Updated on a Dare
Recall that Maria Brown is suing the Nutt law firm claiming that she was sexually harassed and that she was fired as a whistleblower in relation to the Renfroe-State Farm documents. She moved to amend the complaint, asking to add claims against the various Nutt defendants. More dramatically, she asked to add claims for defamation and retaliation against Nutt’s lawyer in the case, Chris Shapley. The defamation claim was that he falsely told local tv news that Brown was fired for improper conduct.
I wrote about this amendment in this post, and I noted: “This is not going to reduce the temper-levels in that suit.”
I was right about that. In addition to suing Shapley and his firm, Brown and her lawyer filed a bar complaint against Shapley. When Brown was about to be deposed about the Renfroe documents, Shapley directly wrote her (copying her lawyer) warning her not to disclose privileged information. The bar complaint (and another claim in the new complaint) is based on the rule that a lawyer is not supposed to directly contact another lawyer’s client.
Now Legalnewsline reports that the Nutt firm and its lawyer have fired back, filing a response to the Brown motion to amend. There’s a tit-for-tat quality to the response, of the “You took an unfair shot at me, I’ll take an unfair shot at you!” variety. The response says that Shapley said Brown was terminated for improper conduct because he knew things about Brown from consulting with his clients. And some of those things are attached as exhibits to the response– emails Brown wrote at the Nutt firm that, the response says, show that Brown participated in the sexual atmosphere she claims existed at the firm. Not sure how they’re exactly germane to the motion, but they do spice things up.
Here’s the Brown v Nutt response on motion to amend.
I don’t have the exhibits yet, which are quoted a fair amount in the Newsline story. I’ll try to get round to them later.
Update
Well, I’ve looked at the exhibits, and I’ll have to say they seem to set off a thermonuclear device right in the middle of Maria Brown’s sexual harassment case. In the middle of the exhibits (about page 50 through 100) there is a big mountain of emails from Maria Brown alternating between really tasteless internet sex jokes and very steamily setting up assignations, with lots of details about what she has in mind. This may have come from someone’s workplace but is not work-safe reading. In the interest of providing all the news about these cases, here is the Nutt response to Brown’s motion to Amend, with Exhibits.
By the way, whoever printed these things for the exhibits used someone else’s email client (that is, someone obviously not involved in the email exchange), and so there on the top of each mail is a name that I am pretty sure had nothing to do with these exchanges. But that’s just a guess. Whoever she is, she’s going to be really delighted when she figures this out. If she printed them herself, I assume she’ll wished she’d looked at the emails just a little more carefully before handing them over to attach to the response.
I wonder whatever happened with the investigation surrounding child porn that was supposed to be on a computer at Nutt’s office.
Well, this is timely. What with all our talk about chicken-choking yesterday.
Irate, I believe Maria Brown’s emergency motion stated that that computer was Ernie Coward’s personal computer and was seized from his residence by the Madison PD. (I think I’m remembering that right.)
I haven’t heard anything further about that either, which seems odd. I note, though, in the Nutt response, that Coward has been cut loose from the rest of the defendants as far as representation is concerned.
Me too, irate.
Doggone, shoulda hit Refresh before I commented. Yes, Dragoman, that separation is noteworthy. Maybe only the first we’ll see?
Nemmind my 4, Dragoman. Nemmind this lawsuit too.
I don’t understand why someone knowing this kind of adverse evidence is out there files this kind of suit.
Zow. Wee.
I don’t see how the e-mails affect the merits of her case — depends who the redacted male is — but I do wonder if she bothered to mention any of this to Louis Watson beforehand.
Based on Louis Watson’s aggressive stance, I would speculate that Maria had not mentioned any of this to him beforehand. If she didn’t brief him on it beforehand, I bet he’s a little bit angry with her.
Whoo whee, that’s some mighty phallocentric talk they got goin’ on there. I’m beginning to see how Mr. Coward might not have thought a photographic show-and-tell was exactly out of line there, given the randy talk about the er, uh – male member.
(the blog dies while everybody goes to read emails and … amuse … himse’f)
Yah, we got YOUR number, keed. Heh.
Okay, I’m open for the first person who wants to argue the proposition that the advent of email has improved the quality of communication in our society. Twenty-five hundred words or less.
I laughed out loud when I read the redaction about the monkey photo! Monkey See Monkey Chew!
Anyone know the now-limited-purpose public figure Beth Clatworthy?
No, but I ‘magine she’s having a miserable afternoon. I further ‘magine she’s not the only one.
She’s listed as a notary public at the Secretary of State’s web site, which also notes that she’s employed at the Nutt law firm.
Bless her heart.
That’s what I say…BHH. Right sounds like she had some action going on for a while. Did she get divocred?
Question for our IT-adepts: IF these were fraudulently-concocted emails (and I have no reason beyond a somewhat suspicious nature to suggest the possibility that they might be — but IF they were), would that be provable? If so, how?
change the date settings on the computers and e mail from the account?
The issue Jane raises about the e-mails is going to depend in large part on who got them and what their expectations were.
Was any of the allegedly unwelcome attention rec’d by Ms. Brown, addressed to her by people she’d sent (say) penis categories to?
Also, there is sex stuff (like silly e-mail forwards of penis types) and there is sex stuff (like stuff demeaning to women, specifically propositioning Ms. Brown, etc.). I do not remember what kind of stuff she was complaining about earlier.
If her complaint was simply that s-e-x was mentioned in her ladylike presence, then yes, that won’t wash now.
Lotus// You retrieve off of the Hard Drive. My husband does this as a hobby, its very time consuming, and very expensive if one has to hire a professional. One I remember him doing was for a Lawyer friend who had started writing a book and lost it all to never be retrieved again. It took days, but everybody was so happy. You can’t fool a hard drive, its like its written in stone and it doesn’t like to give it up.
mag, thank you ver’ much, m’dear, for reminding me to save this whole blog to my hard drive again. Wordy as we all are, you wouldn’t believe how little time that takes.
logus 18 – mag 21 is correct – you gotta get back to the hard drives. Ideally, you would want not only the hard drives for the computers originating the email, but you would want the hard drive information (copies of the emails, etc.) that are stored on the sender’s actual mail server and the associated log files.
You can prove where it came from, the original content, who got it, etc. The hardest thing to prove is was that person the actual person sitting at the computer when the email was written.
Anderson @20: Brown states in her amended complaint that it was Mr. Coward who showed her a photograph of his – how can I put this – rampant member. And it was this same Mr. Coward who appears to have been the recipient of a number of e-mails from Brown that were of a penile nature, silly though they were.
And I believe the complaint also alleges that it was Mr. Coward who requested, er – oral services from Miss Brown. So yes, she is asserting that she was propositioned.
There was another fellow there who engaged in some bothersome hand tickling or rubbing – can’t remember who he was.
With everyone all hot and bothered in there all the time, I wonder how much actual lawyerin’ ever got done.
Yeah, Brown’s hostile workplace claim is pretty much up in smoke now.
She could still win on her state-law claims, like for breach of contract, but her credibility has taken a big hit in light of the e-mails.