Rakofsky v. Internet (First Motion, Pro Hac Vice) – Bumped and Updated x3

Initial post on June 3rd:  Attached at the bottom are a set of motion papers being served today in Joseph Rakofsky’s suit against 81 defendants (including me) for defamation. I have previously given my thoughts on it, as a defendant, and my defense of vade et caca in pilleum. (Updated 6/20/11 below, Rakofsky’s opposition and our Reply)

But since I am now the attorney of record for 33 out of the 81 defendants, I will no longer be providing much in the way of opinion on this blog (other than what may be in papers being filed).

The motion is to extend the time to answer for all defendants, so that we have unified scheduled for making motions and answering, and to admit Marc Randazza pro hac vice.

Attached are the following:

Moving Papers:




Exhibits to motion include:



Washington Post story of April 1, 2011

Washington Post story of April 9, 2011

“Trick” email


Update 1:  6/20/11 Updated Docs (Opposition and Reply):

Rakofsky Memorandum Of Law In Opposition

Turkewitz Reply Affidavit

Randazza Reply Affidavit

Update 2:  6/30/11 Updated Docs (Sur-Replies and court appearance 6/29/11)




Update 3:  9/21 Update: The motion was heard on oral argument on September 15th and the motion to admit Randazza pro hac vice was granted. An order will follow. The court also granted Rakofsky more time to find new counsel and set down a briefing schedule for motions to dismiss. The schedule is as follows:

Nov 15: Plaintiff to obtain new counsel by this date or the corporate defendant (Rakofsky PC) is dismissed as corporations must have a lawyer. Rakofsky can proceed pro se in his individual capacity.

January 13, 2012: Due date for all pre-answer motions to dismiss or answers;

February 13: Opposition due for all motions to dismiss;

March 13: All Replies due on motions to dismiss

March 14: Return date of the motions

All other activity is stayed by the Court.

Documents: Order (Typed Version Unofficial)


22 Responses Leave a comment

  • thenambypamby 2011.6.3 at 14:10 | Quote

    Good luck and Godspeed!

  • Zachary North 2011.6.3 at 15:10 | Quote

    Good hunting.

  • Lee Keller King 2011.6.5 at 16:34 | Quote

    Nail him!

  • Jonathan 2011.6.7 at 02:11 | Quote

    Wait, Rakofsky claimed that your practice is based in Washington, DC???? How is that… man he must have *both* kinds of myopia!

  • Anonymous 2011.6.9 at 14:32 | Quote

    I have a right to voice my opinion about anything and anybody. If he or the courts don’t like it…too bad for them.

  • Geoffrey 2011.6.9 at 14:38 | Quote

    When he’s already looking up at the sky from the bottom of a deep hole, here’s my advice to Mr. Rakofsky: Quit digging.

  • Josh 2011.6.9 at 15:09 | Quote

    What a jack-wagon. You suck at your job and then decide to sue anyone who comments or writes about your inability to do you job. Get a life.

    P.S. please sue me….I’ll turn right back around and sue you for every penny you have.

  • TouroGrad 2011.6.9 at 15:15 | Quote

    I went to Touro with Rakofsky, none of us are surprised that this is happening.

  • Kleuske 2011.6.9 at 17:54 | Quote

    Ive been reading you blog entries concerning Rakofsky with great pleasure. Might i suggest the defense ‘ite et debattue anatem’, which seems appropriate in this case.



  • Long Time Manufacturing Guy 2011.6.9 at 20:37 | Quote

    Mr. Rakofsky, meet Mr. Darwin.

  • Eddie 2011.6.10 at 08:56 | Quote

    I see the case is assigned to Judge Emily Goodman. [ET edit: Comments about judge deleted].

  • TouroGrad 2011.6.20 at 13:00 | Quote

    As a member of Mr. Rakofsky’s graduating class at Touro, I assure you that he does not represent the average Touro Graduate. My classmates and I are eagerly reading everything we can about Mr. Rakofsky’s mistakes.

    From the people I have spoken with, and my own knowledge of the Plaintiff, I can say with confidence that you will have a long road ahead of you. He will likely appeal every decision of the court, and will try every avenue to make someone believe his ridiculous claims, which he is certainly convinced have merit.

  • Munin 2011.6.20 at 22:56 | Quote

    It appears to me that the litigant in question–Rakofsky, though more colorful names apply in certain corners of the internet–has made a grave mistake.

    One would hope he would have the self-control necessary in order to, if not listen in on privileged discussions (that his legal training ought to have covered?) at least not speak up and declare, in essence, that he was in violation of wiretapping laws.

    I applaud your standing up to him, and I eagerly await the continuing coverage.

  • Jonathan Edelstein 2011.6.21 at 18:33 | Quote

    Wow, opposing a motion to extend time to answer and admit pro hac vice counsel? There’s nothing courts like better than to referee routine procedural matters that any adult attorney would be able to resolve without judicial intervention. Way to get the judge on your side, Rakofsky.

  • Nancy 2011.6.22 at 12:18 | Quote

    Mr. Rakofsky’s Memorandum of Law at least makes it clear why he is not licensed to practice in the state of New York.

  • TouroGrad 2011.6.22 at 15:40 | Quote

    It actually looks like Rakofsky passed the July 2010 New York Bar Exam but hasn’t been admitted… http://abovethelaw.com/2010/11/the-unofficial-new-york-bar-exam-results-accidentally-posted-on-the-web-briefly-today/

Comments are closed.

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.