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
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.
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"?
Definition of VEXATIOUS
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.
WHAT a Bunch of Shit this Is...in my Opinion aKa "Legal Commentary".
"Rakofsky disregarded the Court’s merciful warning and the increasingly evident faults in this case; sanctions are therefore appropriate. "
"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)."