This week's Rakofsky v. Internet update will be comparatively brief, but it focuses on the first significant procedural development in the case: the initial filings with the Court on behalf of 33 of the 81 currently-named defendants.
As a practical matter, this week begins and ends with Eric Turkewitz.
Eric was already known as a defendant in the case, and as the author of what is likely the single most-read commentary on Joseph Rakofsky's defamation action. This past Tuesday, following the Memorial Day weekend, Eric made it known that he will no longer be merely a defendant. He will also be local counsel in New York for a joint defense to be spearheaded by First Amendment specialist, Marc Randazza:
Two weeks ago I ripped into Joseph Rakofsky, the newbie lawyer who took on a murder defense shortly after being sworn in as an attorney, and who was written about, up, down and sideways regarding his competence, ethics and marketing.
I wrote at the end of my post, “Yeah, I got more,” and I do. I could easily put up 5-6 new posts on the subject with material others have not yet addressed. This case is, after all, right in my blog’s wheelhouse. The combination of local access to information along with strong opinions has the potential for potent blog posts. I’ve also defended a defamation case in the past, where my attitude was no different than here: GSIAH (Latin: vade et caca in pilleum).
But I’ve elected not to write those posts. And this is why. I’m going to be local counsel for 30 of the 81 defendants. Marc Randazza will be petitioning the court for admission pro hac vice and I’ll be the local guy on the scene while he does the heavy lifting.
Today, Eric rounded out the week by dropping the other shoe, posting copies of the initial motion filed through his office on behalf of the 33 defendants that he and Marc Randazza will represent. In addition to the pro hac vice application Eric mentions, the motion includes a request that the Court set a single date for all defendants' responses to the Amended Complaint to be filed, so that the case can move forward on a more coordinated and efficient schedule.
All of the materials posted on Eric's site are worth reading for those who are interested in the case, but two items are of particular note:
First, the Affidavit of Eric Turkewitz [PDF] in support of the motion. That affidavit serves as a one-stop shop for the overall outlines of the case, a sort of Summa Rakofskologica, if you will, and a glimpse of the shapes of things to come. If you read just one document, this is the one to read.
Second, a copy of the court reporter's transcript [PDF] of the proceedings held on April 1, 2011, in U.S. v. Dontrell Deaner, the murder case in which Joseph Rakofsky served for a time as defense counsel. The April 1 hearing is short—only seven pages—and concerned principally with Rakofsky's being relieved as counsel. The transcript includes the remarks of the trial judge that Rakofsky's Amended Complaint characterizes as "statements in open court that slandered RAKOFSKY's knowledge of courtroom procedure." (Rakofsky v. Washington Post, et al., Amended Complaint, para. 117.) Those remarks are central to the Washington Post report that started it all. You are now free to read and judge them for yourself.
As I have noted before, I am a defendant in the Rakofsky case, because of my having written this post; I commented on my involvement in the action here. As the materials posted by Eric confirm, I am also part of the Group of 33 defendants that he and Marc Randazza will represent. I am proud to stand with that Band of Blawgers as a co-defendant, and to have teh benefit of such able defenders.
To the extent that I may have any non-public information concerning the case, I have generally not been sharing it in these update posts. At this point, I make a minor exception to that policy.
Marc Randazza has authorized his clients in this matter to quote him as saying:
~~~
Illustration: Attack on the walls of a beseiged town, from Charles Knight's "Old England: A Pictorial Museum" (1845), via Wikimedia Commons.
Comments