Source: https://www.declarationsandexclusions.com/rakofsky-v-internet/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:43:08+00:00

Document:
This is the seventh in the ongoing series of posts compiling the most recent publicly available developments surrounding the litigation Commonly Known As Rakofsky v. Internet, in which New Jersey attorney Joseph Rakofsky has sued some 81 media organizations, professional institutions and, above all, individual legal bloggers, claiming that he was damaged by those defendants' publication of reports and commentary on his performance as defense counsel in a murder trial in Washington, D.C., and issues appurtenant thereto. All installments in this series are collected in the Rakofsky v. Internet category of this blog.
In the early going, it was a quiet week in Rakofskyworld, so quiet that by Thursday morning it had begun to seem that there might be no cause to produce this edition of the Update. A lull in anticipation of the long Independence Day weekend, perhaps? No: the calm before the latest burst of sound, fury and fireworks.
As always, action in the courthouse has been monitored and reported by [my co-defendant and New York local counsel] Eric Turkewitz. The week began with Eric uploading the partial opposition, on behalf of the Group of 35 defendants he represents, to the motion of Rakofsky's current counsel, Richard Bourzoye, to withdraw from the case. The partial opposition only addresses concerns over leaving Joseph Rakofsky's law firm, a professional corporation, unrepresented. While Rakofsky, or any other litigant, is permitted to represent himself as an individual, business entities can only appear and participate in litigation via an attorney. There is concern that, if Bourzoye withdraws without new counsel stepping in on behalf of the professional corporation, neither the defendants nor the Court will have any lawful way of interacting with that plaintiff in moving the case forward.
On Thursday,. June 30, Eric updated yet again his post concerning the initial procedural motions―seeking admission of Marc Randazza pro hac vice and requesting a single response date be set for the filings of all defendants―filed on behalf of the Group of 35. It seems that Rakofsky has attempted something of a "bait and switch," swapping out an earlier, objectionable set of papers over his own signature in favor of an altered set over the signature of his counsel, Bourzouye. The procedural and evidentiary problems posed by that move compelled Turkewitz and Randazza to file sur-replies, bringing the issue to the Court's attention and attempting to set matters straight. The written submissions relating to those motions are now complete, but a ruling on the substance of the motions has yet to issue. Similarly, the motion of Bourzouye to withdraw as counsel and the previously reported motions of other defendants to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds, remain pending.
In last week's Update, I discussed [defendant] attorney Mark Doudna, who found himself dragged in to the Rakofsky litigation based upon a blog post that was written and posted in his name, but was in fact authored without his input by an outside marketing consultant. "[A] parable of legal services marketing," I called it, "offering lessons galore for those who will learn them." This week, writing at Simple Justice, [defendant] Scott Greenfield was prepared to look more deeply at those lessons in his post, "Doudna Takes a Magic Bullet."
Earlier today, through the efforts of Angel Martin, the term "Rakofsky Effect" found its way in to the Urban Dictionary.
1) This is a Defamation case that was filed only a couple of months ago; it is brand new. If the case survives the motions to dismiss, I assume it will be 2 or 3 years before it is over. There are many, many defendants and once they learn who the lawyer is who I will hire as the Attorney of Record, they will almost certainly engage in character assassination of that person and attempt to ruin that lawyer's reputation on the Internet. I do not know for a fact that this will happen, but I believe that it is a possibility.
2) The lawyer should be EXTREMELY aggressive in the Court room. It is helpful if you have experience in Defamation. Obviously, trial lawyers who intimately know the CPLR will be the strongest candidates.
3) Please, no resumes. Just briefly tell me about your experience.
4) While I will be responsible for most of the drafting, I will have legal and procedural questions that I could need you to answer. You will also need to proof read our documents.
5) You must become an expert in my case. You must know all of the defendants, all of their arguments, etc. Thank you.
If your dream position for the next 2 to 3 years is as an aggressive, expert proofreader and civil procedure tutor, if you are prepared to place your reputation on the line, and if you are prepared to do it all for $200 per month, Destiny is calling.
The Rakofsky Weekend Update will return to Decs&Excs next week, barring the unlikely event that nothing happens in Rakofskyworld in the next seven days.
