"I. Introduction
Rakofsky’s vexatious conduct has caused this case to consume more than one year to
even reach a hearing on the defendants’ dispositive motions. At the hearing, the Court
mercifully advised Rakofsky to abandon his course (Exh A at 91:14-20). Defiant, Rakofsky
refused to do so – but not without personally advising the Court why it was wrong, and he was
right (Exh B). This wasteful conduct has gone too far, and must be sanctioned lest it continue,
and other parties, similarly desiring to abuse the legal system, observe this case and determine that virtually no misconduct will result in sanctions.
II. Statement of Facts
In May 2011, Rakofsky filed a lengthy defamation complaint against more than 70
defendants. Days later, Rakofsky filed his first amended complaint, increasing the number of
claims, and bringing the tally of defendants to 81. Rakofsky opposed the defendants’
perfunctory motion for their attorney’s pro hac vice admission, turning a routine motion into a
lengthy endeavor. Rakofsky’s antics responding to that motion delayed the case for months.
After the Court admitted Mr. Randazza pro hac vice, Rakofsky immediately sought to
stay the proceedings.
While the original stay was only to last until December 2011, it ultimately lasted through March of 2012. Despite requesting the stay, Rakofsky then repeatedly tried to file motions in violation of it: First in November 2011 – which Rakofsky ultimately withdrew – and then again in December 2011, which the Court denied as “incomprehensible” (Exh C). In response, Rakofsky applied for emergency relief to the Appellate Division for the First Department. The Appellate Division also summarily denied Rakofsky’s request for emergency relief. Rakofsky v. Wash. Post Co., et al., Case No. M-162 2012 NY Slip Op 64858(U) (1st Dept. Feb. 21, 2012) (denying plaintiffs’ motion for emergency relief).
Rakofsky attempted those filings despite the fact that his lawyer had quit almost immediately after suit was started, and the corporate plaintiff therefore had no attorney. A corporation cannot proceed pro se. CPLR 321(a).
Finally, back at the trial court, Rakofsky obtained new counsel and was ready to proceed with the litigation. With every filing, though, Rakofsky made it very clear that it was he, and not his new counsel, who was steering the litigation. Every submission Rakofsky made to the Court was signed “written by Joseph Rakofsky,” so as to ensure he would take credit – or responsibility – for it. Nevertheless, his counsel continued to maintain responsibility for the case.
Among 3 these submissions, Rakofsky opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss by misrepresenting the state of the law to this Court, and moved to file a second amended complaint full of previously rejected theories of liability including negligence, injurious falsehood, and a made-up tort
of “internet mobbing.”"
Source of Quote Above
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2013-01-02-Memo%20in%20support%20of%20defendants'%20motion%20for%20sanctions.pdf
Funny, THEY are GUILTY of Internet Mobbing, but yet CALL my BLOGS, "Spam" and have them removed from Wordpress and Google. Oh and SUE me for the Rest, but somehow get a Preliminary Injunction and remove, steal, delete before I even have a chance to defend myself, and BEFORE First Amendment Adjudication.
You Know Who is Really Guilty of "vexatious conduct" ?
the Hypocritical Plaintiff of District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, a Nevada SLAPP Case that is in
EXTREME Violation of the First Amendment Rights of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox and iViewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein.
This Evil Man claiming that Joseph Rakofsky is guilty of "vexatious conduct", well he himself, has caused massive Stress in my life and many others. And odd he was to be my attorney, even attempted to negotiate a BAD DEAL for me, and yet this above the law Evil Doer has the nerve to say that
Joseph Rakofsky is guilty of "vexatious conduct"? Are you KIDDING. the KING of "vexatious conduct" claiming that Joseph Rakofsky "vexatious conduct"?
Vexatious "
1
a : causing vexation : distressing <vexatious delays>
b : intended to harass <a vexatious lawsuit>
2
: full of disorder or stress : troubled <a vexatious period in her life>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vexatious
Yep Should Call his Law Firm Vexatious Law Firm, where RULES the King of "vexatious conduct", aKa Puppet Master Plaintiff.
" This wasteful conduct has gone too far, and must be sanctioned lest it continue, and other parties, similarly desiring to abuse the legal system, observe this case and determine that virtually no misconduct will result in sanctions. "
Says Dipshit Attorney Quoted Above, and WOW, he has wasted MASSIVE money / and the Courts Time in the Nevada Courts Suing me, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, even though this same Gang of Thugs accused of Internet Mobbing in Rakofsky V. the INTERNET have done the same thing to Me, and others for personal and financial gain.
"Rakofsky opposed the defendants’ perfunctory motion for their attorney’s pro hac vice admission" You bet he did, WOW, all those Defendants and FORGOT to add the Kingpin to the Original Complaint, or maybe Joseph Rakofsky did not know who the PUPPET MASTER was, well I guess he sure does NOT.
