This guy has such a punchable face.

Sounds like someone dun goofed.

One of the people he's suing is a formerly prominent Farker, as well as the site he currently frequents, the name of which I cannot utter here.

/So, he got a bad trial thingee.

Politics tab?

Richard Borzouye. the attorney for Joseph Rakofsky, is asking to withdraw as his attorney in this matter.

http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2011/06/rakofsky-lawyer-asks- to -quit-suit.html

Good luck, Mentok sympathizes with the tubes.

It seems rather strange that a a lawyer on the defense can cause a mistrial and then claim it as a victory. Especially given the alleged circumstances... how is that not grounds for disbarment?

An ethical lawyer would argue his case the best he possibly could, and pursue every technicality in the book to bolster his client's case, but it seems that sometimes lawyers confuse "representing the client" or "legal expert" with "do anything and everything possible to win".

Sometimes you have guilty clients that you represent to the best of your ability... but you have to let it go. Sometimes they hang themselves regardless of what you try.

Wow.

On his facebook profile it says he's worked for Rakofsy Law Firm. I wonder how he got that job.

C'mon, he didn't sue the Internet. He just sued:

8 Web site/blogs
A ton of lawyers
Some of the biggest media companies in the U.S.
And the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

See? Not nearly as audacious.

Isn't witness tampering illegal? I think I've seen enough Law&Order episodes. Why has he not been arrested yet?

gerbilpox: C'mon, he didn't sue the Internet. He just sued:

8 Web site/blogs
A ton of lawyers
Some of the biggest media companies in the U.S.
And the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

See? Not nearly as audacious.

He and Orly Taitz could have the most retardedly non-legal kids together.

Why is this in the politics tab?

I like the Herman Munster bangs

Satanic_Hamster: Why is this in the politics tab?

Because you touch yourself at night

ongbok: This guy has such a punchable face.

This ..... definitely this. I can't imagine anyone hiring this guy and feeling like they're going to get good representation.

WHY IS THIS IN THE POLITICS TAB?

Nobody seems to know.

Why not Sport? Or perhaps VIDEO. Because there is not Video. nor sport. NOR POLITICS.

I wonder which side of the old politicky barometer thingymy wotsit this would have been...

Yeah whatevs

Satanic_Hamster: Why is this in the politics tab?

Pipe down, or Drew will sue you.

Nabb1: GAT_00: Nabb1: Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Oh yeah I totally went to law school with this guy (and so did everyone else who ever went to law school)

Oh, yeah. Unfortunately, they all too often end up on the bench.

Lawyers are rather like cops: it's the 99% that give the 1% a bad name.

That's not fair. Those percentages are more like 98% and 2%.

Are you suggesting that there are about 10 decent, honest, and respectable lawyers at my firm? You should come by and point them out to me. Mostly so I can inform the partners about the infidels.

/just kidding
//We're not evil. We're pathetic, lifeless losers with nothing interesting to talk about, but not evil.

elchip: One of the people he's suing is a formerly prominent Farker, as well as the site he currently frequents, the name of which I cannot utter here.

.

Is that why this is being posted on Fark? I'm not a lawyer, but exactly what needs to be proved for defamation of character?

Also, reading the response of the attorney defendants does make them sound like the type of douche trolls on Fark who would be guilty of defamation.

I mean this seems similar to the mom who convinced the girl to commit suicide through Internet harassment, she had to face the music but these lawyer defendants are essentially saying "fark off, were not responsible for anything that's done on the Internet" as though the Internet was some mystical land of make believe with zero chance of real world consequences.

Let me also add that it also seems the defense: "everybody is doing it (making fun of him) so it's ok" and "it's ok because he deserves it". Weather he actually did deserve it or not, is that really your defense?

I would think that all he would need for his case to be worth hearing is to prove that people use the Internet and newspapers to form purchasing decisions and that the sources of the alleged harassment were credible enough for a lot of people to not want to do business with him because of them.

Civil Discourse: Nabb1: GAT_00: Nabb1: Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Oh yeah I totally went to law school with this guy (and so did everyone else who ever went to law school)

Oh, yeah. Unfortunately, they all too often end up on the bench.

Lawyers are rather like cops: it's the 99% that give the 1% a bad name.

That's not fair. Those percentages are more like 98% and 2%.

Are you suggesting that there are about 10 decent, honest, and respectable lawyers at my firm? You should come by and point them out to me. Mostly so I can inform the partners about the infidels.

/just kidding
//We're not evil. We're pathetic, lifeless losers with nothing interesting to talk about, but not evil.

I disagree, good sir! My friend and I last night had a FASCINATING talk about the Dram Shop Act, and that morphed into a question about whether SCOTUS can raise issues sua sponte. How could one fail to be entertained?!