[Defendant] Mark Bennett continues to maintain and update a thorough compendium of links to Rakofsky-related posts on his blog, Defending People. My own selection of links is purely subjective and not necessarily comprehensive. I recommend regular consultation of the Compendio Bennetticus for the fullest range of blog responses to Rakofsky v. Internet.
The progress of the case through the courts is also being monitored on the Rakofsky v. Internet "Threat Page" maintained by the Citizen Media Law Project.
This is the sixth in the ongoing series of posts compiling the most recent publicly available developments surrounding the litigation Commonly Known As Rakofsky v. Internet, in which New Jersey attorney Joseph Rakofsky has sued some 81 media organizations, professional institutions and, above all, individual legal bloggers, claiming that he was damaged by those defendants' publication of reports and commentary on his performance as defense counsel in a murder trial in Washington, D.C., and issues appurtenant thereto. All installments in this series are collected in the Rakofsky v. Internet category of this blog.
Rakofsky has filed an opposition memorandum to the pending motions by the collectively-appearing Group of 35 [formerly 33] defendants, seeking admission of Marc Randazza pro hac vice and requesting a single response date be set for the filings of all defendants. Opposition to a pro hac application is highly unusual, as such motions are generally granted out of hand in support of a general policy of allowing litigants to be represented by counsel of their choice. Joseph Rakofsky's opposition memorandum―which he appears to have authored himself―urges that Mr. Randazza's admission should be denied because Randazza has spoken to Rakofsky in rude and colorful terms in a single telephone conversation.
On Monday, June 20, the Group of 35 filed their reply papers, including responsive affidavits from Turkewitz and Randazza. This likely concludes the written submissions concerning this motion, which remains before the Court for decision at this writing.
Also on Monday, it was confirmed that Joseph Rakofsky's own attorney, Richard Borzouye, has applied to the Court for permission to withdraw from further representation. If that application is granted, Rakofsky could continue to appear on his own behalf, but there is substantial doubt whether he can represent his law firm, which is organized as a professional corporation, without himself being admitted pro hac vice for that purpose. (Generally, corporations and similar business entities are not permitted to appear pro se/in propria persona, and must be represented by an attorney. Joseph Rakofsky is admitted to practice law in New Jersey, but not in New York, so his appearance on behalf of the professional corporation would require the Court's permission.) Again, there has been no ruling yet on the Borzouye motion to withdraw.
Orange County, California, criminal defense lawyer Michael Doudna is named as a defendant on the basis of a blog post [no longer available online]. On Friday, June 24, his counsel (Thomas Catalano of Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer) filed a Motion to Dismiss and for imposition of sanctions on Rakofsky. Doudna's motion focuses on the question of personal jurisdiction, i.e., whether there is a basis on which the New York court can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who has never entered the state. Sanctions are sought on the ground that Rakofsky's suit is frivolous and filed in bad faith.
As Eric Turkewitz notes in his report, the most intriguing aspect of the Doudna motion is the revelation that Mr. Doudna has been sued for a blog post he did not write, post, or even personally approve. The Doudna firm hired a marketing consultant, Kenney & Associates ("KA"), in March 2011, and KA created, and was apparently solely responsible for maintaining, a blog in Doudna's name. Posts to the blog seem to have consisted of summaries and pointers to other sites' material on criminal law issues. One such item that was linked and described was the ABA Journal's piece on Rakofsky, which in turn relied on the Washington Post's original reporting. Mr. Doudna states in his supporting affidavit that he did not write, post, or even read that report at the time. In fact, dissatisfied that the blog was not producing immediate increases in business, he terminated the relationship with KA; KA itself went out of business almost immediately thereafter. And a month later: voila! Mr. Doudna is a defendant in the notorious case of Rakofsky v. Internet. It's like a parable of legal services marketing, offering lessons galore for those who will learn them.
Lexa obsesses about her hair more than you want to know. She hates tardiness, people who don't send thank you notes and pigeons.
The internet mocking got to be a bit embarrassing for Rakofsky, so he did what any reasonable person would do: he filed cases of defamation against 81 different parties. Anyone who hurt his feelings was served. Because the way to react to public humiliation and a bruised ego is to call more attention to it. Good plan there, bucko.
The Moxie Bird piece looks to have been triggered by last week's rather more insightful Atlantic Wire item.
