Rakofsky Totally Has The Internet Just Where He Wants It Now

Print This Post

You may also like...

22 Responses

  1. Grandy says:

    I've long thought that tech support type people HATE having to provide support for other IT personnel, so I can totally believe the "lawyers as clients" thing. Nobody actually likes Doctors in any setting, so it's no surprise they're trouble too.

  2. marco73 says:

    The intertubes will be calling career self destruction by an attorney the Rakosky Effect.

  3. Valaru says:

    …a cheerfully demented message board that communicates chiefly through rude photoshops…that is spelled bannination.com

  4. Ken says:

    Thank you, Valaru.

    I've been watching the bannination hits roll in on Woopra. Is there any special etiquette I should be aware of, like not trying to run away from bears or not showing fear to dogs or not looking Canadians in the eye when you talk to them, or anything? Boobies should I start every sentence with boobies? The traffic logs have me bemused, frankly. I was not previously aware that Larry Flynt had authored a web browser. Also, how do all these secure facilities have internet access? Anyway, I'm even more impressed than before with the photoshop skillz.

  5. Valaru says:

    just come in and be yourself, and don't run.

    never run.

  6. Well Ken, we pride ourselves on having users that are smart enough to bypass an industrial-strength firewall, and just employable enough to still get caught, but somehow keep their jobs. Boy, does HR laugh at those pics when no one's looking.

    I am serious about the fruit basket I mentioned on our site, though – if you drop me an email at my address (hopefully hidden, and in no way at risk of being hacked by a group with "Lulz" anywhere in the name) we will send you a lovely gift. Hell, it seems you're just over the continental divide based on your pony post. Who knew the Mr. Flynts of the internet loved the quality of life in the foothills?

    Oh, and if you've never seen our statement, it's here. The thread that follows descends into far more chaos than normal (subjectively speaking), but is good for a chuckle or two along the way. Allegedly.

  7. Miskellaneous says:

    Re: paragraph 4 – Motion to Dismiss and New York Procedure –

    Blah, blah, blah – Civil Procedure Law and Rules section 3211 (a)(7), a motion, usually in lieu of an Answer and before discovery, in which it is alleged that the Pleadings do not, on their face, state a prima facie case. Blah, blah, blah

    Sorry, I New York lawyer puked all over your blog.

  8. Ken says:

    Yeah, yeah. It's just not clear to me, the way it's written, whether New York procedure allows reference to items outside the four corners of the complaint at that stage, or not.

  9. Miskellaneous says:

    A 3211(a)(7) motion does permit affidavits and the introduction of evidence outside the pleadings, in which case, the court can treat the motion as one for summary judgment. However, to consider outside evidence, it had better be a bombshell, or the movant will lose the motion as long as the Plaintiff has simply alleged all of the elements of a cause of action in the Complaint (whether based on "true" underlying facts or not).

    In other words, it is a judgment call by the Court.

    Sorry, lawyer barfed on your blog again. I can't help it, I give free consultations.

  10. Ken says:

    No, I appreciate it. I knew enough to know I didn't know NY law. The Motions to Dismiss appeared to me to rely on at least some stuff outside the complaint — in California I'd be able to use our exceptional anti-SLAPP statute for that purpose, but I wasn't sure how it would play there.

  11. Miskellaneous says:

    My recollection is that NY's Anti SLAPP is limited to matters involving "public participation". In effect having someone sue you because you are active in a public forum, like a zoning board meeting or some other forum involving government intervention in the lives of real people. I do not know of any cases where it is used in the context of private disputes, even where Constitutional rights are being debated.

    In place of your Anti SLAPP we would probably substitute some sort of frivolous action sanction, which is rarely granted, but on the books (just for Mr. R, perhaps)

    Glad to be of help.

  12. Bannination says:

    We are Bannination. We are about three people with 10,000 alts. We do not forgive… each other for the smallest slight. We do not… ummm…. ooh look! Shiny ponies!

    Expect us…

    ….to pull the plug by Thanksgiving.

  13. Amiable Dorsai says:

    It's pretty clear that lawyering is not Rakofsky's strong suit, However, as I understand it, the "Jackass" series of movies requires a new host…

  14. Scott Jacobs says:

    and a bar proceeding.

    Man… Wouldn't that be about the shortest flame-out of a career ever…

    However, as I understand it, the “Jackass” series of movies requires a new host…

    Cast-member. DUnn was just cast. Knoxville is the "host" (as much as they have one).

  15. Amiable Dorsai says:

    Cast-member. DUnn was just cast. Knoxville is the “host” (as much as they have one)."

    Ah, perfect, I was concerned that he might not be smart enough to be a host.

  16. SPQR says:

    Its more than a little hilarious that in an opposition to a pro hac vice admission motion, Rakofsky reveals in such excruciating detail just how incompetent he is.

  17. Mike says:

    “mentally unbalanced and currently unmedicated.”

    I've just finished updating our office copies of Black's.

  18. mojo says:

    Excuse me, he sued the internet?

    WTF, over?

  19. Scott Jacobs says:

    Well, not the ENTIRE internet…

    Just those portions of the internet that are a) most qualified to judge his ability and competency as a lawyer and b) most able to defend themselves from a lawsuit.

  20. LegalEagleBeagle says:

    There are three types of lawsuits: 1) Those that you can't lose, 2) Those that you can't win, and 3) Those that require advocacy. Yours falls into the first category.

    Rakofsky and his attorney and cohort Bourzaye are trapped at the bottom of a legal sand pit, and cannot shovel themselves out. Their case falls into the second category above. Now you guys have Turkewitz, a seasoned litigator who knows New York Practice, and Randazza, an expert on First Amendment issues representing you. Do you really need this overkill? It's the equivalent of having two Iowa Class battleships, each using all 9 of its 16-inch guns broadside, to shell the collapsing sandpit.

    I guess it's more exciting watching 2000 lb. shells explode than watching sand cave in by itself; but to each his own.

  1. June 23, 2011

    […] v. Internet" [Citizen Media Law, Atlantic Wire ("Meet the Lawyer Who Sued the Internet"), Popehat, earlier here and […]

  2. July 15, 2011

    […] Joseph Rakofsky Continues SLAPP Suit, Richard Borzouye Retreats … […]