Suing Millionaires for Fun and Profit: Practice Makes Perfect?
Maximilian Cordero believes the second time is a charm -- with respect to (1) a gender and (2) suing rich guys. From DealBreaker:
In the grand tradition of trying to turn the (real or imaginary) sexual assault you suffered at the hands of a creepy old guy into stocks and bonds, everyone knows you don’t start at the top of the food chain. You get a few starter suits under your belt first, THEN you go to the top. Got to walk before you can run, got to allege “he put his hand on my knee and I didn’t like it” before you allege “he jerked off into a towel while I stood there awkwardly, and I think there might’ve been a purple vibrator in there, too” (those are just for instances).
A few years ago, Maximilia née Maximilian Cordero filed a $10 million lawsuit that accused her former lawyer, Glen Gentile, of statutory rape and endangering the welfare of a minor 2002, when she was “under the age of 17” (representing Cordero was her new—at the time—boyfriend/attorney, William Unroch).
Unfortunately, the case got thrown out when the court informed Cordero (yes, it informed her) that in 2002, she was over the age of 17, and, actually almost 19. For her part, Cordero said that she was “shocked” to find out how old she was.
As Barbie (née Ken) might say, "Math is hard! (And so am I.)"
(You can read the complete post over at DealBreaker.)
Jeffrey Epstein Accuser Attempting To Get It Right Second Time Around [DealBreaker]
Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Cordero v. Epstein
Cordero v. Epstein: She's a Man, Man!
(21) Comments
Funfetti First!
2 days ago I was jealous of that old lawyer. Now I'm so glad I'm not him. This is like that movie with Alan Alda, where, newly divorced from Anne Margaret, he picks up the Hispanic lady from a bar, gets in a cab, only to have her take him to the piers, reveal that she's a HE, AND THEN ROB HIM AND LEAVE HIM THEIR.
This story just gets better as it goes along.
QUERY: Did said lawyer ever get to third base, or was he as surprised as the rest of us when she turned out to be a he?
And who pleads facts on the face of the complaint from which the court can determine that said “under 17” statutory rape victim is in fact 19?
Answer: A lawyer/boyfriend who doesn’t even know the gender of his “girlfriend”/client.
Hint: That’s no clitoris.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, 8:00 post is so funny!
Seriously though how do you not know your own age!!!
I want her. Srsly.
8:34: When its helpful to the bogus case you are prosecuting against a geezer who "had no idea" you were a minor (because you were not), but he is not sure so he might pay you quickly so his wife doesn't find out.
Shake-down 101. It just backfired.
As the post says, "Practice Makes Perfect."
I wonder how Unroch feels now with another man's saliva drying on his penis...
Trannies to 190!
Lat - How is this a second choice of gender? For Mr/Miss Cordero it's the first choice as original gender was assigned. Cordero's parent's may have had a choice but I don't think that technology was widely available in 1983 -- but at this point I'm very confused as to age of Cordero.
Lat - How is this a second choice of gender? For Mr/Miss Cordero it's the first choice as original gender was assigned. Cordero's parent's may have had a choice but I don't think that technology was widely available in 1983 -- but at this point I'm very confused as to age of Cordero.
Lawyer's Defamation Claim Over 'Under-Aged Girls' Allegations Proceeds
Mark Fass
New York Law Journal
November 9, 2006
Calling a lawyer whose modeling business Web site linked to pornography a "pornographer" does not constitute slander per se, but saying that he "lives with under-aged girls" may be an actionable offense, a Manhattan judge has ruled.
Supreme Court Justice Rolando T. Acosta has allowed a defamation lawsuit initiated by Manhattan solo practitioner William J. Unroch against his neighbor, Carol Turchin Monderer, to go forward.
"Contrary to defendant's claim that the statement [that Turchin 'lives with under-aged girls'] was substantially true because the 53-year-old plaintiff lived with a 22-year-old woman[, it] is disingenuous at best," Acosta held in Unroch v. Monderer, 105558/06. "The statement clearly implied that plaintiff was sexually involved with minors. Consensual sex with a minor is a serious offense."