Ken likely had in mind posts such as [defendant] Jamison Koehler's "Rakofsky v. The Washington Post: Being on the Other End of the Attorney-Client Relationship." In fact, we know he had that post in mind, because he and [defendant] Scott Greenfield put in appearances in the comments to Koehler's post to say so.
If recent history is any guide, some new and fascinating Rakofsky post will surface not long after this one is published. I will be sure to report on it in my next installment. The Rakofsky Weekend Update will return to Decs&Excs next week, barring the unlikely event that nothing happens in Rakofskyworld in the next seven days.
[Defendant] Mark Bennett continues to maintain and update a thorough compendium of links to Rakofsky-related posts on his blog, Defending People. My own selection of links is purely subjective and not necessarily comprehensive. The CMLP Threat Page is not currently monitoring or compiling online discussion about the case (as opposed to online access to filngs in the case) so, as I have been doing each week, I recommend regular consultation of the Compendio Bennetticus for the fullest range of blog responses to Rakofsky v. Internet.
Illustration: Photograph of the debris field including wrecked train cars following the Wellington Avalanche of March, 1910, via Wikimedia Commons.
This is the fifth in the ongoing series of posts compiling the most recent publicly available developments surrounding the litigation Commonly Known As Rakofsky v. Internet, in which New Jersey attorney Joseph Rakofsky has sued some 81 media organizations, professional institutions and, above all, individual legal bloggers, claiming that he was damaged by those defendants' publication of reports and commentary on his performance as defense counsel in a murder trial in Washington, D.C., and issues appurtenant thereto. All installments in this series are collected in the Rakofsky v. Internet category of this blog.
As reported by [my co-defendant and local counsel] Eric Turkewitz, two additional individual blogger-defendants filed Motions to Dismiss. The newest motions are on behalf of Mirriam Seddiq and Jamison Koehler, and have been filed by Albany-based attorney David Brickman, who first appeared last week on behalf of defendant Max Kennerly.
Also making an initial appearance: Nevada attorney-blogger Mace Yampolsky. As again reported by Mr. Turkewitz, Mr. Yampolsky and his counsel, John H. Teschner, have chosen to answer the Rakofsky Amended Complaint―denying liability and raising appropriate legal and factual defenses rather―than engaging in motion practice at this stage.
No other filings were reported this week. The large institutional defendants, such as the Washington Post and the American Bar Association still have yet to appear.
Rakofsky continued to expand its presence to new and high profile regions.
We’re taking a firm stance, and it needs to be understood that even though we’re just a bunch of dopey bloggers, we’re not inclined to be pushed around by anybody.
On Wednesday, the Citizen Media Law Project launched its Threat Page devoted to monitoring the case. Among other resources, the CMLP page includes links to all of the blogs whose posts are claimed by Joseph Rakofsky to have done him wrong, and a compilation of direct links to the filings in the case.
So, yeah: the defendants aren't rolling over (note to self: law bloggers tend to be lawyers; don't sue them lightly), and unless Rakofsky backs off, we're in for some fireworks. But it's not just fun and games -- the lesson is the need for more serious anti-SLAPP statutes.
The link at the end of that paragraph goes to a pre-Rakosfky piece on possible national anti-SLAPP law by "Rakofsky 33" counsel, Marc Randazza.
and pointed to this post: "Friday's Distraction: Rakofsky vs. the Internet."
The Rakofsky Weekend Update will return to Decs&Excs next week, assuming its return is warranted by developments and public demand.
Disclosure/Disclaimer: I am a defendant in the Rakofsky case, one of the jointly defended group I refer to above as the "Rakofsky 33," because of my having written this post; I commented previously on my involvement in the action here. To the extent that I may have any non-public information concerning the case, my policy is not to share it in these update posts.
Illustration: "Thomas the Slav with his army assails Constantinople in spring, 822" via Wikimedia Commons.
This is the fourth in the serially continuous and seriously continuing series of posts compiling the most recent publicly available developments surrounding the litigation Commonly Known As Rakofsky v. Internet, in which New Jersey attorney Joseph Rakofsky has sued divers media organizations, professional institutions and, above all, individual legal bloggers, claiming that he was damaged by those defendants' publication of reports and commentary on his performance as defense counsel in a murder trial in Washington, D.C., and issues appurtenant thereto. All installments in this series are collected in the Rakofsky v. Internet category of this blog.