I graduated from the same law school as this guy, and let me tell you... I was NOT happy to read about this. I emailed him through facebook to basically say, "thanks for making us look even more foolish, asshole. If even half of what the article says about you is true, you should be ashamed of yourself."

His reply was full of sarcasm and insults, he denied doing anything wrong in the first place, said the judge didn't think that badly of him, and that his client was happy because he got the mistrial.

I was impressed. It's rare to meet someone with THAT level of hubris.

El Morro: I graduated from the same law school as this guy, and let me tell you... I was NOT happy to read about this. I emailed him through facebook to basically say, "thanks for making us look even more foolish, asshole. If even half of what the article says about you is true, you should be ashamed of yourself."

His reply was full of sarcasm and insults, he denied doing anything wrong in the first place, said the judge didn't think that badly of him, and that his client was happy because he got the mistrial.

I was impressed. It's rare to meet someone with THAT level of hubris.


I think to a certain degree, lawyers are much more critical of their fellow lawyers than people outside of the profession. I've noticed when I read about lawyers and judges doing awful things (some related to their employment; some not); lawyers are usually the first to scream "BURN THE WITCH!" and disassociate from that person. I know I'm like that; our profession is held in such disdain, I want my peers to be as squeaky clean as possible.

Fubini: It seems rather strange that a a lawyer on the defense can cause a mistrial and then claim it as a victory.

That really is the best part: bragging that he got a mistrial, and then sending the Atlantic an angry e-mail that the only reason for a mistrial was because he asked for himself to be removed as counsel because there was a conflict of interest (exactly what is unstated in the article) between himself and his client. Is that really something you would brag about? That you demanded to be removed from a trial which would lead to your client having to be retried.

This guy is a big bucket of failsauce.

Koalaesq: I think to a certain degree, lawyers are much more critical of their fellow lawyers than people outside of the profession. I've noticed when I read about lawyers and judges doing awful things (some related to their employment; some not); lawyers are usually the first to scream "BURN THE WITCH!" and disassociate from that person. I know I'm like that; our profession is held in such disdain, I want my peers to be as squeaky clean as possible.

CSB follows, be forewarned.

At a family get together on Saturday, the discussion turned to OSU's troubles. Apparently, and I did not know this, a lawyer betrayed client confidentiality to tip off Tressel about Prior's tattoo parlor memorabilia trading. The people I talked, non-lawyers, where a little surprised about how strongly I felt the guy should permanently lose his license.

As for this guy, he apparently placed too much faith in his law school education. Law school and passage of the bar does not prepare you to take on complicated cases right out of the gate.

Fubini: An ethical lawyer would

badhatharry: Ric Romero should write an article artical: Talent for studying the law does not always translate into talent for practicing the law. Sometimes smart people are really dumb.

sorry, pet peeve
/Rakofsky

Satanic_Hamster: Why is this in the politics tab?

So that the people who only read the politics tab can have teh lulz too.

elchip: One of the people he's suing is a formerly prominent Farker, as well as the site he currently frequents, the name of which I cannot utter here.

Prominent? LOL.

Sup everyone. Haven't seen this place in awhile. Looks nice. I'll try not to break anything.

Also, if you're interested in the case, you can follow it here:

http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/

Eric Turkewitz is our local New York counsel. He's posting many of the papers on this blog. It's also a good blog if you have any interest in law.

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Oh yeah I totally went to law school with this guy (and so did everyone else who ever went to law school)

If you don't know by the end of the first semester who the class asshole is, it's you.

Lunch Box Hero: Satanic_Hamster: Why is this in the politics tab?

So that the people who only read the politics tab can have teh lulz too.

Have you ever been to the Politics tab? Hive of scum and villainy, I tells ya.

I think we have a case of the Streisand Effect in action here.

Ken at Popehat: You're right, the internet is not some mystical land of make-believe. That's why on the internet -- just like in real life -- you can't successfully sue someone for (1) stating an opinion, (2) making fun of you, (3) reporting true facts, (4) reporting what happened in a court proceeding, or (5) repeating what the Washington Post said about a news event.

Actually, under certain circumstances, you may be liable to suit for repeating what the Washington Post said about a news event, if the Post's reportage is somehow defamatory. Republication of a defamatory statement may itself be defamatory, particularly if the party doing the republishing knew or should have known that the Post's reportage was unsupported by facts. That's a pretty extraordinary set of circumstances, though, and almost certainly not applicable to the present case - in general, your comment is exactly correct.

Posting in a Fark Joseph Rakofsky pony-felching thread.

/me looks around. Hm, looks different since I was here last, May 2, 2007.

Wave at Elchip, Tarrant, Shadow, Impasse.