Non-Attorney, Unhinged Blogger Crystal Cox, SURE recommends a "Face Saving Exit" for the ALLEGED Fucktards of District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
"Rakofsky rejected all opportunities to escape from this reckless course of action unscathed"
You Know WHO Else Did that? Hmm... Bet Ya Can't Guess.
Love the Bottom of PAGE 3. Hypocritical Gold Medal Should be Given to this ALLEGED Fucktard for this One.
"1. SLAPP is a common acronym for “strategic litigation against public participation.” SLAPP suits are retaliatory lawsuits brought to harass, intimidate, and burden defendants engaged in First Amendment-protected expression that the plaintiff dislikes."
As if this ALLEGED Jackass IDIOT knows what a real SLAPP "retaliatory lawsuit" is. What a Hypocritical, vexatious, cruel, EVIL, unethical, unconstitutional BUNCH Of BULL that is. Have you Seen the Massive SLAPP Down of Investigative Blogger Crystal COX by this Same Asshole in District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL ? WoW, Guess they KNOW the LAW and the Constitution ONLY applies to who they Say it DOES.
Some More Crap for ya To Digest
"Defendants have shown restraint – waiting nearly six months for Rakofsky to come to his senses. He has not. Sanctions are appropriate."
Yes, IN MY OPINION, as .. well, JUST ME, I Say that the Attorney who WROTE this TRASH talkin' lies, along with Eric Turkewitz and a few more ALLEGED Co-Conspirators, are the ones who SHOULD be Sanctioned. And "Restraint" my Ass..
WHAT a Bunch of Shit this Is...in my Opinion aKa "Legal Commentary".
"Rakofsky’s conduct has been vexatious, frivolous, and improper at every step. "
LOVE that Assnine Hypocritical Comment from a TRUE vexatious LAWYER, who has frivolously SUED Crystal Cox, an investigative Blogger Reporting on him, who was a CLIENT for a few Short Days, and against Eliot Bernstein who Invented a 13 Trillion Dollar Video Technology that this Lawyers client Liberty Media Holdings and others, have been knowingly infringing on for over a decade. (iViewit Technology). Talk about improper and flat out LIES at every step, take a look at District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL.
"To the extent Rakofsky’s defamation claims rest upon his lack of competence, he has time and time again raised serious questions about his basic legal skills, and validated defendants’ published criticisms of him."
Hey KNOW who Can't Take Criticism and will Flat out DELETE your Blogs, get Unethical Injunctions and redirect servers on massive domain names, and completely violate the constitutional rights of his victims, ALL because he can't Stand to be Criticized in the TOP Ten Of Google Search? Boy he will FIX that, he will get your ASS Deleted..
"Rakofsky disregarded the Court’s merciful warning and the increasingly evident faults in this case; sanctions are therefore appropriate. "
Merciful Warnings, what a Bunch of Mumbo Jumbo. This Attorney NEEDS Sanctions, Disbarred, and Indicted, in my Opinion that I am NOT allowed to HAVE.
"On the merits, Rakofsky’s claims were doomed to fail. New York law requires a defamation plaintiff to allege and prove (1) a false statement of fact; (2) published to a third party without privilege or authorization; (3) with fault amounting to at least negligence, and; (4) that caused special harm or defamation per se, to establish defamation. Dillon v. City of N.Y., 261 A.D.2d 34, 38 (1st Dept. 1999)."
"The defendants’ reporting of the Deaner trial’s proceedings were nearly verbatim reports of the case’s transcripts (Exhs. E and F), and thus protected as a “fair comment” on official proceedings under New York Civil Rights Law § 74. Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 480 N.E.2d 349, 353-54 (N.Y. 1985). Still other defenses preclude Rakofsky from prevailing on his defamation claims. The non-factual statements by the defendants were opinions, and incapable of forming the basis of defamation. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40 (1974)."
He you know who Defamed Me, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox with Actual Malice? Well David S. Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney as well as Kenneth P. White, Tracey Coenen, Eric Turkewitz, Mark Bennet, Bob Garfield NPR, Peter L. Michaelson WIPO Panelist and the whole gang of ALLEGED Co-Conspirators, Counter Defendants of District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL. And they had ACTUAL MALICE.
This Same Lawyer Defamed me, WITH MALICE, so did the ALLEGED Co-Conspirators, Counter Defendants of District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL and yet they are trying to hide behind Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. They KNOW and KNEW exactly what they were intentionally, with malice doing to ME, Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox. THIS Same ATTORNEY, and he is SO Above the LAW, and here Spouting this Hypocritical BULLSHIT. it is WRONG and HE Needs to be Exposed, Indicted, Investigated, says ME, Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, Nevada Free Speech Threat / SLAPP Suit District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL.
More "Legal Commentary" on this Hypocritical Case, from a VICTIMIZED Pro Se Litigant, ME, Coming Soon