Last week, I noted the initial procedural filings on behalf of the Group of 33 defendants, principally bloggers, under the joint representation of Messrs. Marc Randazza and Eric Turkewitz. If I am construing the information available online correctly, those applications are set for hearing on June 20.
The major courthouse development this week, as first reported by Mr. Turkewitz, has been the filing on behalf of defendant Max Kennerly of a Motion to Dismiss [PDF] on the merits. That motion raises many of the legal issues that can be expected to be central to the case going forward.
No other filings have been reported this week. The large institutional defendants, such as the Washington Post and the American Bar Association have yet to appear.
DON’T, DON’T & DON’T ever suggest that a judge – any judge – was part of a conspiracy or “slandered” an attorney in the courtroom. Let’s just say that those kinds of allegations aren’t going to get your complaint anywhere – except on to the trash heap with the filings by pro se prisoners and the mentally delusional. On the other hand, if your opponent happens to make these allegations, by all means DO make note of them.
Outside of law blogging circles, the case is progressively taking on a life of its own. Involving as it does issues of speech and liability on the Internet, it is perhaps unsurprising that "The Ongoing Case of Rakofsky vs. Internet" has generated its very own Slashdot thread.
The Rakofsky topic on Twitter, which accumulates new tweets and retweets on a continuing basis, was invaded for a time by trolls in the past few days. Even Joseph Rakofsky, for whom there's no particular admiration on this blog, is not deserving of the sort of vile (albeit Constitutionally protected) abuse that has been heaped upon him in some of the more fetid corners of the online world.
Disclosure/Disclaimer: I am a defendant in the Rakofsky case, because of my having written this post; I commented previously on my involvement in the action here. To the extent that I may have any non-public information concerning the case, my policy is not to share it in these update posts.
[Defendant] Mark Bennett continues to maintain and update a thorough compendium of links to Rakofsky-related posts on his blog, Defending People. My own selection of links is purely subjective and not necessarily comprehensive. As always, I recommend regular consultation of the Compendio Bennetticus for the fullest range of responses to the case.
Illustration: "Tyre besieged and captured by Alexander" (1696), via Wikimedia Commons.
This week's Rakofsky v. Internet update will be comparatively brief, but it focuses on the first significant procedural development in the case: the initial filings with the Court on behalf of 33 of the 81 currently-named defendants.
As a practical matter, this week begins and ends with Eric Turkewitz.
Two weeks ago I ripped into Joseph Rakofsky, the newbie lawyer who took on a murder defense shortly after being sworn in as an attorney, and who was written about, up, down and sideways regarding his competence, ethics and marketing.
I wrote at the end of my post, “Yeah, I got more,” and I do. I could easily put up 5-6 new posts on the subject with material others have not yet addressed. This case is, after all, right in my blog’s wheelhouse. The combination of local access to information along with strong opinions has the potential for potent blog posts. I’ve also defended a defamation case in the past, where my attitude was no different than here: GSIAH (Latin: vade et caca in pilleum).
But I’ve elected not to write those posts. And this is why. I’m going to be local counsel for 30 of the 81 defendants. Marc Randazza will be petitioning the court for admission pro hac vice and I’ll be the local guy on the scene while he does the heavy lifting.
Today, Eric rounded out the week by dropping the other shoe, posting copies of the initial motion filed through his office on behalf of the 33 defendants that he and Marc Randazza will represent. In addition to the pro hac vice application Eric mentions, the motion includes a request that the Court set a single date for all defendants' responses to the Amended Complaint to be filed, so that the case can move forward on a more coordinated and efficient schedule.
First, the Affidavit of Eric Turkewitz [PDF] in support of the motion. That affidavit serves as a one-stop shop for the overall outlines of the case, a sort of Summa Rakofskologica, if you will, and a glimpse of the shapes of things to come. If you read just one document, this is the one to read.
Second, a copy of the court reporter's transcript [PDF] of the proceedings held on April 1, 2011, in U.S. v. Dontrell Deaner, the murder case in which Joseph Rakofsky served for a time as defense counsel. The April 1 hearing is short—only seven pages—and concerned principally with Rakofsky's being relieved as counsel. The transcript includes the remarks of the trial judge that Rakofsky's Amended Complaint characterizes as "statements in open court that slandered RAKOFSKY's knowledge of courtroom procedure." (Rakofsky v. Washington Post, et al., Amended Complaint, para. 117.) Those remarks are central to the Washington Post report that started it all. You are now free to read and judge them for yourself.
As I have noted before, I am a defendant in the Rakofsky case, because of my having written this post; I commented on my involvement in the action here. As the materials posted by Eric confirm, I am also part of the Group of 33 defendants that he and Marc Randazza will represent. I am proud to stand with that Band of Blawgers as a co-defendant, and to have teh benefit of such able defenders.
To the extent that I may have any non-public information concerning the case, I have generally not been sharing it in these update posts. At this point, I make a minor exception to that policy.
Illustration: Attack on the walls of a beseiged town, from Charles Knight's "Old England: A Pictorial Museum" (1845), via Wikimedia Commons.
Another week yields another round of online commentary on Rakofsky v. Washington Post, et al., better known as Rakofsky v. Internet. My initial "Rakofsky week in review" post was sufficiently well received that another edition seems in order.
No new filings have come to this blog's attention since last week's report. New York practice typically calls for responses to be filed within 21 days of service of the Summons, although that deadline is subject to extension by agreement. At this writing, the operative pleading remains the Amended Complaint. There have been no public indications of the state of service of that pleading within or without the State of New York.
Public defender [and non-defendant] Daniel Partain asked rhetorically "Why have not more lawyer bloggers commented on the Rakosfy debacle?" and tried to answer.
Once you're served, you don't tell everyone you meet about it. Talking, writing and venting post-suit hits already-raw nerves, fans fires, generates unneeded 'evidence', . . . and stretches out proceedings and pretrial by-play by months and even years.
Needless to say many blawgers, including particularly a number of the defendants, were not persuaded to Mr. Hull's point of view.
Additional procedural crystal ball gazing was provided by [non-defendant] Mark Zamora on his blog, A Georgia Lawyer.
This has happened before on the Net, and is the internet equivalent of erecting a large sign pointing at yourself labelled 'whompa', rather than the more logical action of stopping digging and hiding in the bottom of the hole you just created.
[Defendant] Josh King weighed in on the Avvo Blog with a bit of "how did we get here" analysis, asking whether the problem lies in a lack of mentoring or a lack of awareness.
Non-lawyers also began offering their perspective on the case this week. First, on The Fraud Files Blog, forensic accountant/fraud examiner Tracy Coenen drew conclusions reflected in the title of her post: "Rakofsky suing the internet: Career suicide."
Closing out this week's survey, the latest from one who is following the case as aggressively as anyone. On his My Law License blog, [defendant] Brian Tannebaum turned his attention from the merits of the action to parsing the online presence of Joseph Rakofsky's legal representative, inviting his readers to Meet Richard Borzouye . . . Joseph Rakofsky's Lawyer.
C'mon, Kevin: those scare quotes are just mean.
The Rakofsky Weekend Update will return to Decs&Excs next week, if warranted by developments, public demand, and the blogger's inclinations.
Few matters offer more lessons than this one. It offers lessons about competence. Lessons about marketing. Lessons about responsibility, honesty, integrity. About greed. It offers lessons about hole-digging and making a bad situation worse. For young lawyers, particularly the Slackoisie, this is a case study that should be taught in every law school in the country. Any lawprof teaching professional responsibility who neglects the Rakofsky Effect has not fulfilled his duty.
Disclosure/Disclaimer: I am a defendant in the Rakofsky case, because of my having written this post; I commented on my involvement in the action here. To the extent that I may have any non-public information concerning the case, I will not be sharing it in these update posts.
[Defendant] Mark Bennett has been updating regularly the compendium of links to Rakofsky-related posts on his blog, Defending People. My own selection of links is purely subjective and not necessarily comprehensive. I recommend regular consultation of the Compendio Bennetticus for the fullest range of responses to the case.
Illustration: The calling card that served as trigger for Oscar Wilde's wildly unsuccessful libel action against the Marquis of Queensberry, via Wikimedia Commons. "The letter A in the bottom left corner was added at the time of the trial to indicate that it was exhibit A."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.