This is an update on the matter of Rakofsky v. Internet. Your familiarity with the facts will be assumed, but if you need a primer, you can read through the various posts tagged Rakofsky. There are 13 motions to dismiss that are pending. Or you can use the Google.
As previously noted, I am both a defendant and local counsel. Since I am counsel, I won’t add substantive commentary to the filings since I don’t like to use this blog to discuss pending matters.
In November, the American Bar Association moved for sanctions. That motion is currently returnable January 17, 2013. Returnable, in this case, simply means that is the day for final submissions. There won’t be oral argument on that, or any other matter, unless the judge specifically asks for it.
This is the ABA submission and Rakofsky opposition:
ABA-ReplyAffirm-Jones (added 1/16/13)
ABA-ReplyAffirm-Dale (added 1/16/13)
ABA-ReplyMemoOfLaw (added 1/16/13)
Rakofsky letter to court dated 3/13/13 and Matthew Goldsmith transmittal letter to ABA dated 3/14/13 (added 3/21/13)
ABA letter to court responding to Rakofsky, dated 3/20/13 (added 3/21/13)
Our group of 35 defendants, represented by Marc Randazza, just made our own motion, also returnable January 17th. These are the filings so far:
Exhibit A – Transcript of June 28, 2012 hearing on motions to dismiss
Exhibit B – Letter Judge Hagler July 1 – Rakofsky letter explaining why negligence claim was not duplicative of defamation claim
Exhibit C January 3, 2012 order, denying plaintiffs’ motion as “incomprehensible”
Exhibit D Marc Randazza’s June 17, 2011 reply affidavit in support of his motion for pro hac vice admission and extension of time
Exhibit E The April 1, 2011 transcript in United States v. Deaner, Criminal Action No. 2008-CF1-30325 (D.C. Superior Ct.)
Exhibit F The March 31, 2011 transcript in United States v. Deaner, Criminal Action No. 2008-CF1-30325 (D.C. Superior Ct.)
Exhibit G Joseph Rakofsky’s March 31, 2011 Facebook status update, which reads “1st-Degree Murder…MISTRIAL!”
Exhibit H Redacted copy of October 6, 2010 e-mail to an investigator in the Deaner case, wherein Rakofsky uses the word “trick” (commonly referenced as the “trick e-mail”)
Exhibit I Rakofsky’s June 9, 2011 e-mail to Michael Doudna, submitted as an exhibit to Doudna’s motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions
Exhibit J Rakofsky web ads from Connecticut, Washington DC and New Jersey
Exhibit K – Summons and complaint; amended summons and amended complaint
March 6, 2013 Update– new filings this week
Turkewitz Reply/Opposition Affidavit
Exhibit P – Turkewitz Sur-Reply Affidavit on motion to admit Randazza pro hac vice.
Randazza Reply/Opposition Memo of Law
Minutes of April 8th Oral Argument, (added 4/22/13)
Decision and Order (April 29, 2013) (Motions to dismiss granted; motion for sanctions denied)
Any chance of posting the other exhibits? I think in all fairness the Rakofsky Letter should be posted, at a minimum.
Any chance of posting the other exhibits?
Done.
Awesome. Thanks.
I was a bit shocked to see on p64 of the transcript that none of the applicable Ethics Committees have contacted Mr. Rakofsky.
I think Scott Turow is busy right now, and I need to start in on remodeling my kitchen, but I can start on the screenplay when I get around to it later on.
Here is a list of possible talent. I leave the role for which each might vie to your imagination.
Jim Carrey, Joe Pesci, Wilford Brimley, Will Ferrel, Hugh Jackman, Jack Nicholson, Johnny Knoxville. There aren’t many females from the “based on a true story” angle, so we’ll have to make up a few roles in order to attract Cate Blanchett, Scarlett Johnansson and Sigourney Weaver to the cast. It’s always nice to have attractive female actors on set.
Gene Hackman has retired, alas. So be it.
Here is a list of possible talent. I leave the role for which each might vie to your imagination.
Too late…I apparently didn’t make trailer 1, but at least in trailer 2 I’ve got Clooney playing me…
Trailer 1:
http://vimeo.com/23942035
Trailer 2:
http://vimeo.com/24007367
Day late and a dollar short again!
Well, I’ll have to settle for the sequel. If I can’t get Clooney, would you settle for Jeff Goldblum?
Has Rakofsky answered your sanctions motion?
@Elliot – Looks like an extension has been granted:
Last Appearance:
Appearance Date: 01/17/2013 — Information updated
Appearance Time:
On For: Motion
Appearance Outcome: Adjourned
Justice: HAGLER, SHLOMO S.
Part: SUBMISSIONS PART
Comments:
Future Appearances:
Appearance Date: 02/07/2013 — Information updated
Appearance Time:
On For: Motion
Appearance Outcome:
Justice: HAGLER, SHLOMO S.
Part: SUBMISSIONS PART
Comments:
It looks like we have some activity. http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASJcaptcha?forward_url=/webcivil/FCASSearch%3FtxtIndex%3D105573/2011%26cboCounty%3D30%26from%3DY
A hearing is set:
02/25/2013
Motion
HAGLER, SHLOMO S.
IAS MOTION 17 @ 2:15
I must say, though, that it would take considerable effort to create a less usable and understandable system than WebCivil Supreme.