unactionable insult. The opinion seems to be a fairly popular and widely-held one, by both anonymous online commenters and dissatisfied clients alike." Zing!
If that quote is accurate, then the MTD stands a better chance of becoming fish wrap than impressing Judge Denton, who commands professional behavior in his court room at all times
Good luck with your defense.
How/why did the CityLife article about Kutner get removed? Was that at Kutner's request or something else? Kutner is apparently unaware of the, "Barbara Streisand Effect."
I had to Google "Streisand Effect" – that's funny.
It's equally possible that Kutner seeks to capitalize on the Streisand Effect. Kutner does love being a celebrity. If one seeks to attract the type of unsophisticated clients that Kutner generally represents, any publicity is good publicity.
Kutner deserves credit for being financially successful as a lawyer, over a long period, despite apparently having limited legal skills, poor judgment, little self-control, and questionable ethics.
(Please don't sue me, Adam. This is intended as a compliment and it's only my opinion.)
Gotta love me some anti-SLAPP!!!
Attorney Troy Fox aka Legal Eagle must be thanking God that Judge Doublekickstands didn't get this one assigned to her department! Funny how he got his next door neighbor, Maggie From the 8th Street Block to represent him on this one. Is she any good?
Oh Hai Adam. Glad to see you're paying attention. What's the basis for your comment?
Troy Fox??? WRONG ATTORNEY STUPID…It's James E. Smith, Conexa Law!
The posts about Adam Kutner and the Wild Wild Law Blog raise the issue of the anonymity of posting anonymously and whether it can be ascertained. The blog would have the IP address but not sure if the person or the e-mail account can be accessed. Which raises the question whether anything posted on the blog is anonymous. There was a case that I was involved with concerning yahoo. Yahoo claimed it only kept archives for three months and could not produce anything when requested.
I tend to think nothing on a blog is anonymous and post at your own risk. Any thoughts anyone.
Do you agree with Legal Eagle or the professor's comments http://nancyrapoport.blogspot.com/2009/07/anonymous-postings-are-last-vestiges-of.html?m=1
I think when you own/run the blog and not only call someone "a bag of douche" but put an illustrated sticker on your post for good measure, you have a responsibility to have checked and verified the facts before so asserting. How about you?
I disagree. Please don't sue me.
P.S., I've heard from more than one source that Kutner is a disaster to work for, so maybe it's all true. In any event, you blew the statute of limitations and you're going to lose.
@ 5:55- It would be hard for me to disagree with you more. I don't think anyone running a blog providing opinions and gossip for entertainment – not news purposes – has a "responsibility" to verify publicly-reported facts before sharing an opinion on same.
Wasn't the article based on a lawsuit? What happened to that?
The republication of someone else's defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it's source. For example, if you quote a witness to a traffic accident who says the driver was drunk when he ran the red light and it turns out the driver wasn't drunk and he had a green light, you can't hide behind the fact that you were merely republishing the witness' statement (which would likely be defamatory).
On the other hand, if you repeat what someone else said or wrote in an official hearing or official document, there’s an important privilege that may protect you provided you attribute the information you gathered and are accurate in your reporting.
Yes, thank you for the recap of torts 1, but you miss the point here.
The blog posts at issue simply repeated and expressed an opinion on the FACT that Kutner was sued (multiple times) for allegedly doing these obnoxious and illegal things. In other words, that Kutner was sued is a fact, and it won't become less true with time or because Kutner managed to settle those lawsuits.
The blogger didn't accuse Kutner of doing these things, and Kutner didn't sue the blogger for defamation, because he couldn't. Kutner essentially sued for false light and invasion of privacy, because he doesn't want people to know these unflattering facts about him.
Kutner is simply trying to erase or hide history, which thankfully, the law does not allow.
We have hired multiple survivors of Adam Kutner and all of them have echoed what was written on WWL. Now, I don't know if they were telling the truth, but I believed what they said. Either way, I would never refer him a case.
NO ONE would ever refer him a case. Why do you think he spends millions a year on advertising.
@6:33 I don't believe the statute of lims has run when you consider the blogger was latent, hidden and wearing a paper bag over his head, intentionally evading meaningful discovery of his identity so the plaintiff could discuss his concerns with him. Those appearing to run the blog in 2008 were ambiguously labeled Legal Eagle, Beantown, and Joseph W. Law, Esq. Incidentally Troy Fox was admitted to NSB in October 2008 and Joe Law registered with Google as comanaging the WWL blog right after that in Nov. 2008. Kutner's issue arose earlier in 2008, but that is not conclusive as to who published it. So it will be an interesting discovery period if the judge allows before foreclosing Kutner's opportunity to seek reparations.
"so plaintiff could discuss his concerns with him." Yeah, because discussing concerns is what tolls the statute of limitations. The post was in 2008, with a mention of the allegations in the in 2009. Kutner doesn't file until 2013, and then he only claims for false light. Assuming Kutner can even find his way to the courthouse, the court should throw Kutner a big ol' raspberry. For me, the money quote in the Motion to Dismiss: "Further, the opinion that Adam Kutner may be a douchebag constitutes unactionable insult. The opinion seems to be a fairly popular and widely-held one, by both anonymous online commenters and dissatisfied clients alike." Zing!
If that quote is accurate, then the MTD stands a better chance of becoming fish wrap than impressing Judge Denton, who commands professional behavior in his court room at all times
Your mom is fish wrap.
Hi, Adam Cuntner!