The defendant, Monderer, lives directly below Unroch in a West End Avenue co-op. Their dispute appears to have begun when Unroch launched a campaign to unseat current members of the co-op's board.
In the course of the campaign, Monderer "learned unsavory information" about Unroch, including that the woman he lives with had been arrested "and escorted by the police out of the building," and that a person was charged with molesting a woman in his apartment. Monderer subsequently allegedly made four defamatory statements about Unroch to a fellow tenant.
After learning of the conversation, Unroch initiated a slander suit, seeking $10 million in damages.
According to his complaint, Monderer told the neighbor that Unroch was a "pornographer"; that he lived with an "under-aged girl"; that he "made her nervous"; and that she "feared for her children."
Monderer moved to dismiss.
Last week, Acosta granted the motion as to three of the four statements.
Acosta held that Monderer's statements regarding her nervousness and fear were not actionable.
"[P]laintiff did not plead specific damages and therefore his slander cause of action may proceed only if it falls within one of the slander per se exceptions," Acosta ruled. "Since 'he makes me nervous' and 'I fear for my children' do not fall within any of the exceptions, those statements are dismissed."
On the other hand, Monderer's statement that Unroch was a "pornographer" -- an apparent reference to pornography links that could be found on the Web site for his modeling agency, William J. Unroch Model and Talent Management -- "presents more of a problem," the court ruled.
Nonetheless, the court again found for the defense.
"Given that a person can engage in pornography and not violate New York's obscenity statutes ... it cannot be said that plaintiff was accused of committing a serious offense," one of the four exceptions to the slander law, Acosta ruled.
However, Acosta allowed the suit to proceed regarding Monderer's purported statement regarding an "under-aged" roommate.
"[S]aying that plaintiff lives with under-aged girls, in the full context of the statement, where plaintiff was also called a pornographer, carried a precise meaning, which is readily understood: plaintiff is sexually involved with minors," the court ruled. "Moreover, the statement is capable of being objectively characterized as true or false. That is, plaintiff's girlfriend is either a minor or not. Thus, the Court finds as a matter of law that the alleged statement is not opinion."
Reached by phone Tuesday, Unchon [Unroch?] denied that his Web site contains pornography.
"A couple of links list to sites that are regular modeling and mild adult stuff, not adult-adult," Unchon [Unroch] said. The problem, he added, was in a bulletin board -- since removed -- that allowed strangers to post their own links.
S. John LeNoir, a solo practitioner, represents Unchon. [Unroch]
Jeffrey H. Daichman and Michael R. Futterman of Kane Kessler represented Monderer. Daichman could not be reached and Futterman declined to comment.
9:44: reason #456,123 not to live in NYC.
"Unroch initiated a slander suit, seeking $10 million in damages."
The guy likes the number $10M--thats waht he prayed for in the prior bogus suit for the TS that was dismissed.
Apparently Unroch does know how old the "girlfried" is, since he pled it to defeat the mtoion to dismiss (22, now 23.) So she would have to claim that the sex with Epstein was 7 years ago to avoid the Glen Gentile case dismissal trap.
This duo is going to keep suing people for $10M until it works or they go to jail for perjury.
What a nice couple. Of creeps.
At least that is my OPINION Mr. Unroch.
Incidentially, is Maximilia née Maximilian Cordero a pre-op or a post-op TS?
Your assignment Mr. Phelps, should you accept it.......
9:44 - good find!
11:09 - seriously, living in Ohio is so much better. Now go eat some corn.
S/he's suing for something that happened in 2000? What's the statute of limitation on this action? At least it's gotta be the last shot at that "underage" thing.
7:41 - don't you get extra time in some situations if you weren't aware of the relevant facts?
She's alleging that he statutorily raped her when she was a seventeen year old girl but, until recently, apparently, she didn't know how old she was or that she was a woman.
Sounds iron-clad to me.
I suspect Maximilia is post-op. But even if she was pre-op, I'd bang her.
She sure has balls.
trantastic!
That's a man, man.