[UPDATED] Nica Noelle And Icon Male File Motion To Stop The Lawyer Who’s Suing Them From Speaking To Str8UpGayPorn
July 17, 2018 Update:
As expected, federal judge Patti Saris has denied Nica Noelle and Icon Male’s delusional (not to mention unconstitutional) motion for injunctive relief. Defendants Noelle (a.k.a. Monica Jensen) and Icon Male had asked the court to block the plaintiff’s attorney from speaking to media outlets, including Str8UpGayPorn, and the judge denied that absurd motion today, per the clerk’s notes:
As you can also see in the notes today, it appears this lawsuit (as you’ll recall, Nica Noelle and Icon Male are being sued for illegally shooting incest porn in a private residence without the homeowner’s knowledge, permission, or consent) will, unfortunately, be headed to ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). That means there won’t be an open trial with witness testimony, evidence, or settlements to cover in real time, but Str8UpGayPorn will still work to report those details, provided the parties in the case can legally disclose them once the case is resolved.
UPDATE 2:
Attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendants (which, in addition to Nica Noelle and Icon Male, also includes gay porn stars Billy Santoro and Hugh Hunter, who are being sued for defamation after they called the plaintiff homophobic and transphobic) have agreed to the below schedule for this case. Based on these dates, this lawsuit could be dragged out not just through the end of this year, but through the end of next year, too (unless the 2019 is a typo, and they meant to type 2018?). It could be over months before the deadlines noted below, but based on this calendar, they have until November of 2019 to resolve the case:
***
Original story as published on May 17th, 2018 below:
The lawsuit against disgraced incest porn director and alleged serial model abuser Nica Noelle is moving slowly through federal court, and while there’s no update on the actual progress of the case today (as you’ll recall, Noelle and Icon Male are being sued for civil violation of the RICO act, civil fraud, trespassing, infliction of emotional and mental distress, and copyright infringement for illegally filming multiple porn movies in a rental home without the property owner’s consent or knowledge), Noelle’s lawyer (above, right) has filed a motion today asking the court to block the plaintiff’s attorney, John Taylor, from speaking to the media and making “disparaging” remarks about Nica Noelle (legal name Monica Jensen) and Jon Blitt (the owner of Mile High Media, which owns Icon Male). The complete motion is embedded below, but here are highlights:
Wasting the court’s time with something as pointless, delusional, and unconstitutional as this (lawyers can talk to the media about the people they’re suing as much as they want, and they can say as many negative things about them as they want—just ask Gloria Allred, Michael Avenatti, or any lawyer who’s ever gone on TV to talk about their case) will likely annoy the judge and accomplish nothing, but it’s at least entertaining for me, as the motion makes specific mention of Str8UpGayPorn as one of the media outlets where Taylor made his “disparaging” remarks about Nica Noelle and Icon Male in an open letter:
The fact that Nica Noelle has wasted time, money on a lawyer, and any thought whatsoever on Str8UpGayPorn’s (or any media outlet’s) coverage of the lawsuit against her is both sad and bizarre, but it’s a reminder of her obsession with Str8UpGayPorn. That obsession started four years ago, after I reported on nearly a dozen performers who came forward to accuse Nica Noelle of harassment, mistreatment, and abuse on her sets. That reporting is labeled in the motion above as an “online campaign of harassment and threats,” and only in Nica Noelle’s sick mind would news coverage of her abuse be considered “harassment” or a “threat.” Ironically, following the coverage of those abuse allegations, it was in fact Nica Noelle who proceeded to harass me and make public death threats against me and my family.
Nica Noelle’s lawyer (who is, apparently, oblivious to the fact that lawsuits are a matter of public record, and they often play out in the court of public opinion) goes on to accuse the plaintiff’s attorney of making “prejudicial” comments about Icon Male to the media:
If someone unfamiliar with the genre were to do a simple Google search on Icon Male to get an idea of the kinds of “themes” they were pushing, would Taylor’s “insinuations” about Icon Male movies (some of which were filmed in his client’s home) really be considered “prejudicial,” “baseless,” or “untrue”? Take a look for yourself at what comes up. Notice any recurring themes?
And, here’s the Icon Male text description for one of their Catholic Church-themed gay porn movies:
Gorgeous priest Father Anthony (Ty Roderick) is assigned to replace Father Patrick in the Church of Holy Trinity. But like the fallen priest before him, Father Anthony soon finds himself struggling with forbidden desires while listening to his parishioner’s sinful confessions.
Attorney Taylor may be prejudicial when speaking to the media about Icon Male movies (as he should be—he’s suing them!), but nothing he’s said about the movies could be considered baseless, let alone defamatory. And yet, Noelle/Icon’s attorney claims that Taylor’s factual comments about their movies are “deplorable falsehoods” that have hurt their reputations:
If what the plaintiff’s attorney has said about Nica Noelle and Icon Male’s movies is so “deplorable,” I wonder how Noelle’s lawyer might label Noelle’s own descriptions of her movies? In a 2014 interview with AVN, Nica Noelle talked about the incest and priest-themed Icon Male movies she makes, describing them as “creepy,” “repulsive,” and “nauseating”:
In general, my boilerplate is, the more forbidden and the creepier the better. Incest is a huge fantasy because it’s completely forbidden. For that reason, we enjoy the fantasy aspect of other people doing it, yet if we think of doing it ourselves most of us are repulsed; even nauseated.
Maybe Nica Noelle’s lawyer should file a motion for injunction against her, for advertising her own movies?
Here’s the full motion seeking to silence the plaintiff’s lawyer, which I predict the judge will deny:
