Rakofsky v Internet

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COTINTY OF NEW YO JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, and

RAKOFSKY LAW FIRM, P.C., Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT AND FOR DEMAND JURY TRIAL Civil Action

-against-

TIIE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY KEITH L. ALEXANDER

JENNIFER JENKINS CREATTVE LOAFING MEDIA WASHINGTON CITY PAPER REND SMITH BREAKING MEDIA, LLC ABOVETHELAW.COM ELIE MYSTAL AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ABAJOURNAL.COM DEBRA CASSENS WEISS SARAH RANDAG MYSHINGLE.COM CAROLYN ELEFANT SIMPLE ruSTICE NY, LLC BLOG.SIMPLEruSTICE.US SCOTT H. GREENFIELD LAV/ OFFICE OF ERIC L. MAYER ERIC L. MAYER, individuallY HOOLAHAN GAMSO, HELMICK JEFF GAMSO, individuallY CRIMEANDFEDERALI SM. OM ..JOHN DOE #1" ORLANDO-ACCIDENTLAWYER. COM ..JOHN DOE#z"

LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHALL FARAJI A. ROSENTHAL, individuallY BENNETT AND BENNETT MARK BENNETT, individuallY

IndexNo.:

I05573lll

SEDDIQ LAW MIRzuAM SEDDIQ, individuallY THE MARTHA SPERRY DAILY ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES MARTHA SPERRY, individuallY ALLBRTTTON COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY TBD.COM GSP OT' COM RESTORINGDIGNITYTOTHELAW.BLO "[email protected]" ADRIAN K. BEAN HESLEP ASSOCIATES KOEHLER LAW JAMISON KOEHLER, individuallY THE TURKEWTTZ LAW FIRM ERIC TURKEWLT Z, individuallY THE BEASLEY FIRM,LLC MAXWELL S. KENNERLY LLP STEINBERG MORTON HOPE ISRAEL, ANTONIN I. PRIBETIC

PALMIERI LAW LORI D. PALMIERI, individuallY TANNEBAUM WEISS, PL BRIAN TANNEBAUM, indiv duallY WALLACE, BROWN SCHV/ARTZ GEORGE M. WALLACE, individuallY DAVID C. WELLS, P.C' and DAVID C. WELLS individuallY ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY-AT-LAV/ ROB MCKINNEY, indiv iduallY THOMSON REUTERS DAN SLATER BANNED VENTURES, LLC

BANNINATION.COM "1ARRr\NT84" OF LA$/ LINIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS SCHOOL DEBORAH K. }IACKERSON LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. DOUDNA MICHAEL T. DOUDN A, individuallY MACE J. YAMPOLSKY ASSOCIATES MACE J. YAMPOLSKY, individuallY THE LAW OFFICE OF JEANNE O'HALLERAN,LLC JEANNE O'HALLERAN individuallY SCHILLER, P.A. REITER LEAH K. WEAVER Defendants.

the defendant, by their attorney' The plaintiffs above named, complaining of alleges: RICIIARD D. BORZOUYE, ESQ', respecttully

1.

ptàintirr JosEPH RAKOFSKY (hereinafter referred to

,,RAKOX'SKY") was, at all relevant times, and is State

as

resident of the county of New York'

ofNew York.

2.

plaintiff RAKOFSKY LAw FIRM, P.c. (hereinafter referred to

,,RLF,,) was, at all relevant times, and is

as

corporation having its principal place of

business in the State of New Jersey'

3.uponinformationandbelietatallrelevantrelevanttimes'defendantTHE referred V/ASHINGTON POST COMPANY (hereinafter

posT,,) was and is

to as "WASHINGTON

in the District of corporation having its principal place of business

Columbia.

4.

defendant KEITH L' upon information and beliet at all relevant times'

was and is an employee or ALEXANDER (hereinafter referred to as "ALEXANDER") agent of

WASHINGTON POST'

5.

defendant JENNIFER upon information and belief, at all relevant times,

was and is an employee o1 agent of JENKINS (hereinafter referred to as "JENKINS")

WASIIINGTON POST.

6.

defendant CREATIVE upon information and belief, at all relevant times,

was and is LOAFING MEDIA (hereinafter referred to as "CREATM")

corporation

of Florida' having its principal place of business in the State

7.

Upon information and belief,

at all

relevant times, defendant

WASHINGTONCITYPAPER(hereinafterreferredtoas..CITYPAPER'')wasandisa

corporation owned or controlled by CREATIVE having its principal place of business in the District of Columbia.

8.


at all relevant times, defendant REND

SMITH (hereinafter referred to as "SMITH") was and is an employee or agenl of CITY PAPER.

g.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant BREAKING

MEDIA, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "MEDIA") was and is

limited liability

company having its principal place of business in the State of New York.

10. Upon

information and belief,

ABOVETHELAW.COM (hereinafter referred

at all


to as "ATL") is an unincorporated

association owned or controlled by the MEDIA.

11.


MYSTAL (hereinafter referred to

as

at all relevant

times, defendant ELIE

"MYSTAL") was and is an employee or agent of

MEDIA and ATL.

12.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant AMERICAN

BAR ASSOCIATION (hereinafter referred to as "ABA") was and is

corporation and

trade association having its principal place of business in the State of Illinois.

13. Upon

information and belief, aL

all


ABAJOURNAL.COM (hereinafter referred to as "ABA JOURNAL") was and is an unincorporated website owned or controlled by the ABA.

14.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant DEBRA

CASSENS WEISS (hereinafter referred to as "WEISS") was and is an employee or agent of ABA and ABA JOURNAL.

15.

Upon information and betiet at all relevant times, defendant SARAH

RANDAG (hereinafter referred to as "RANDAG") was and is an employee or agent of

ABA

and

ABA JOUR|IAL.

16. Upon

information and belief

MYSHINGLE.COM (hereinafter referred

at all


to as "SHINGLE") was and is

aft

unincorporated association owned or controlled by CAROLYN ELEFANT having its principal place of business in the District of Columbia.

17.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant CAROLYN

ELEFANT (hereinafter referred to as "ELEFANT") was and is an owner, employee or agent of

SHINGLE.

18.

Upon information and belief, at aIl relevant times, defendant SIMPLE

JUSTICE NY, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "SIMPLE") was and is

limited liability

company owned or controlled by SCOTT H. GREENFIELD having its principal place of business in the State of New York.

lg. Upon


at all


BLOG.SIMPLEruSTICE.US (hereinafter referred to as "BLOG SIMPLE") was and is an unincorporated association owned and controlled by SCOTT H. GREENFIELD.

20.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant SCOTT H.

GREENFIELD (hereinafter referred

to as "GREENtr'IELD") was and is an

owner,

employee or agent of SIMPLE and BLOG SIMPLE.

21.


at all relevant

times, defendant LAV/

OFFICE OF ERIC L. MAYER (hereinafter referred to as "MAYER LAW") was and is

sole proprietorship, which owned

or controlled

website "MilitaryUnderdog.com"

having its principal place of business in the State of Kansas.

22.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant ERIC L.

MAYER (hereinafter referred to as "MAYER") was and is an owner, employee or agent of MAYER LAW.

23. IIELMICK

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant GAMSO, HOOLAHAN (hereinafter referred to as "GHH") was and is partnership

which owned or controlled

website "Gamso-for the Defense.Blogspot.com" having its

principal place of business in the State of Ohio.

24.

Upon information and belief

at all relevant times, defendant

JEFF

GAMSO (hereinafter referred to as "GAMSO") was and is an owner, employee or agent of GHH.

25. Upon


at all


CRIMEANDFEDERALISM.COM (hereinafter refened to as "C&F") was and is an gnincorporated association owned or controlled by JOHN DOE #1, the principal place of business of which

26.

not known to plaintiffs.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant JOHN DOE

#1 (hereinafter referred to as "JOHN DOE #1") was and is an owner, employee or agent

of

F.

27.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant ORLANDO-

ACCIDENTLAWYER.COM (hereinafter referred to as "ACCIDENT LAWYER") an unincorporated association owned or controlled by JOHN DOE #2 having its principal place of business in Florida.

2S.Uponinformationandbelief,atallrelevanttimes,defendant,EL

or agent of was and is an owner' employee #2") DOE "JOIIN as to (hereinafter referred

..ACCIDENT LAWYER."

29.Uponinformationandbelief,ata||relevanttimes,defendantLAw ..FARAJI LAW') (hErEiNAftEr rEfErrEd tO AS

OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHALL

was and is

an unincorporated association owned

or

controlled

by FARAJI A'

place of business in the state of virginia' ROSENTHAL having its principal

30.Uponinformationandbelief,atallrelevanttimes,defendantFARAJIA. o\^/ner' employee or as "FARAJI") was and is an to referred (hereinafter ROSENTIIAL agent of

FARAJI LAW'

3l.Uponinformationandbelief,atallrelevanttimes,defendantBENNETT BENNETT") was and is as "BENNETT to referred (hereinafter AND BENNETT ..BennettAndBennett.com," having its principal website maintained which partnership place of business in the State of Texas'

32.Uponinformationandbelief,ata||relevanttimes,defendantMARK BENNETT(hereinafterreferredtoas..MARKBEI\NETT,,)wasandisapartneror princiPal in BENNETT

BENNETT'

33.Uponinformationandbelief,atallrelevanttimes,defendantSEDDIQ LAW (hereinafter referred to as

.,sEn LAW") was and is

sole proprietorship owned or

in the State of having its principal place of business SEDDIQ MIRRIAM by controlled Virginia.

34.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant MIRRIAM

SEDDIQ (hereinafter referred to as "SEI)DIQ") was and is an employee or agent of SED

LAW.

35.


at alI relevant times,

defendant THE

MARTHA SPERRY DAILY (hereinafter referred to as "TIIE DAILY") was and is sole proprietorship owned or controlled by

MARTIIA SPERRY having its principal

place of business in the State of Massachusetts.

36. Upon


at all

times,

defendant

ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES (hereinafter referred to as "AI)VANTAGE") was and is sole proprietorship owned or controlled by MARTHA SPERRY having its principal place of business in the State of Massachusetts.

37.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant MARTHA

SPERRY (hereinafter referred to as "SPERRY") was and is

38. Upon information and belief, af all

resident of Massachusetts.


ALLBzuTTON COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY (hereinafter referred "ALLBRITTON") was and is

to

as

corporation doing business as "TBD.COM" having its

principal place of business in the State of Virginia.

39.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant TBD.COM

(hereinafter referred to as "TBI).COM") was and is an unincorporated website owned or

controlled by ALLBRITTON having its principal place of business in the State of Virginia.

40. Upon


at all

RESTORINGDIGNITYTOTHELAW.BLOGSPOT.COM

relevant times, defendant (hereinafter referred

to

as

,.RI)TTL,,) was and is an unincorporated association owned or controlled by

persons

unknown.

4I. Upon information and belief, at all


and is an association [email protected] (hereinafter referred to as "J-I)OG") was owned or controlled by persons presently unknown'

42.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant HESLEP

is ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as "HESLEP") was and unincorporated association having

partnership or other

its principal place of business in the District of

Columbia.

43.

ADRIAN K' Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant

BEAN (hereinafter referred to as "BEA|[") was and is

principle, agent or an employee

or agent of HESLEP.

44.

KOEHLER Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant

LAW (hereinafter referred to

as

"KOEHLER LAW") was and is

partnership or other

principal place of business in unincorporated association or sole proprietorship having its the District of Columbia.

45.

JAMISON Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant

is the owner' partner or KOEHLER (hereinafter refered to as "KOEIILER") was and other person having control of KOEHLER

46.

LAW'

Upon information and belief, at al| relevant times, defendant THE

TURKEWITZLAW FIRM (hereinafter referred to other unincorporated association or business in the District of Columbia'

as

"TLF") was and is partnership or

sole proprietorship having its principal place of

47.


TURKEWITZ (hereinafter referred to or other porson having control

48.

as

at aIl relevant

times, defendant ERIC

"TURKEWITZ") was and is the owner, partner

TLF.


at aII relevant times,

defendant THE

BEASLEY FIRM, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "BEASLEY X'IRM") was and is

limited liability company having its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

49.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant MAXWELL

S. KENNERLY (hereinafter referred to as "KENNERLY") was and is an employee or agent of

BEASLEY X'IRM.

50.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant STEINBERG

MORTON HOPE

&, ISRAEL, LLP

(hereinafter referred

to as "STEII\BERG

MORTON") was and is apartnership having its principal place of business in Canada.

51.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant ANTONIN

I'

PRIBETIC (hereinafter referred to as "PRIBETIC") was and is an employee or agent of STEINBERG MORTON.

52.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant PALMIERI

LAV/ (hereinafter referred to as "PALMIERI LAW") was and is

partnership,

unincorporated association or sole proprietorship having its principal place of business in the State of Florida.

53.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant LORI D.

pALMIERI (hereinafter referred to

as

"PALMIERI") was and is an employee or agent

or the owner, partner, or other pefson having control of

10

PALMIERI LAW.

54. Upon


at all


TANNEBAITM WEISS, PL (hereinafter referred to as "TA|INEBAUM WEISS") was and is

professional corporation, partnership or other unincorporated association having

its principal place of business in the State of Florida.

55.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant BRIAN L.

TANNEBAUM (hereinafter referred to as "TAIINEBAUM") was and is the owner' partner or other pefson having control of TANNEBAUM WEISS.

56. BROWN

is

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant WALLACE,

SCHWARTZ (hercinafter referred to as "'WALLACE BROW\") was and

partnership, unincorporated association, or sole proprietorship having its principal

place of business in the State of Florida.

57.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant GEORGE

M. WALLACE (hereinafter referred to as "WALLACE") was and is the owner, partner or other person having control of WALLACE BROWII'

58.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant DAVID C.

WELLS, P.C. (hereinafter referred to as "WELLS P.C.") was and is

corporation

having its principal place of business in the State of Florida'

59.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant DAVID C.

WELLS (hereinafter referred to as "WELLS") was and is the owner or other person having control of

60.

P.C.


at alI relevant times, defendant

ROB

MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW (hereinafter referred to as "MCKINNEY LAW")

11

was and is a sole proprietorship or partnership or other unincorporated association having its principal place of business in the State of Florida.

61.

information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant ROB

MCKINNEY (hereinafter referred to as "MCKINNEY") was and is the owner, partnet or other person having control of MCKINNEY LAW.

62.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant THOMSON

REUTERS (hereinafter refened corporation having its

63.

to as

REUTERS") was and

is

place of business in the State of New York.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant DAN

SLATER (hereinafter referred to as "SLATER") was and is the owner, partner or other personhaving control of THOMSON REUTERS.

64.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant BANNED

VENTURES, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "BANNED VENTURES") was and is corporation having its principal place of business in the State of Colorado.

65.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant

BANNINATION.COM (hereinafter referred to as "BANNI") was and is an association owned or controlled by BANNED VENTURES.

66.


.,TARRANT84" (hereinafter referred to as "TARRANT 84") was and is the owner' partner or other person having control of BAIINI.

67.

Upon information and beliet at all relevant times, defendant

UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS SCHOOL OF LA\M (hereinafter refened to as "ST.

t2

THOMAS") was and is corporation having its principal place of business in the State of Minnesota.

68.


DEBORAH K. TIACKERSON (hereinafter referred to as "IIÄCKERSON") was and is the owner, partner or other person having control of ST. THOMAS.

69.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant LAW

OFFICES OF MICIIAEL T. DOUDNA (hereinafter referred to as "MICHAEL T.

DOUDNA LAW") was and is corporation having its principal place of business in the State of California.

70.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times mentioned herein,

defendant MICFIAEL T. DOUDNA (hereinafter referred to as "DOUDNA") was and is the owner, partner or other person having control of

7I.

MICHAEL T. DOUDNA LAW.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant MACE

J.

YAMPOLSKY &, ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as "YAMPOLSKY ASSOCIATES") was and is a corporation having its principal place of business in the State ofNevada.

72.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times mentioned herein,

defendant MACE J. YAMPOLSKY (hereinafter referred to as "YAMPOLSKY") was

and is the owner, partner or other person having control of YAMPOLSKY ASSOCIATES.

73.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant THE LAW

OFFICE OF JEANNE O'HALLERAN, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "O'HALLERAN

13

LAW") \¡/as and is

State corporation having its principal place of business in the

of

Georgia.

74.

JEANNE Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant

was and is the O,HALLERAN (hereinafter referred to as "O'HALLERAN") partner or other person having control of

75.

o\ryn'er'

O'IIALLERAN LAW'

REITER Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant

SCHILLER, P.A. (hereinafter referred to as "REITER

scHILLER',) was and is

the State of Minnesota' corporation having its principal place of business in

76.

LEAH K' Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, defendant

and is an agent, owner or partner WEAVER (hereinafter referred to as "WEAVER") was

of REITER

77.

SCHILLER.

Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs

through 76

forth at length herein' hereof with the same force and effect as though set

78.

RAKOFSI(Y is

2009 graduate

of Touro Law center

having been

awarded the degree of Doctor of Law (J'D')'

79.

by the State RAKOX'SKY was admitted to practice as an Attorney-at-Law

Jersey and is New Jersey by the supreme court of the state of New

member of the

Bar ofNew JerseY in good standing'

80.

RAKOFSKY is

style of RLF,

engaged

in the practice of law under the name' title and

existing professional service corporation validly organized and duly

t4

of New Jersey' of which under the Professional Service Corporation Act of the State RAKOFSI(Y is the sole shareholder'

81.

On or about May 3,

2}I},RAKOFSI(Y

requested by members of the family

and RLF were approached and

of one Dontrell Deaner (hereinafter referred to

.,the clienf, or "the defendant"), who had been indicted by

grand

as

jury of the District of

the proceedings in the columbia and was then awaitingtria!, to represent the client in against him, which included Superior court of the District of columbia on the charges

said charge was based First Degree Felony Murder while Armed, the felony on which

commit Robbery (while being an alleged attempted robbery, conspiracy, Attempt to armed), Possession of a Firearm during the Commission Carrying

Pistol without

of

Crime of Violence and

License'

82. In or about late May 2010, RAKOFSI(Y

met with the client in the

by the client in District of columbia and RAr(oFSr(y and RLF were retained

said

RAKOFSKY and proceedings, the client having been made aware) prior to retaining

RL

and ', that RAKOFSI(Y had not tried any case, which representation RAKOFSKY

RLF

accepted.

33,Pursuanttoandinthecourseoftheirrepresentationoftheclient, RAKOFSI(Y

and RLX' engaged BEANI, through

IIESLEP, as an investigator who was

hired to perform services on behalf of the client'

84.

RAKOFSI(Y personally met with the client on numerous

during the period following the acceptance

occasions

by RAKOFSKY and RLF of

the

information necessary and useful to representation of the client and obtained from him matters of record with respect to defend against charges leveled against him and reviewed those charges. 15

85

Leibovitz,

LYnn client were assigned to the Honorable the against proceedings The of columbia (hereinafter referred District the of court superior of the

Judge

to as "Judge Leibovitz")'

S6.BecauseRAKOFSKYwasnotlicensedtopracticelawintheDistrictof

Leibovitz pro hac seek admission from Judge to required was columbia, RAKOF',SKY

vice,thatis,forthesolepufposeofallo vice,thatis,forthesolepufposeofallowinghimtoappea winghimtoappearfortheclientinproc rfortheclientinproceedings eedings in the superior court of the District

For that reason and columbia against the client'

criminal trial in which RAKOFSKV filst the be to was client the because the trial of with Sherl0ck Grigsby, Esq' himself associated wourd be read counsel, RAKOFST(' to ..Grigsby"), of rhe Grigsby Firm, who was admitted (herein after referred to as

had substantial experience representing who and columbia of practice in the District Nevertheless' crimes therein' including homicide' persons accused

of

committing

single document involved researched and drafted evefy Grigsby) not (and RAKOFSI(Y located related to the client's prosecution, litigation of amount in the unusuary extensive video experts' security

ballistic experts, surveillance and convinced medical experts,

expertsandinvestigatorstoagreetoaccepta..voucher,'(toberedeemedbythe or RLF) as payment for their to be paid by RAKOFSKY Govemment, instead of money

with the client and continuously met of behalf on services respective criminal defense lawyers

experienced in

defending homicide cases to

multitude of questions

relatingtolegaltacticsbecauseGrigsbywasusuallyunabletoanswerthem.

ST.RAKOFSI(Ydeterminedfromhis ST.RAKOFSI(Ydeterminedfromhisreviewofthedocum reviewofthedocumentspertainingto entspertainingto received by Assistant united been had information that the charges against the client to whom the referred to as the "AUSA")' (hereinafter Bryant S. states Attorney vinet

had of the charges against the client prosecution the in representation of the Government 16

('c'I''s")

informants been assigned, from four confidential discl0sed to the client or to

RAKOF,SI(' or RLF.

whose identities were not

Access to the

c.I.'s was denied by the

an order from Judge Leibovitz result, RAKOFSI(Y and RLF sought

AUSA and as

of the C'I''s' requiring the disclosure of the identities

SS.AsaresultofnegotiationswiththeAUSA,RAKOFSKYwasgranted access

As to two of the c.I.'s, whom he then interviewed'

result of the interviews'

potential C'I''s to RAKOFSI(Y narrowed down the remaining

c'I'

#2' whose identity

the case and who he' therefore' believed of trial the to prior him to disclosed was not Government' would be an important witness for the

Sg.InadditiontointerviewingtwooftheC.I.'sidentifredtohimandaccessto motions to RAKOFSKY made numerous written AUSA, the by him to given was whom

obtaindisclosureofexhibitsandvideosmadeofthecrimescenebytheDistrictof ColumbiaPolice.

90.

the murder that resulted in the Felony The individual who had committed

Murderchargeagainsttheclierrt,oneJavonWalden,hadbeenallowedbythe degree murder' Govemment to plead guilty to second

lesser charge than the Felony

Javon degree with which the client was charged' flrst the in Murder of Charge Murder

to plead guilty to walden had been allowed by the AUSA

reduced charge of second

in retum' Javon charge of first degree murder' and degree murder, rather than the original (hereinafter the shooting of the victim, Frank Elliot that allocution his in claimed walden

referred to

as

attempted robbery of Elliot' "Elliot") had occurred in the course of an

the reduced statement upon pleading guilty to Javon walden dutifully made the required on at least four prior occasions' Javon

However, charge of Murder in the 2nd Degree.

that no one attempted to rob Elliot' walden had testified as matter of record

t7

gl.AsaresultofhisstudyofthedocumentsrelatedtothehomicideofElliot, the homicide present at the time and place of been had Elliot that RAKOFSKY believed and/or others with whom the client the of robbery commit for an unlawful purpose, to

client had been engaged

in

scene, the cash used in

gamblin

the crime at ablock party in progress at or near

such gambling being substantial

in

amount'

In

addition'

to his aggressor in the incidents leading the been had Elliot that RAKOFSKY believed commonly ingested Phencyclidine' chemical recentþ having his of result homicide as knownas"PCP,"whichcausesuserstobecomeunusuallyaggressive'Inordertoadduce jurors doubt in the minds of reasonable create thereby and PCP proof that Elliot was on witness' william and RLF engaged an expert RAKOF',SKY robbed, been had that Elliot

Manion,M.D.,whowaspreparedandqualifiedtotestiffatthetrialoftheclienttothe

revealed by the whose recent use of PcP was Elliot, upon PcP of effects of the ingestion

the Autopsy Report' Toxicology Report accompanying

92.Approximatelyoneweekbeforethescheduledtrialdate,thecasewas (hereinafter referred to as "Judge Jackson william reassigned to the Honorable Jackson"),

of the District of Columbia' Judge of the Superior Court

93.onMarchzS,2[Il,thedaybeforejuryselectionwouldbegin,theAUSA, Elliot Toxicology Report showing that

use of the anticþating RAKOFSKY',s intended

washighonPCPatthetimeofhisdeath,movedtheCourttosuppress'andthereby PCP' Elliot's havrng recently ingested to reference jury, the the conceal from

in which causes its users to behave

drug

even though very violent and aggressive manner'

it

the Medical Examiner's report to attached Report Toxicology had been stated in the

nearly3yearsearlier.TheAUsAwaiteduntilliterallytheeveoftrialtomakeher

to go in pursuit the Government was prepared which to extent the motion, demonstrating 18

of

conviction of RAKOFSKY's client and that the Government would do anything to

win. Nevertheless, Judge

granted the AUSA's motion and ruled that the

defendant could not introduce evidence that Elliot was under the effects of PCP and denied to RAKOFSI(Y the right to make any mention of PCP or Phencyclidine at the

trial, thereby denying to RAKOFSI(Y the ability to adduce proof that no attempted occurred and instead that Elliot's death was a result of Javon Walden's

robbery

retaliation.

At the

same time, Judge Jackson denied several written motions filed by

RAKOF'SI(Y seeking to offer (a) testimony on the effect of PCP on the actions of Elliot, (b) evidence of Elliot's commission of domestic violence against his wife (which, like the ingestion of PCP, also reflects Elliot's tendency to behave in an aggressive manner) and (c) evidence of events that caused Elliot to need funds immediately prior to the homicide,

which RAKOX'SKY planned and intended to present to the jury on the defense's case' Judge Jackson ru|ed that he would not permit the defense to offer testimony or make any

statements to the

jury (which had not yet been empanelled) conceming Elliot's use of

pCp, Elliot's commission of domestic violence against his wife and of events that caused

Elliot to

funds immediately prior to the homicide. With respect to the AUSA's

motion to suppress evidence of PCP, in general, Judge Jackson based his ruling, first articulated on the eve of trial as a result of the AUSA's motion to suppress evidence of

pCp (that is;

view that neither he nor Judge Leibovitz ever expressed prior to the

AUSA's motion to suppress evidence of PCP) upon his newly-adopted view that Dr' was not qualified to offer an expert opinion on the effects of the ingestion of PCP

by Elliot. In addition to his repeated references to all of the degrees Dr. Manion held in addition to the degree of Doctor of Medicine, Judge Jackson attempted to denigrate Dr.

Manion's qualifications as an expert on the record by pointedly referring to him as "E

given on the record Manion,, (emphasis added). The only specific reason for this ruling

Doctor of by Judge Jackson was the fact that, in addition to holding the degree of Master of Business Medicine, Dr. Manion holds two other degrees, Doctor of Law and Administration (a reason Judge Jackson repeated at least twice). says here that he is Juris Doctor, he is medical doctor, he has Doctor of Philosophy in Anatomy, pathology and and he has residency in

Judge Jackson: The

and

it

anatomicalandclinicalpathology.Itdoesn'tsayanything about PCP here. What are his qualifications of PCP?

Doesn't say anything about degtees of psychopharmacology or pharmacology or any of that'"You ive behavior, You can talk about about but not that he had drugs in his system until you lay predicate for it, all right"

RAKOX'SKy: Your Honor, very respectfully, is there anv set of facts that we could offer th,at would justiff the mentioning of PCP in the oPening?

point... You haven't proffered me sufficient credentials ior anybody to testiff about the effects of PCP

Judge Jackson: Not at this

onanyone.Youhaven't.You'vegivenmeacurriculum

vitae that doesn't mention anything about anybody's basis that he has any degree of pharmacology or anything' You

havethispelsonwhohasamastersinbusiness

administration, okay. who's forensic pathologist or at least had at one time was forensic pathologist. Had residency training back in 1982 and '86. The most recent

hehasalawdegreeanda'mastersinbusiness administration, 2001 ..'

RAKOFSI(Y: Your Honor, he is medical doctor.

He has years and years

and years ofexperience under his belt'

not here talking about medicine. We're here talking aboutthe effects of PCP...

Judge Jackson:

possession of two degrees in Judge Jackson did not elucidate in his ruling the reason the

being qualified to addition to that of Doctor of Medicine disqualified Dr. Manion from

20

offer an opinion on the effects of PCP, nor did he otherwise specify

reason for his

ruling.

94. In addition, on March 28, 2}ll, inflammatory

to the jury

RAKOFSKY moved to exclude

several Government photographs, one

photograph depicting Elliot's face after his eyes were opened by

as

of which being Government agent

who may have also photographed Elliot's body. Out of approximately 20 photographs the Government sought excluded was

95.

to offer into

photo graph of Elliot'

evidence, the only photograph that Judge Jackson blood-soaked shirt.

Following the seating of

jury of t4

persons, the AUSA made her

opening statement, which was followed by RAKOX'SKY's opening statement on behalf

of the

defense,

in the course of presenting which RAKOFSKY was intemrpted

by Judge Jackson, in each or nearly each instance without any audible objection by the AUSA. At one point in his opening statement, without ever mentioning

.,pcp" or "Phencyclidine," RAKOF'SKY made reference to the Toxicology Report that had been submitted as part of the Government's Medical Examiner's report, which prompted Judge Jackson to intemrpt RAKOFSKY and to suggest in

that he (Judge Jackson) considered that to be

reference

sidebar conference

to PCP. (Judge

Jackson

erroneously stated in the sidebar conference with RAKOFSKY that, in ruling on March

that RAKOFSKY should not refer to PCP in his opening statement, he had

similarly so ruled that RAKOF'SI(Y should not refer to the toxicology report in his opening statement; however, an examination of the transcript of March 28,2011 proves that he referred only to references of PCP and not to references to the toxicology report.) Judge Jackson reproached RAKOFSI(Y for being repetitive, although his need to repeat

2t

statements he may have said previously was caused

by Judge Jackson's frequent

intemrptions of his opening statement.

96.

Although Judge Jackson took issue with respect to RAKOFSKY',s

reference to the toxicology report, Judge Jackson acknowledged in open court outside the presence of the

jury, following the conclusion of RAKOFSKY's opening statement, that

the reference to the toxicology report was

"skillful"

on the part of

Further, Judge Jackson stated to RAKOFSKY: "And adhere to the Court's ruling. You slipped adhere to the Court's

97.

RAKOFSKY.

think you, quite honestly, tried to

couple of times, but you've been trying to

rulings..."

Following RAKOFSKY's opening statement, Judge Jackson summoned

the defendant to the bench and conducted an ex parte sidebar conversation with the defendant,

continue

in which

Judge Jackson inquired

of the defendant whether he wished to

to be represented by RAKOFSI(Y as his lead counsel. On

subsequent

occasion on the following day, Judge Jackson repeated the question to the client. On each occasion, the client unequivocally expressed his desire to continue to be represented by

RAKOFSI(Y as his lead counsel.

98.

Following the completion of opening statements, the AUSA commenced

the presentation of witnesses for the Government. The initial witnesses offered by the

AUSA established the chain of custody of evidence and the results of the autopsy performed by the Medical Examiner, who testified that Elliot had been killed by

single

bullet, which entered his body through his back. Such testimony was unexceptional and prompted little or no cross- examination.

gg.

Despite the fact that Judge Jackson had agreed

to exclude only one

Govemment photograph (i.e., aphotograph of Elliot's blood-soaked shirt), Judge Jackson 22

nevertheless allowed the Government to offer into evidence, not merely the blood-soaked shirt, but the

photograph

of

shirt itselt which the AUSA displayed to the jury.

100. On March 31, 2011, following the testimony of the aforementioned witnesses for the Government, the AUSA called Gilberto Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), who was identified as C.I. #2, the only confidential informant not previously disclosed by the

AUSA or otherwise made known to RAKOFSKY. His testimony, both on direct examination

by the AUSA and on

cross-examination

by RAKOFSKY,

suggested

strongly that Rodriguez, who claimed to have witnessed the homicide of Elliot by Javon Walden, did not actually witness the homicide, as he testified that Elliot had been shot in

the chest, contrary to the expert testimony of the Medical Examiner, who had preceded him as

witness, albeit out of Rodriguez's hearing, that Elliot had been shot in the back

by only one bullet.

101. RAKOFSI(Y, on

the course of Rodriguez's testimony, the client few occasions, notes he had made on

passed to

pad that concerned questions

the client fett RAKOFSI(Y should ask of Rodriguez, which RAKOFSKY, as

the

client's counsel, believed were detrimental to the client's defense and interests. Thus,

RAKOFSI(Y was faced with the decision whether to ask the client's questions and thereby continue representing the client or to refuse to ask his client's questions and seek

to withdraw from representation of the client.

102.

determined that the conflict with the client on the issue of

whether to ask the questions that the client had posed to him required him to seek to

withdraw as lead counsel for the client. In arriving at the decision to make such an application, which RAKOFSKY believed would inevitably result in amistrial that would permit the Government to retry his client, RAKOFSKY took into consideration the fact 23

that, as

Judge Jackson and the AUSA that result of the blatant "alliance" between

rulings being in favor of the Government' resulted in virtually all of Judge Jackson's of been gutted and had virttrally no chance RAKOß'SKY's defense of his client had determine to retry the defendant following Government the should However, success.

for the defendant would likely have counsel lead be then would who attomey mistrial, the defendant using the preparation of the

the greaterpossibility of success in defending

defense of the defendant and

identities of the

including the disclosure of the prosecution secrets,

(Gilberto Rodriguez)' the inc.I.'s, the grand jury transcript of c'I' #2

of the the grand jury transcrþs of the testimony court testimony of Gilberto Rodriguez, lead detective, etc. as

of the defendant and result of RAKOFsl(Y's efforts on behalf

(but not yet revealed in open court) and RAKOX'SKY by out laid strategy the defense

would be able to secure the services of

medical expert witness whose qualifications

of the client' as might be assigned to the retrial Judge such to acceptable be would that, taking into consideration the proceedings decide to were Government the assuming

thathadakeadytranspiredinthecaseandtheavailabilitytoRAKOFSKY'SSuccessoraS

leadcounselfortheclientofRAKox.sKY,sdefensestrategy,shouldtheclierrtbe determined to seek to withdraw as lead RAKOFSI(Y Therefore, retrial. to subjected counsel for the client'

103.

interrupted RAKOF,SKY's cross-examination of Rodriguezhadbeen

for lunch' prior to its conclusion by the Court's recessing

l04.DuringtheCourt,srecess,RAKO l04.DuringtheCourt,srecess,RAKOFSI(Yandhisco-c FSI(Yandhisco-counselmetwiththe ounselmetwiththe client.

l05.Followingtheresumptionoftrial,butoutofthepresenceofthejury, for leave to withdraw from the RAKOFSIIY moved orally to Judge Jackson 24

the client's insistence on asking certain fepresentation of the client, on the grounds that RAKOFSKY and the client' questions the client proposed caused conflict between

RAKOFSKY:

for him but if it's going to feel requrÏcannotdothat'.'.Andl'masking this can be reconciled (emphasis Your added).

motion to withdraw as lead Initially, Judge Jackson refused to grant RAKOFSKY's counsel.

IudgeJackson:wdl#:,ïHiy,#:t"lïiHiîJiïiî:;1JTï;,' have to be

what do you mean by bad questions?

and cannot have that' RAKOFSI(Y: Questions that think are going to ruin him and to explain it to him' because Judge Jackson: If you need time to talk to him to explain sometimes it,s very hard in the middle of examination hi_ why it,s biquestion, and if you want time to talk to him go into the back and talk to him' about that, you

"uo be good time RAKOFSI(Y: your Honor, respectfirlly, I think now might me from trying this think it might be;good iíln" ror you to excuse prepared case...I don't belieie there is anybody who could have

forthiscasemorediligentlythanl... forthiscasemorediligentlythanl...inlightofthisveryse inlightofthisveryserious rious barrier, think now might be good opportunity for

jeopardy is attached' Judge Jackson: We're in the middle of trial, and excuse You from this trial'

can't sit here

However,RAKOF.SKYpersistedandwasabletoconvinceJudgeJacksontoagreeto the client to the bench voire dire the client. Judge Jackson, for third time, summoned application of the client whether he was in agreement with RAKOFSKY's and inquired

Judge Jackson to withdraw as his lead counsel. As RAKOF'SI(Y had anticipated' it would client that if he granted RAKOFSKY's request to withdraw' explained to the

result in

from retrying the client' mistrial, which would not prevent the Government

25

his agreement with RAKOFSKY's when asked by Judge Jackson, the client signifred withdrawal Judge Jackson: [T]here

between counsel appea1s to be ?-confl*1t1"t^1"Ì^ï.:*

and the def ndant"'[T]his is (emphasis added)...

ry! an issue of manifest necessity

106.AlthoughJudgeJacksonmigh 106.AlthoughJudgeJacksonmighthavethoughttoap thavethoughttoappointasleadcouns pointasleadcounsel, el, sherlock Grigsby, who was

the defendant co-counsel, he did not even inquire of

whether that was acceptable to the defendant,

whether because RAKOFSKY' speaking

Jackson in in the interest of his client, had intimated to Judge

withdrawal, that the client did not have

his application for

good relationship with Grigsby' or whether

JudgeJacksonconsideredGrigsbyincompetenttodefendtheclient.

l0T.JudgeJacksonstatedonther l0T.JudgeJacksonstatedontherecordthathere ecordthathereserveddecisio serveddecisionon non

the following day' April RAKOFSKY',s motion to withdraw until

l'2011' on which no

proceedings in the case had been scheduled'

l0s.Asidefromtheattorney-clientconflictonwhichRAKoFsl(Ybasedhis that his withdrawal as lead counsel believed RAKOX'SKY Jackson, Judge

application to

's client' but rather would further RAKOFSKY of interest the to would notbe prejudicial client before as Judge Jackson pointed out to the though, even client the of the interests

closingproceedingsonMarch3|,2017'thegrantingofRAKOFSI(Y,sapplication preclude the Government from not would that mistrial of entry would result in the

Judge Jackson were to occur it whether retrial, any on that, in client, retrying the then representing the client would be attorney the Court, the of Judge or before another that RAKOFSKY and RLF had strategy defense entire the of able to avail himself

formulated (but had not yet revealed)' 26

109. court that

On the following day'

RAKOF'T('

had

April

l'

in open 2011' Judge Jackson announced

..asked to withdraw midtrial" as lead counsel, due

to

motion to and Judge Jackson granted the client his and him conflict that existed between

withdraw.JudgeJacksonacknowle withdraw.JudgeJacksonacknowledgedandstated,on dgedandstated,ontherecordrepeate therecordrepeatedlythat dlythat that he be excused' RAKOFSI(Y had himself requested Judge

rackson:

:r"ffi"#¿;itäîåtY","

between he [sic] and lvlr'

r"::ffiil,1Jå:'""*i'ä

kofskY actuallY asked to draw

mid-trial"'"

inquired of the record' that he had personally on acknowledged, Further, Judge Jackson

RAKOFSKY,sclient(outsidethepr RAKOFSKY,sclient(outsidethepresenceofRAKoFs esenceofRAKoFsKY)whetherthere KY)whethertherewas,infact, was,infact,

that there was and that the crient agreed client his and confrict between RAKOF,SKY

indeed

conflict and agreed

to

accept

new attorney following RAKOFSKY's

inquiry of the defendant Jackson's Judge counsel' lead application to withdraw as

providedsufficientcauseforhimtograntRAKoFsKY'smotionandpermit RAKOFSI(Y's withdrawal

as lead counsel'

ll0.AfterstatingthatRAKoFsKY,smotionforwithdrawalasleadcounsel by for the defendant was precipitated

the defendant conflict with the defendant which

uttered several statements confirmed, Judge Jackson next

in open court that

slandered

RAKoFsKY,sknowledgeofcourtroomprocedure.Thestatementsslandered RAKOF.SKYbecausetheywereplainlyirrelevanttothetrialandRAKoFsKY'smotion

towithdrawasleadcounsel,whichRAKOFSKYhadmadeonMarch3l,201I1and grant' only trvo days prior' on to inclined was he stated which Judge Jackson then ..[E]very attorney to RAKOFSKY: stated Jackson Wednesday, March 30,2I:|,Judge 27

just happens. That's makes mistakes during the course of the trial. Every attorney does. It the naflye of trials. Judges make mistakes during the courses of trials. That's the nature

of

trials..." To the extent that Judge Jackson may have been upset by RAKOFSKY's presentation of his clienfs case, as opposed to the benefits that likely would accrue to the defendant as

likelihood

of

consequence of

RAKOFSKY's withdrawal as lead counsel (including the

mistrial) and the appointment of new lead counsel with access

RAKOFSKY'5 work and defense strategy, his anger may have been prompted by the diligence arrd zeal with which RAKOFSKY conducted his defense in the interest of the

client as much as anything else, rather than any shortcoming in RAKOFSKY's knowledge

of court procedure, especially as R{KOFSKY's highly

experienced co-

counsel, Grigsby, never sought to "correct" RAKOFSI(Y during the trial; at no time during the trial was there ever

11.

single disagreement between RAKOFSKY and Grigsby.

Notwithstanding the foregoing facts, Judge Jackson, likely being aware

of the possible presence in the courhoom of

newspaper reporter,

ALEXAIIDER'

so-

called newspaper "reporter" from the WASHINGTON POST, and knowing full well that both news reporters and others would publish his slanderous and

wotds,

Judge Jackson, for reasons that can only be speculated, gratuitously published on the

record the slanderous, defamatory statement that, having acknowledged that RAKOFSKY's motion for withdrawal as lead counsel for the defendant was caused by conflict with the defendant which the defendant confirmed, that he was "astonished" at person charged with murder and at his

RAKOFSKY's willingness to represent

ßAKO¡'SKY's) "not having

good grasp of legal procedures." This statement was,

neither gennane nor relevant to any issue before the Court -- in fact, there were no further proceedings in the defendant's case; nor would 28

it have been germane or relevant had it

for granting RAKOFSKY's motion basis the admitted Jackson been made before Judge to withdraw as lead counsel'

tlz.Inaddition,aftergrantingRAKOFSKY'smotiontowithdrawaslead counsel, Judge JackSon referred

to

(but not formally "motion" that had been submitted

to assist "investigatots" hired by RAKOFSKY the of one BEAN, by day filed) that very incompetence' had previously discharged for him with the case, whom RAKOX'SKY ..voucher,,' which is method ..motion',, BEAN sought to obtain In his

113.

ofcompensationmadeavailablebytheCriminalJusticeActwhichprovidesfundsissued

bytheGovemmentandnotmoneyfro bytheGovemmentandnotmoneyfromRAKOF'SKY.H mRAKOF'SKY.However,notonlyd owever,notonlydidBEAN idBEAN RAKOFSKY, he never evenbegan by him to assigned tasks the fail to complete any of sought to exploit' for the BEAN Instead' whatsoever' him to do any work assigned to pu{poseofreceivingcompensationth pu{poseofreceivingcompensationthatwasnotduehim, atwasnotduehim,anemail,whichha anemail,whichhadbeen dbeen on hastily typed by RAKOFSKY

choice of the mobile device' that used an unforlunate

.,tricK' -- which, as BEAN knew only too well', was word

shorthand word that meant

which that he worked for the defense-fact the underplay should only that Bean and RAKOFSKY conceming BEAN between conversation memorialized an earlier to BEAN to understate the fact suggestion RAKOFSI(Y',s to non-witness, referring only

thathewasemployedbythedefense thathewasemployedbythedefensewhileendeavoring whileendeavoringtogetthenon-witn togetthenon-witnesstory!, esstory!, to couple of months" previously "a admitted already had she what for second time,

in the email) and the the "2 lawyers" referred to (i.e. Grigsby RAKOFSI(Y, statements' conceming the substance of her anything to respect with not mother, and she to get that non-witne ss to change anything nevef was assignment Although BEAf['s mother)' but' rather' to get that client's the and lawyers" had already admitted (to the "2

the crient's admitted (to the "2 lawyers' and already had she repeatwhat non_witnes to 29

mother):she(a)wasnotpreserrtduringtheshootingandtherefore,didnotwitnessthe shooting,(b)wasnotbeingcompensatedwithmoneybytheGovernment(unlikeother

Governmentwitnessesintheclient,scase)toparticþateinitsprosecutionof

at the time of the gambling and premises the (c) was off RAKoFsKy,s client and ..motiort,, (and thereby lied to the Court) that his in shooting. BEA* submitted (emphasis ,,trick witness into changinghertestimony'' to RAKOF,SK' instructed him

added)'Ultimately,aninvestigatorhiredsubsequenttoBEAN,stermination accomplishedtheverysametaskspreviouslyassignedtoBEANquickly,withoutever

beingrequiredtoengageintrickery;d beingrequiredtoengageintrickery;despiteBEAN,sdu espiteBEAN,sduplicitousandpaten plicitousandpatentlyfalse tlyfalse merely non-witness affrrm that the will who individuals afe now allegations,

repeatedstatements(tothesubsequentinvestigator)thatshehadalreadyadmitted..a

2) ..2 lawyers,, artdthe client,s mother: 1) non-witness' to the couple of months,, earlier

subsequentinvestigator,3)client,smother,4)Grigsbyand5)RAKOF.SKY.

tl4.Haditbeensubmittedandultimatelyfrledbyafaithfulproviderof services,theonlyappropriatefunctionofBEAN,s..motion,,wouldbetoobtaina .,voucher,"paidfromfundsadvancedu .,voucher,"paidfromfundsadvancedundertheCriminalJ ndertheCriminalJusticeAct'which usticeAct'whichwouldnot wouldnot in the case but for the services of provider BEAN or any other have been availabre to to be made his client's apprication RAKOFSK' time At the efforts of RAKOFSK'. approvedforCriminalJusticeActfunds,JudgeLeibovitzaskedRAKOFSKYwhether,

inadditiontotheexpertwitnesses,i inadditiontotheexpertwitnesses,investigatots,dem nvestigatots,demonstrativeevidenc onstrativeevidence,etc.So e,etc.So

specifiedintheapplication,hewasalsorequestingthathisclientbeapprovedfor voucherstocompensateRLFandGrigsbywhowasnotyetaffrliatedwithRLF,the

for the criminal an acceptable purpose being lawyers compensation of the defendant's

30

Justice Act vouchers (yet RAKOFSI(Y declined on the record in open court Criminal Justice Act money when presented with an opportunþ to be firther compensated).

115. BEAN undertook

persistent course of action to blackmail RAKOFSI(Y

and RLF with the baseless allegations contained in his "motion," which

he

communicated in writing (in emails) and orally to RAKOFSKY.

116. Knowing full well that BEAN would attempt to destroy RAKOFSKY's reputation if RAKOFSI(Y refused to be complicit in committing fraud under the Criminal Justice Act, RAKOFSKY refused to acquiesce to BEAIVs threats. On March 16,2011,

weeks before BEAN filed his "motion," RAKOFSKY wrote in an email to

BEAI{: "You repeatedly lied to us and did absolutely no work for us... file what you need

to/ìle and will do the same (emphasis added)."

ll7.

Even though

investigators weÍe

it was not RAKOX'SI(Y's

to be paid, RAKOF'SI(Y declined to authorize the issuance of

voucher to BEAN for the and messages sent to

full amount of money BEAII demanded (despite many emails

RAKOFSKY by BEAI\ which sought to blackmail RAKOFSI(Y

and RLF) primarily because BEAN refused to make assigned

money with which any of the

attempt to begin the work

to him. Nevertheless, RAKOFSKY offered to authorize voucher for BEAN

for lesser amount of money (even though BEÄN's claim to any "compensation" was specious and amounted to

"shake down"); however,

preferred to engage in his

threats to obtain even more money than RAKOFSKY was willing to authotize, and

ultimately, sought both to deceive the Court and to extort money to which he was not entitled under the Criminal Justice Act.

118. All RAKOFSKY had to do to avoid controversy him the voucher; it wasn't even RAKOX'SI(Y's money.

3l

with BEAI\ was to give

ll9. BEAII attached to his "motion" an email which contained protected, and tactics' confidential and privileged material conceming defense strategy

I20.

BEAN perpetrated

RLF, 2) misused

criminal acts: 1) blackmailed RAKOFSKY

and

(in his pleading to offer false statements to the court by stating

.,motion') "Mr. Rakofsþ instruct[ed] him to try to 'trick'

witness into changing her

by providing confidential and testimony,, and 3) violated the client's constitutional rights

the court' Consequently' privileged material conceming defense strategy and tactics to

BEAI\

working on criminal has been suspended by the agency that governs investigators

cases.

121.

When the defendant offered

to show Judge Jackson his legal pad and

to ask questions the client thereby, prove to Judge Jackson that RAKOX'SKY refused Jackson stated to him: "'Well,

wrote on his legal

shouldn't look at those notes

between you and your lawyer and because those afe pefsonal and confidential notes

Jackson stated this to shouldn't be seeing those..." However, not long after Judge

RAKOFSI(Y's client, for

reasons unknown

to RAKOFSKY, Judge Jackson gave the

AUSAacopyoftheemailwrittenbyRAKOFSKY(whichwasattachedtothe ..motion,,)

in which RAKOFSKY had set forth his

defense strategy, notwithstanding

defense strategy to that, in so doing, Judge Jackson was exposing RAKOX'SKY's of the defendant (and any attomey counsel for the Government to the possible detriment defendanQ' who might replace RAKOFSKY as lead counsel for the Judge Jackson: You might want to take

look at this pleading'

AUSA:Iwas,actually,goingtoask,butldon'tknowiflJudge Jackson:

Mr. Grigsby and Mr' Rakofsþ'

AUSA: MaY we have coPies? 32

Judge Jackson: I don't know what to do with it. I don't know whether you should see it or not.

AUSA: Okay.

'Well, I'11 accept the Court's

The .,motion, had merely been provided to Judge Leibovitz who provided it to Judge Jackson, but had not been formally filed in the case against the defendant' Judge Jackson: There's an email from you to the investigator that you may want to look at, l\Ír. Rakofsky. It raises ethical issues. That's my only

copy.

RAKOFSKY: Is that something you wanted to discuss? Judge Jackson:

No...

AUSA: Your Honor, that was frled in the Court? Judge Jackson: It was delivered to Judge Leibovitz this morning. She sent it over to me because this case was originally Judge Leibovitz's'

122. The TilASIIINGTON POST and the other defendants named herein have violation, characreÅzed BEAII's "motion" as accusing RAKOFSI(Y of an consisting of RAKOFSKY's directing BEAN to cause. Although RAKOFSKY used an unfortunate shorthand word ("trick"), it is clear from any reading of the email in which the word was used that what RAKOI'SKY was asking BEAII to do was merely to get

non-witness

to repeat statements already made to RAKOX'SKY, Grigsby (the "2

lawyers,') and the client's mother, rather than to change anything she had previously stated to RAKOFSKY, Grigsby and the client's mother.

123. Following Judge Jackson's publication of the

alleged "ethical

issues," ALEXAIIDER, the reporter from the WASHINGTON POST, stopped

RAKOFSI(Y in the hallway, asked him whether "Judge Jackson's allegation about the JJ

and informed investigatoÏ,, was true ackson' alle gation

124. At

ab

..Judge about reporting be him that he would

out the investi ator'"

comment' However' to refused that time' RAKOFSKY

ALEXANDERpersisted.RAKOFSKYaskedALEXANDERwhetherhehadany replied in sum ALE*ANDER comment. give wish not to respect for RAK'FSKY,s orsubstance,"I'rngoingtomakesureyouregretyourdecision;justwaituntileveryone

readsmyarticle,,,whichconstitutesaf:obviousrecklessdisregardfortfuth ßAKOFSI(Ydecliningtocommerrt)aswellastheintentiontocauseharmto RAKOFSKY.

t25'

and JENKINS' through ALEXANDER POST' The WASHINGTON

for the consideration due without grossly irresponsible manner with marice and hate, in fotowed by responsible ordinariþ dissemination gathering and standards of information

parties,inrecklessdisregardforthetruth,havingbeenalertedtotheallegationmadeby of it on April 1' pubrication improper of Judge Jackson's the ,,investi gator,,as resurt

zl||,uponinformationandbelief,ob zl||,uponinformationandbelief,obtainedacopyofthe tainedacopyofthe..investigato,:.::c. ..investigato,:.::c.motiorf,but motiorf,but the misquoted and misrepresented truth the disregard for intentionary and in reckress in such "motion" in the contained ema' contents of RAKoFsKy,s misrepresentations and those making internet website, POST,s newspapef and its action in so despite the fact that

for the entire world read, available misquotations as being fair and quariff to failed whorly disregard for the truth and doing was in reckress

trueorsubstantiallyaccurate.WASHINGTONPosT,throughALEXANDERand JENKINS,publishedstatemerrtsab JENKINS,publishedstatemerrtsaboutRAKOFSKYth outRAKOFSKYthatwereoutrageou atwereoutrageous,glossly s,glossly RAKof,'sKY's to and utter indifference and evinced irresponsibre, malicious

complete

rightsandreputationandwereinrecklessdisregardforthetruth. 34

126.

Judge Jackson and the WASHINGTON POST failed

to inquire

about

what actually occurred between RAKOFSKY and RLF and BEAN (the so-called ,,investigator") because they refused to reasonably investigate the facts to learn the truth'

"motion' Judge Jackson refused to speak with RAKOFSKY in private concerning the Deanet, and instead involved the AUSA who is prosecuting the case against Dontrell

RAKOFSKY's former client, when BEAN's allegation clearly did not concern her and been so involved, by intentionally providing her with

she should not

copy of

protected communication between RAKOFSKY and BEAN (his "investigatot" at the

time) which discussed legal strategy and tactics of his former client

if

there \ryere ever

of his any doubt as to whether Judge Jackson was operating completely outside the scope

judicial duties and frrnction, as doubt.

It is

unclear to what extent Judge Jackson, the WASHINGTON POST,

ALEXAI\DER

127.

result of this intentional act, there can no longer be any

and

JENKINS have damaged RAKOFSI(Y's and RLF's reputation.

HAd thE

WASHINGTON POST, ALEXANDER

ANd

JENKINS

TAKEN

was moment to inquire, which they did not, and to review RAKOFSI(Y's email that

attached

to the "investigator's" "motion," they would have been able to

determine that the "investigator's" claim was false and was not,

instantly

in fact, what

RAKOFSI(Y actually wrote. Each of them failed to do this and failed to make even the slightest reasonable investigation before making their respective publications and thus, they acted in

l2g.

disregard for the huth. Indeed, Judge Jackson possessed the "investigator's" "motion" in his own

hands, and therefore, was already in possession of the proof and need not have done

anything in order to learn the truth other than to read RAKOFSKY's email that the

35

"investigator" improperly and unlawfully attached with

his "motion," and

WASHINGTON POST, ALEXANDER and JENKINS each hAd ACCESS

I2g.

the

tO thAt EMAil.

ThE WASHINGTON POST, ALEXAI\DER ANd JENKINS

EithET

intentionally or recklessly ignored RAKOFSI(Y's email and published on the record that

RAKOFSI(Y and RLF had engaged in behavior that "raises ethical issues," knowing

full well what such an allegation, if made,

as

it

was, in reckless disregard for the truth,

would do to damage RAKOFSKY's reputation as an attorney.

130.

On April 1,2011, WASHINGTON POST, through ALEXAìIDER and

JENKINS, in

grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards

of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard

for the truth,

undertook

to

defame, slander,

libel and

malign

RAKOFSI(Y and RLF by maliciously publishing an article entitled "D.C. Superior Court judge declares mistrial over attorney's competence in murder case," when they knew full well or should have known that, the only judicial action taken by Judge Jackson

in open court on April 1, 2011 was to grant RAKOFSKY's motion to be relieved as lead counsel for the defendant because RAKOFSKY and the defendant had agreed that there was

conflict between them and and because RAKOFSKY had asked to be permitted to

withdraw, not because RAKOFSKY was determined

by

Judge Jackson

to

be

incompetent, which he was not, which Judge Jackson never determined or said'

131. WASHINGTON

POST, through ALEXANDER and JEI\KINS, in

grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information

gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed disregard for the truth, undertook

by

responsible parties,

in reckless

to defame and malign RAKOFSKY and RLX' by

maliciously publishing that Judge Jackson "allowed the defendant to fne his New York36

based attorney." Holever, the record

is clear that RAKOFSKY moved for leave to

withdraw as lead counsel for the defendant, and was so permitted by Judge Jackson due

to the conflict between him and the

defendant and that Judge Jackson granted

RAKOFSI(Y's motion to withdraw. RAKOFSKY was not "flred" by his client, who, merely agreed to RAKOFSKY's withdrawal when asked by Judge Jackson and who, upon retaining RAKOFSKY when asked

during the course of the trial, had twice

by Judge Jackson.

t32.

The WASHINGTON POST, through ALEXAI\DER and JENKINS, in


gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed disregard for the truth, undertook

by

responsible parties,

in

reckless

to defame and malign RAKOFSKY and RLF by

intentionally and maliciously publishing the contents of an email alleged to have been writren by RAKOFSKY. The WASHINGTON POST, through ALEXAI\DER and

JENKINS, published in their article that the alleged email stated, "Thank you for your help. Please trick the old lady to say that she did not see the shooting or provide information to the lawyers about the shooting." However, no such email was ever written

by RAKOFSKY; therefore, neither WASHINGTON POST, nor ALEXAIIDER

and

such an email.

JENKINS, could possibly have

133. On April 8, 2011, RAKOFSKY wrote to wASHINGTON

POST,

through ALEXA¡IDER: "Do not use my name at all unless you are willing to print complete retraction of your April

article."

134. On April g, 2071, despite RAKOFSKY',s written

demand,

WASIIINGTON POST, through ALEXANDER and JENKINS, vindictively, maliciously and filled with hate,

in

grossly irresponsible malìner without due 37

consideration for the standards

of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily

followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, intentionally published, in an article entitled "W'oman Pays $7,700 to Grandson's Attorney Who Was

Later Removed for Inexperience," that RAKOFSI(Y was "removed for inexperience." However, the record is clear that RAKOFSIIY moved to withdraw as lead counsel for his client and was permitted to withdraw because client, as his client confirmed in

conflict existed between him and his

sidebar conference with Judge Jackson. Judge Jackson

granted RAKOFSKY's motion to withdraw, and RAKOFSKY was never

fot

inexperience."

135. in

On April 4,2011, CITY PAPER, through SMITH, with malice and hate,

grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of

information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article that:

when Judge William investigator filed

Jackson

"A Friday hearing fell apart

mistrial, partially because Rakofsky's

declared

otrick' motion accusing the lawyer of encouraging him to

witness."

However, the record is clear that RAKOFSKY moved to withdraw as lead counsel for

his client because

conflict existed between him and his client and that Judge Jackson

granted RAKOX'SKY's motion to be relieved as lead counsel for the defendant and that Judge Jackson never "declared

filed

mistrial," even in part, because "Rakofsþ's investigator

motion accusing the lawyer of encouraging him to 'trick'

136. hate, in

On April 4,2011, MEDIA, through

ATL

and

witness."

MYSTAL, with malice and


information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, in

38

reckless disregard

for the truth, published an article entitled: "Mstrial Aftsr Judge Is

'Astonished' By Torrc Grad's Incompetence." However, the record

is clear that RAKOX'SKY

moved the court to be permitted to withdraw as lead counsel for his client because

conflict existed between him and his client and Judge Jackson granted RAKOFSKY's based solely upon RAKOX'SKY's motion to withdraw as counsel

motion and because

conflict existed between him and his client. However,

mistrial was never

declared because "Judge was astonished by IRAKOFSKY's] incompetence."

I37.

On April 4,2011, ABA, through ABA JOURNAL and WEISS, with

malice and hate, in

grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the

standards of information

and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible

parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published an article in which they stated that:

court filing in which an investigator had

"The judge declared mistrial after reviewing

claimed Rakofsky fired him for refusing to carry out the lawyer's emailed suggestion to

'trick' a witness, the story says. Rakofsþ's

suggestion allegedly read: 'Thank you for

your help. Please trick the old lady to say that she did not see the shooting or provide information to the lawyers about the shooting."' However, the ABA article, which was communicated in whole or in part, to members of the ABA in

weekly email to its

members was and is a complete fabrication that is factually untrue in all respects. Judge Jackson never declared

mistrial that was based, either in whole or in part, upon the

"investigator's" "motion," which was nevet formally hled with the Court. Rather, the record is clear that RAKOX'SKY moved to withdraw as lead counsel for the defendant because

conflict existed between him and his client and that the only action taken by

Judge Jackson with respect to RAKOFSKY was to permit RÄKOFSKY to withdraw as

39

lead counsel for the defendant for reasons entirely unrelated

to any claims of

the

,.investigator,, referred to by the ABA and its employees. At no time did Judge Jackson gratrt

mistrial after reviewing any "corlrt frling in which an investigator had claimed

Rakofsþ hred him for refusing to carry out the lawyer's emailed suggestion to 'trick' witness,,as ABA, ABA JOTIRNAL and WEISS maliciously published.

138.

On April 8,2011, ABA, through ABA JOURNAL and RANDAG, with

malice and hate, standards

parties,

in


of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible

in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their

Blawgosphere: Joseph Rakofsþ Sound Review?,, that Rakofsky,

"If

Off; Client

article, "Around the

Poachers; and the End

anything had the legal blogosphere going this week,

it

of Blawg

was Joseph

relatively recent law grad whose poor trial performance as defense counsel in

mistrial last Friday." However, the record

murder trial prompted the judge to declare

is clear that RAKOFSKY moved to withdraw as lead counsel for his client and was so

permitted, and that Judge Jackson granted RAKOFSKY's motion solely because RAKOFSKY moved for his own withdrawal because

his client. Judge Jackson never granted

conflict existed between him and

mistrial based upon RAKOX'SKY's trial

performance, which was not "poor."

t3g. in

On April 3,2011, SIIINGLE, through ELEFAìIT, with malice and hate,


information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article, "From tiny ethics mishaps, do

major missteps grow?" that "Joseph Rakofsþ of The Rakofsþ Law Firm...was

40

dismissed by

Superior Court judge for

performance that the judge described as "below

what any reasonable person would expect in

murder trial." However, the record is clear

that RAKOFSKY moved to withdraw as lead counsel and that Judge Jackson granted

RAKOFSI(Y's motion solely

because

RAKOFSKY moved for his own withdrawal

conflict existed between him and his client, and never granted

because

mistrial,

whether based upon RAKOFSKY's "performance" or any "ethics mishap," which did

not exist.

140. and hate, in

Further, on April 3,2011, SHINGLE, through ELEFANT, \Mith malice grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of

information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published that "[Rakofsky] lists other lawyers on website, holding them out as members, though that wasn't the case for Grigsby'"

However, the statement by SHINGLE and ELEX'ANT is provably incorrect in that

RAKOFSKY and Grigsby entered into partnership engaged in the practice of law; therefore, Grigsby was indeed

l4l. hate, in

member of RLF.

on April 4,2011, SIMPLE, through GREENT'IELD, with malice and


information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled "The TruthFree Zone Eats One Of Its Own" that "As the Washington Post notes, it proved to be sufficient

lfor

RAKOFSI(Y] to gain that peculiar result, mistrial for ineffective

of

assistance

counsel." However, the record is clear that RAKOX'SKY moved to withdraw as lead counsel for the defendant and that Judge Jackson granted RAKOFSKY's motion because

4t

conflict existed between him and his client and that

mistrial was never declared or

ordered "for ineffective assistance of counsel," as SIMPLE and GREENFIELD erroneously and maliciously published.

142. hate, in

On April 4,2011, SIMPLE, through GREENF'IELD, with malice and


information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by reckless disregard for the truth, publishçd in their article entitled One

parties, in Truth FreeZoneBats

Oflts Own," that: "To put it anothef way, the judge not only found Rakofsky too

incompetent to handle the case, but too dishonest." However, the record is clear that

RAKOFSI(Y moved to withdraw Jackson granted

as lead counsel and was so permitted and that Judge

RAKOFSKY's motion solely because

and his client, and not because Judge Jackson found

conflict existed between him

RAKOFSI(Y to be either "too

incompetent to handle the case" or "too dishonest," much less both, as SIMPLE and

GREENFIELD enoneously published.

t43. hate, in

On April 4,2011, SIMPLE, through GREENFIELD, with malice and


of

information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled "The TruthFree Zone Eats One

Oflts Ovvn that "no one should be surprised that Rakofsþ's willingness to lie on

the internet is reflected in his character as

lawyer." However, RAKOFSKY never

"lied" on the internet and his character is not

reflection of "lies," as SIMPLE and

GREENFIELD enoneously and maliciously published.

42

L44' On April 4'20!1'SIMPLE'

with malice and GREENFIELD' through

hate,inagrosslyirresponsiblemannerwithoutdueconsiderationforthestandardsof responsible parties' in by forlowed and dissemination ordinar*y gathering information TruthFree Zone Eats "The entitred article in their the truth, pubrished for disregard reckress or iS as incompetent lawyer young every ..It's not to suggest that one oflts owf¡,, that: just about themselves rie many But bad. Few are quite this as Joseph Rakofsky. dishonest as this

RAK'FSKY mutt did.,, Howevef,

to be, and is not, has never been determined

eitherincompetentordishonestasSIMPLEandGREENFIELDerroneouslyand maliciouslY Published'

145'OnApril4'2011'SIMPLE'thro 145'OnApril4'2011'SIMPLE'throughGREENFIEL ughGREENFIELI)'furthermaliciou I)'furthermaliciously sly to pay' The going now is Joseph Rakofsþ ..you arent willing to pay the price that states: no client will should' it as works arl If it. to Rakofsky, nor shourd kind be not w'r internet but few will cry Rakofsky, for much so Not aga\n,Good for clients. Rakofsky hire ever through GREENFIELD' In that statement' SIMPLE' suicide'" about Rakofsky's careeÏ

recognizestheextraordinarydamagethathasbeendonetoRAKoFsKY'scateer,yet ..suicide,,, when, in truth it is publishes such damage maliciously and erroneously

as

(character)"assassination"andthe"murder"ofRAKOFSKY'sreputationbySIMPLE' butnot situated, including, similarly publishers and other through GREENFTELD, necessarilylimitedto'thedefendantsnamedinthisComplaint.SIMPLE,through GREENFIELD,furtherrecognizestheextraordinarydamagethathasbeendoneto about Joseph Rakofsþ' "think publishing, by cafeer by such publishers

RAKOFSK','

Andknowthatifyoudowhathedid,Iwil Andknowthatifyoudowhathedid,Iwillbehappytomakes lbehappytomakesurethatpeoplekno urethatpeoplekno

43

about it. There are probably

few others who will do so as well. What do you plan to do

about those loans when your career is destroyed?"

t46.

On April 4,2011, MAYER LAW, through MAYER, with malice and


hate, in

of

information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled, "Lying Piece of $%^&.

With Screenshot as Evidence" that "the mistrial was because of Rakofsky's blatant ineptitude." However, the record is clear that RAKOFSKY moved to withdraw as lead counsel and was so permitted., and that Judge Jackson granted RAKOFSI(Y's motion because

conflict existed between him and his client, and never granted

mistrial

"because of Rakofsky's blatant ineptitude."

147.

On April 2,2011, GHII, through GAMSO, with malice and hate, in


gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed disregard

by

responsible

in reckless

for the truth, published: "Even the Judge Couldn't Take It" referring to

RAKOFSKY's representation

of the client.

Further, GHH, through GAMSO,

maliciously published "lead counsel [RAKOFSKY] being grotesquely incompetent." However, the record is clear that RAKOFSI(Y moved to withdraw as lead counsel and was so permitted and that Judge Jackson granted RAKOX'SKY's motion solely because

RAKOFSKY moved for his withdrawal because

conflict existed between him and his

client, and never took any action against RAKOFSKY because of his competence or alleged

thereof.

44

in

l48.OnApril4,2071'C&F'throughJOHNDOE#1'withmaliceandhate' of due consideration for the standards

grossly irresponsible manner without

parties' in ordinarily followed by responsible dissemination and gathering information fraud and published that, "Joseph Rakofsky's reckless disregard for the truth,

shouldn't someone so incompetent serious question of legal ethics'

incompetence raises

that RAKOFSKY law?,, However, the record is clear of practice the from be suspended and was so permitted' and that as withdraw to permitted be he that requested

JudgeJacksongrarrtedRAl(oFsKY,smotionsolelybecauseRAKOFSKYmovedfor his own withdrawal because

client' not because of conflict existed between him and his

"Joseph Rakofsþ's fraud and incompetence'" conceming allegations malicious F's

I4g.Further,onApril4,2011,C&F,throughJOHNDoE#1,withmalice andhate,inagrosslyirresponsiblemannerwithoutdueconsiderationforthestandardsof

parties' in ordinariþ followed by responsible dissemination and gathering information

was so incompetent that "He that [Rakofsky] published truth, reckless disregard for the his words, the client was deprived of other In mistrial. ordered the trial court is incompetence." However, the record attorney to due trial fair to constitutional right as counsel and was so withdraw to permitted be he that clear that RAKOFSI(Y requested

permittedandthæJudgeJacksongrantedRAKOFSKY'smotionsolelybecausea client and never "ordered conflict existed between him and his

mistriaf' because "[h]e

other reason' was so incompetent" or for any

150.Inaddition,onApril4,2011,c&F,throughJOHNDoE#1,with malice and hate,

in

due consideration for the grossly irresponsible manner without

by responsible and dissemination ordinariþ fo*owed gathering information of standards

45

parties,inrecklessdisregardforthetruth,publishedaphotographofRAKOFSKY snake'" capture of the little "Here's below their statement:

151'

screen

#2' through JOHN DOE LAWYER' On April 8' 2011' ACCIDENT

for the without due consideration manner in grossly irresponsible with marice and hate, by responsible ordinarily followed dissemination and gathering standards of information articre "Around the untitled his in for the truth, published in reckless disregard parties,

Rakofsky Blawgosphere: Joseph Review?,, that

*If

Sound off;

the End of Blawg Client Poachers; and

going this week' blogosphere legal the anything had

it

was Joseph

as defense counsel

in

performance grad whose poor triar raw recent Rakofsþ, rerativeþ the record rast Friday'" However' mistriar the judge to declare murder triar prompted and was so counsel for his client lead as moved to withdraw is crear that RAKoFsKy

permitted,andthatJudgeJacksongrarrtedRAKoFsKY,smotionsolelybecause between him and

RAKoFsKy

withdrawar because moved for his own

never granted his client. Judge Jackson was not "Poo performance, which

confrict existed

RAKox'sKY's trial mistriar based upon

'"

152-OnApril2'2011'FARAJILAW'througþFARAJI'withmaliceand of

standards consideration for the due without irrespons le manner hate, in grossly in by responsible parties' fotowed ordinar'y and dissemination information gathering criminal entitled "choose Your article their in for the truth, published reckless disregard job that Judge William Jackson' poor such did that "The attomey Attorney Wisely"' to fire his and a110Wed Mf' Deaner mistrial the case, ordered who was overhearing

attorney'"However'therecordisclearthatRAKOFSKYrequestedthathebepermitted Judge so permitted' and that was and counser for the defendant to withdraw as read for his own Jackson granted

RAKOFSK',s

motion solely because 46

RAKOFSK' moved

withdrawalbecauseaconflictexist withdrawalbecauseaconflictexistedbetweenhimand edbetweenhimandhisclient)anddidn hisclient)anddidnot..ofdera ot..ofdera such poor to "flfe" RAKOFSKY because he "did mistrial,, and did not a110w his client

job"asFARAJILAW,throughFAR job"asFARAJILAW,throughFARAJIhavemaliciou AJIhavemaliciouslypublished' slypublished'

153.onoraboutApril4,2I:|,BENNETT&BENNETT,th 153.onoraboutApril4,2I:|,BENNETT&BENNETT,throughMARK roughMARK BENNETT, with malice and hate' in

gtossly iresponsible manner without due

considerationforthestandardsofinformationgatheringanddisseminationordinarily disregard for the truth' published in reckless in parties, responsible by followed

on .,The object Lesson of Joseph Rakofsky," that "Joseph Rakofsky took article entitled

case that he was

not competent to handle."

permitted RAKOFSKY requested that he be

Hor¡,¡ever, the record

is clear that

to withdraw as lead counsel for

the

Jackson granted RAKOFSKY's motion

that defendant and was so permitted and

own withdrawal' and granted no mistrial' his for moved RAKOFSI(Y solely because

took on case that he was not Rakofsþ "Joseph because part, in either in whole or BENNETT' their article, BENNETT in although Further, handle." to competent "once upon time there was no through MARI( BENNETT admit,

such thing as bad

true"' and accessible forever'that is no longel publicity. With every news story online

BENNETT&BENNETT,throughMARI(BENNETT'nevertheless'proceededto defame

RAK'FSKy

investigation into the and RLF,without performing the slightest

truth of their statements'

154.OnApril5,2011,SEDLAW'throughSEDDIQ'withmaliceandhate'in of information due consideration for the standards grossly irresponsible manner without responsible parties' with reckless by followed ordinarily dissemination gathering and that articre entitred, "A Silver Lining," their in pubrished truth, the for disregard it should be on the ,,The story is all around the intemet. It',s the hot topic of the week' and 47

lips of every criminal defense practicioner [sic],

if not every lawyer who gives

shit

about the legal profession -- Joseph Rakofsky, an alleged criminal defense lawyer (with

all of

one whole year

of

experience)

lied and lied and lied and was grossly

incompetent...." However, the record is clear that RAKOFSI(Y requested that he be permitted to withdraw as lead counsel for the defendant and was so permitted, and that Judge Jackson granted RAKOX'SKY's motion solely because RAKOFSKY moved for

his own withdrawal as counsel because not because RAKOFSKY

conflict existed between him and his client, and

Iied and tied and lied and was grossly incompetent" as SED

LAW, through SEDDIQ maliciously published.

155.

On April 4,2011, THE DAILY and ADVANTAGE, through SPERRY,

with malice and hate, in standards



parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled "Tip of the

Day: Don't Mix Legal Incompetence with Social Media" that RAKOFSKY "so poorly represented his client declared

man charged with first degree murder

that the judge

mistrial so that the defendant could fire the guy. However, the record is clear

that RAKOFSI(Y requested that he be permitted to withdraw as lead counsel for the defendant and was so permitted and that Judge Jackson granted RAKOFSKY's motion

solely because RAKOFSKY moved for his own withdrawal, and granted no mistrial, either in whole or in part, because RAKOX'SKY "so poorly represented his client or "so that the defendant coúld fire the guy."

156.

On April 4,2011, THE DAILY and ADVANTAGE, through SPERRY,

with malice and hate, in standards


of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible 48

the published in their article entitled "Tip of parties, in reckless disregard for the truth,

failed Social Media" that "The lawyer not only with Incompetence Legal Mix Don't Day:

to secure

taking on his first criminal trial' he grasp on basic legal procedure prior to

actuallyaskedhisinvestigatortotrick actuallyaskedhisinvestigatortotrickawitnessintotest awitnessintotestiffingincourtthatsh iffingincourtthatshehadn't ehadn't scene." Had THE seen the defendant at the murder

SPERRY read the

DAILY

and

ADVANTAGE' through

never frled "motion" submitted by BEAN, which was

the court'

theywouldhaveseenthatRAKor.sKYmadenosuchrequestofBEAN.

t57.onApril2,20:^l,ALLBRITTON,throughTBD,withmaliceandhate,in agrosslyirresponsiblemannerwithoutdueconsiderationforthestandardsofinformation by responsible parties' in reckless gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed disregard for the truth, published:

..Joseph

Rakofsþ, lawyer, declared incompetent in

he is clear that RAKOFSI(Y requested that D.C. murder mistrial." However, the record

was so permitted' be permitted to withdraw as counsel and

and that Judge Jackson

grantedRAKoFsKY,smotionsolelybecauseRAKOFSKYmovedforhisown withdrawal because

and not because conflict existed between him and his client'

RAKOFSI(Y was ever "declared incompetent'"

l58.onAprilT,20ll,RDTTL,throughJ.DOG,withmaliceandhate,ina grosslyirresponsiblemannerwithoutdueconsiderationforthestandardsofinformation by responsible parties' in reckless gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed

Idiot article entitled "Joseph Rakofsþ: Both an their in published truth, the for disregard mistrial by incompetense'" However' the "'wofì' RAKOFSKY that andasymptom" recordisclearthatRAKOF,SKYrequestedthathebepermittedtowithdrawascounsel Jackson granted and was so permitted, and that Judge

RaKoFsKY's motion and

moved for his mistrial was granted solely because RAKOFSKY 49

withdrawal

because

was neither and his client' and that RAKOFSKY him between existed conflict

"incompetenf' nor "'won'

hate, in

mistrial by incompetence'"

l59.Inaddition,onAprilT,20ll,RDTTL,throughJ.DOG,withmaliceand of due consideration for the standards grossly irresponsible manner without

parties' in ordinarily followed by responsible dissemination and gathering information

Let "Is Joseph Rakofsky an idiot? Absolutely' published: truth, the for reckless disregard published that through J-DOG, maliciously RDTTL, Further, ways." the us count an inferior product.,, ..Rakofsky may not have even been aware that he was peddling ..an inferior clients their offer not does and RL* did not However, RAK'FSI(Y and shows that they did not do client this of representation their producf' and that review of article refers' so in the case to which the

160.Further,onApril13,2LII,RDTTL,throughJ.DOG,withmaliceand

of due consideration for the standards without manner irresponsible hate, in grossly in followed by responsible parties' ordinarily dissemination and information gathering on Rakofsþ pubrished in his articre entitred "update truth, the for disregard reckress sales tactics? Check. Exaggerated in..High-pressufe engaged Story,, that RAKOFSKY RDTTL' desperate soul? Check'" Last' hire to get them to clients representations to throughJ.DOG,maliciouslypubtish throughJ.DOG,maliciouslypubtished..Asl,vosaidbe ed..Asl,vosaidbeforeRakofsþisani foreRakofsþisanidiotworthy diotworthy

permitted RAKOFSKY requested that he be that clear is record the of blame." Howevet,

to

so permitted' and withdraw as counsel and was

that

Judge Jackson granted

RAKoFsKY,smotionandamistrialw RAKoFsKY,smotionandamistrialwasgrantedsolelyb asgrantedsolelybecauseRAKOFSK ecauseRAKOFSKYmoved Ymoved and that existed between him and his client, conflict because withdrawal for his own or "Exaggerated "Higþ-pressure sales tactics" RAKOFSKY nevef engaged in any

50

get them to hire representations to clients to

do so with desperate soul" and did not

an "idiot worthy of blame'" RAKOFSKY is nor client; this respect

161.onAprilg,120:I,IIESLEP'throughBEAN,withmaliceandhate,ina

of information due consideration for the standards without manner grossly irresponsible by responsible parties' in reckless followed ordinarily gathering and dissemination

disregardforthetfuth,publishedtoW disregardforthetfuth,publishedtoWAsHlNGToNPo AsHlNGToNPosTandwasultimat sTandwasultimatelyfurther elyfurther

pays $7'700 to posr article entitled "'woman its in published by *ASHTNGTON

me to for Inexperience" that "He wanted Removed Later was who Grandson's Attorney

didn't persuade this lady to say she

see

However' for the what she said she saw or heard'"

puiposeofdamagingRAKOFSKY,BE puiposeofdamagingRAKOFSKY,BEANknowinglyom ANknowinglyomittedinhispublicat ittedinhispublicationthat ionthat to repeat "lady," who was non-witness' the get BEAN that RAKOFSKY requested her to do Grigsby and not to persuade and RAKOFSKY to what she had already stated orsayanythingdifferentfromwhatshehadalreadystatedtoRAKOFSKY,Gtigsbyand before BEAN was ever hired' months several mother client's the

162. and hate, in

On

April

2'207

I' KOEI{LER LAW'

through KOEHLER' with malice

due consideration for without manner irresponsible vindictive and grossly

thestandardsofinformationgatheringanddisseminationordinarilyfollowedby in their article entitled, disregard for the truth, published reckless in parties, responsible that"The lawyer ,.Inexperienced Lawyer Dismissed in D.c. Murder Trial"

IRAKOFSKY]encouragdhisinvestigatortoengageinunethicalbehaviorandthen failed to comply.', Howevef, investigator the when investigator refused to pay the

K'EHLER LAW,s

and

K'EHLER,s malicious publication

is false; RAK.FSKY

behavior as (or anyone) to engage in unethical investigator his never encouraged

51

KOEHLER LAW and K'EHLER

read the email attached would have known had they

by BEAN to his "motion'" 163.

LAW' through KOEIILER' with

Further, on April 2,2011,

malice and hate, in

the without due consideration for grossly irresponsible manner

by responsible dissemination ordinariþ forl0wed and gathering standards of information

parties,inrecklessdisregardforthetruth,publishedonApril2,201rl,initsarticle entitled,..InexperiencedLawyerDismissedinD.C.MurderTrial',that..itwasinfact

for that led the defendant to ask trial the during lawyers two disagreements between the

newcorrnsel.,,However,therecordisclearthatRAKOFSKYrequestedthathebe permittedtowithdrawascounselandwassopermitted,andthatJudgeJacksongranted

RAKOFSKY,smotionsolelybecauseRAKOF.SI(Ymovedforhisownwithdrawal becauseaconflictexistedbetweenhimandhisclient,andnotbecausetherewere

for that led the defendant to ask trial the during lawyers .,disagreements between the two new counsel,,,

aS KOEIILER LAw,

published. through KOEHLER maliciously

164.onAprill0,20ll,KOEHLERLAw,throughKOEHLER,withmalice manner without due consideration irresponsible grossly and and hate, in avindictive

for

thestandardsofinformationgatheringanddisseminationordinarilyfollowedby article entitled, for the truth, published in their disregard reckless in responsible parties,

"Rakofsþ's name is ,.More on JosephRakofsþ: The story Keeps Getting'worse"'that of counsel depending form of ineffective assistance with synonymous bound to become could Was it hubris for thinking he label' the assigning person the on the predilections of of any murder case despite the lack first-degree on effectively represent the defendant in-person on the Internet? or was it advertising false it Was experience whatsoever?

52

out, it was of the accused? As it turns family the to qualifications misrepresentation of his

alloftheabove.Andmore.,,However,RAKOFSKYdidnot..lackanyexperience

intemet" or in "in-person in "false advertising on the engage not did whatsoever;' before the defendant in the case to respect with qualifications," misrepresentation of his through KOEHLER' case) as KOEI{LER LAW' other any (or Jackson Judge

maliciouslyandvindictivelyallegedandpublishedwithnobasisinfactfortheir experience to his client trial prior of lack his fully disclosed anegations. RAKOFSKy client to represent him' prior to being retained by his

165.OnApril5'20I!'TLF'throughTURKEWITZ'withmaliceandhate'in

standards of information due consideration for the without manner grossly irresponsible

gatheringanddisseminationordina gatheringanddisseminationordinarilyfollowedbyres rilyfollowedbyresponsibleparties,in ponsibleparties,inreckless reckless

(The "Lawyers and Advertising entitled, article their in published disregard for the truth, by deception' as evidenced play into comes Frontier)" that "Ethics also

New

one Joseph

Rakofsþ,

aN

but whose website sung York lawyer with scant experience'

hispraisesinohsomanyways.Thenhegotarealclient.Defendingamurdercase. Whichofcourse,hewasutterþincom Whichofcourse,hewasutterþincompeterrttodo...',,Ho peterrttodo...',,However,therecord wever,therecordisclearthat isclearthat RAKOFSKYmovedthecourttobep RAKOFSKYmovedthecourttobepermittedtowithdra ermittedtowithdrawasleadcounself wasleadcounselforhisclient orhisclient granted client and Judge Jackson his and him between because conflict existed

RAKOFSKY,smotionandamistrialbasedsolelyuponRAKOFSKY'smotionto withdraw as read counser because

and his client' Howevet' conflict existed between him

RAKOFSKYwasneverdeclared..incompe RAKOFSKYwasneverdecl ared..incompetenf,asTLFandTUR tenf,asTLFandTURKEWITZ KEWITZ maliciousþpublished.Inaddition,RAKOFsKYfullydisclosedhislackofpriortrial experiencetohisclientpriortobeingretainedbyhisclienttorepresenthim.

53

166.

On April 5,2011, BEASLEY FIRM, through KENNERLY, with malice grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards

and hate, in

of

in information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled, "The Right to Counsel

Includes the Right to Fire Your Lawyer" that "In short,

judge declared

murder trial because the defendant's lawyer, who had never tried

'nderstand

mistrial in

case before, didn't

the rules of evidence and was caught instructing his private investigator to

"trick" one of the government's witnesses." However, the record is clear that

RAKOFSKY requested that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel and was permitted and that Judge Jackson granted RAKOFSKY's motion and granted solely because RAKOFSKY moved for his own withdrawal because

so

mistrial

conflict existed

between him and his client, and not because RAKOFSKY "didn't understand the rules

of

evidence.,, Further, RAKOFSKY neither instructed nor was "caught instructing" an investigator

to "trick one of the govemment's witnesses" as BEASLEY FIRM

and

KEIINERLY would have known had they read the email RAKOFSI(Y sent to the .,investigator"; nor was the "investigator's"

the basis for any declaration of

mistrial. RAKOFSKY never requested that an "investigator" trick

167. In addition, on April with malice and hate, in standards

witness'

5,2011, BEASLEY FIRM, through KENNERLY,



parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published, "A lawyer who has never tried case should not start

with an unsupervised felony trial, much less murder trial. There's

no gray area here...." However, RAKOFSKY did not start with an unsupervised felony

trial, as BEASLEY FIRM and KEITINERLY maliciously 54

published. RAKOFSKY

retained and entered into

Esq' partnership with sherlock Grigsby'

had District of columb iabar,who

member of the

including experience in criminal cases,

homicidecases.Therefore,RAKOFSKYcouldnotbefaultedforanyfailureof supervision bY GrigsbY'

with MORTON' through PRIBETIC' STEINBERG 6,207I' April 168. On the without due consideration for

malice and hate,

in

grossly irresponsible manner

followed by responsible and dissemination ordinarily gathering information of standards "Ate You published in their article truth, the for disregard parties, in reckless

LegalExpert?Really,,that..Manyha LegalExpert?Really,,that..Manyhaveheardaboutther veheardabouttherecentmistrialinth ecentmistrialintheDontrell eDontrell DeanerD.C.murdertrialduetothe DeanerD.C.murdertrialduetotheegregiousincomp egregiousincompetenceofDeaner,s etenceofDeaner,snowformer nowformer

criminaldefènselawyer,JosephRakofsky.,,However,therecordisclearthat RAKOFSKYrequestedthathebepermiuedtowithdrawascounselandwasso permittedandthatJudgeJacksongrantedRAKoFsKY'smotionsolelybecause withdrawal because RAKOFSKY moved for his own

did his client, and that Judge Jackson

and conflict existed between him

or in part, not gant amistrial, whether in whole

..duetotheegregiousincompetence ..duetotheegregiousincompetenceof[RAKOF.SKY]"as of[RAKOF.SKY]"asSTEINBERGMo STEINBERGMoRToN RToN and

PRIBETIC maliciously published'

169.OnApril6'20!1'PALMIERILAW'throughPALMIERI'withmalice andhate,inagrosslyirresponsiblemannerwithoutdueconsiderationforthestandardsof by responsible parties, in followed ordinarily information gathering and dissemination their article entitled' "Attorney's in published the for reckless disregard judge declared thal"A D.c superior court procedure Results in Mistrial, Astonishing fire his current defendant' Dontrell Deaner' to the allowing case murder mistrial in procedure'" knowredge of the proper trial of rack his of because criminal defense lawyer 55

However,therecordisclearthatRAKOFSKYrequestedthathebepermittedto

that Judge Jackson and was so permitted' and defendant the for counsel withdraw as lead

grantedRAKoFsKY,smotionsolelybecauseRAKOFSKYmovedforhisown .withdrawal not grant

because

Jackson did and his client, and Judge him between existed conflict of knowledge of the or in part' because of any "lack

mistrial, either in whole

pfopeftrialprocedure,,onthepartofR pfopeftrialprocedure,,onthepartofRAKoFsKYorhisco AKoFsKYorhisco-counsel,Grigsby -counsel,Grigsby,asboth ,asboth PALMIERI LAW

and

PALMIERI maliciously published'

|T0.Inaddition,onApril6,20Il,PALMIERILAw,througþPALMIERI' withmaliceandhate,vindictivelyan withmaliceandhate,vindictivelyandinagrosslyirresp dinagrosslyirresponsiblemannerw onsiblemannerwithoutdue ithoutdue consideration for the standards

of information gathering and dissemination

followed by responsible parties,

in

truth' published "why reckless disregard for the on case before would take

has never tried someone who admittedly

judge but the astonishing to not only the was not record is clear that the defendant

tried

ordinariþ

take on case before [but] would

murder case was

jury and defendant as we11.', However' .,astonished" that

the

RAr(oFsKy had "never

fully disclosed his murder case.,, RAKOTSKY

to represent to being retained by his client prior crient his to lack ofprior triar experience

him.

|7|,Further,onApril6,20II,PALMIERILAw,throughPALMIERI,with and malice and hate, vindictively consideration for the standards

in

gtossly irresponsible manner without

due

ordinarily of information gathering and dissemination it the truth' published "To top

for parties, in reckless disregard followed by responsible

off,aninvestigatorwhohadbeenhire off,aninvestigatorwhohadbeenhiredbyRakofsþcam dbyRakofsþcameforwardaboutare eforwardaboutarequestthat questthat

Rakofsþhadgivenhimto..tfick,,awitness.However,hadPALMIERILAWand they would have seen that BEAN' by submitted PALMIERI read the "motion" 56

RAKOF,SKY made no such request

of BEAN, as BEAI\ included

copy of

damaging RAKOX,SKY,s email attached to the "motion." Instead, for the pu{pose of

RAKOFSI(y

and

RLF, BEAN knowingly omitted in his publication that RAKOFSI(Y

requested that BEAN get the "lady," who was

non-witness, to repeat what she had

not to persuade her already stated to RAKOFSKY, Grigsby and the client's mother and

to do or say anything different from what

she had already stated

to RAKOFSKY

and

Grigsby several months before BEAII was ever hired'

172.

On

April 11,2011, TANNEBAUM WEISS, through TANNEBAUM, grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the

with malice and hate, in

by responsible standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed Future parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled' "The

Of Law: Better, Faster, Cheaper

Pick Which One You'Want," that RAKOFSKY

,.solicited himself for the case." However, RAKOFSKY never "solicited himself for the case.,, Further,

RAKOFSI(Y fully disclosed his lack of priortnal experience to his client

prior to being retained by his client to represent him'

173.

On

malice and hate, standards

April in

10, 2011, WALLACE BRO\ilN, through WALLACE, with



"Blather' parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled,

for the Wince. Repeat. (Mutterings on Marketing)" that "Rakofsky's performance defense, including an opening statement to the

jury in which he conceded that he was

judge that the trying his first case (or at least his first murder case), so dismayed the trial

court declared

mistrial on the spot on the ground that the defendant was receiving

but patently inadequate misrepresentation [sic]. This would have been trouble enough, 57

nothing positive outcome on Facebook' saying

as Mr. Rakofsky had touted the mistrial

of his

the record owlt poor performance as the cause'" However'

RAKOFSI(Y requested that he be permitted

is

clear that

to withdraw as counsel and was

so

because granted RAKOFSKY,s motion solely Jackson Judge that and permitted,

RAKOFSKYmovedforhisownwithdrawalbecauseaconflictexistedbetweenhimand ,,so dismayed the trial judge that the performance his crient, not because RAKoFsKy,s

court decl ared

nevef did' as both mistrial on the Spot,,, which Judge Jackson

*ALLA.E BRowN

Nor was the mistrial and WALLACE maliciously published.

patentþ "on the ground that the defendant was receiving

inadequate

BROWI\ and WALLACE misrepresentation" as both WALLACE

maliciously

granted

published.Further,WALLACEBRowI\andWALLACE,spublicationthat the cause" for the granting of the mistrial RAKOFSKY',S "own poor performance [w]as is comPletelY false'

174.On4pri110,2011'WALLACEBROW\'throughWALLACE'with malice and hate, vindictively and

in

grossly irresponsible manner without due

considerationforthestandardsofinformationgatheringanddisseminationordinarily followedbyresponsibleparties,inrecklessdisregardforthetruth,publishedthat..Joseph messed it up because he marketed himself' He defense murder up mess Rakofsky didn't

becausehemesseditupandhad,itap becausehemesseditupandhad,itappears,nobusiness pears,nobusinesstakingiton'Butitis takingiton'Butitisclearfrom clearfrom hisnow-absentwebsitethathehadconvincedhimselfthatitwasacceptabletobelieve,or thing (a welland that he confused claiming to be not to care about, his own hyperbole,

coactually being it.,' RAKOFSKY retained qualifred criminal defense attomey) with counsel, Grigsby, with whom he formed

in the trial of

partnership, who had considerable experience

However' criminal cases, including homicide cases' 58

RAKOFSKY did not

..meSS up,,

claiming to not..confuse did and defense murder

actual$ being criminal defense attorney with t7

On April

19

201! 'WELLS

be'..a well-qualified

it'"

malice P'C" through WELLS' with

and hate'

inagrosslyirresponsiblemannerwithoutdueconsiderationforthestandardsof parties' in responsible by forlowed ordinarily dissemination information gathering and

Not Easy Being "It's entitled, article their in truth, pubrished reckless disregard for the this was not just story of that clear became altl,,, that..it New Lawyer, But lt,s Import

younglawyerwhogotinoverhishead.Thisisalsoastoryofalawyerwhoblatantly RAK.FSKY could deliver.. ..,, However,

more than he broke ethical rules and promised than he could delivet"' either more promised ,,bratantly broke ethical rures [nor] never

.,blatantly" or otherwise.

176. On April 4'

through MCKINNEY' with LAW' II]I'MCKINNEY

due consideration for the without manner irresponsible malice and hate, in grossly followed by responsible dissemination and of information gathering "Lessons in entitred' articre in for the truth, pubrished parties, in reckress disregard to encouraged his investigator thaÏ..Rakofsky Attorney',, Choosing Your Criminal

undertakeunethicalbehaviorandthenrefusedtopaytheinvestigatot.,'Howevef' behavior and unethicar undertake to ..encouraged his investigator

RAKoFsr(y neveï

thenrefusedtopaytheinvestigaÍof,,,asMCI(INNEYLAw,throughMCKINNEY frled) by ..motion' submitted (but not formally the read would have known had they

BEAII,asBEANattachedtoitacopyofRAKOFSKY,semail.Further,RAKOFSKY hadnoobligationtopaytheinvestigator,giventhatheneverprovidedanyservices' with through SLATER' REUTERS' TIIOMSON 201!' On April 4' 177 due consideration for the without manner ossry irresponsible and hate, in 59

ordinarily gathering and dissemination standards of information

followed by responsible

article entitled' "Young and their in published truth, the for parties, in reckless disregard

Unethical,,,that..WashingtonD.C.su Unethical,,,that..WashingtonD.C.superiorCourtJudg periorCourtJudgeWilliamJackson eWilliamJacksondeclareda declareda 33, Rakofsþ, defense attomey Joseph mistrial in

throwing murdef case on Friday after

requested the record is clear that RAKOX'SKY However, off the case for inexperience." that Judge and was so permitted' and counsel lead as that he be permitted to withdraw moved for his because RAKOFSKY solely motion, RAKoFsKY,s Jackson

ownwithdrawalbecauseaconflictexistedbetweenhimandhisclientand

both TIIOMSON case for inexperience" as the "thtow[n]."off not RAKOFSI(Y's was maliciouslY Published' REUTERS, through SLATER

through VENTURES and BANNI BANNED 2011' 23, 178. On APril

and hate, TARRANT 84, with malice consideration for

the standards

in

without due grossly irresponsible manner

ordinariþ of information gathering and dissemination

followedbyresponsibleparties,inre followedbyresponsibleparties,inrecklessdisregardf cklessdisregardforthetruth,publish orthetruth,publishedintheir edintheir judge declared mistrial .,How to pay for Lawyer, by tg4,' that"The article entitled,

is happens'" However' the record ever never that -- something because he was so bad for to withdraw as lead counsel permitted be he that requested clear that RAKOFSIC' granted RAKOFSKY,S permitted, and that Judge Jackson So was and the defendarrt

motionsolelybecauseRAKox,sKYm motionsolelybecauseRAKox,sKYmovedforhisownw ovedforhisownwithdrawalbecause ithdrawalbecauseaconflict aconflict in did not grant amistrial' either Jackson and crient, his existed between him and ..never ..so bad,,, something that, whether it was whole or in part, because RAKOFSKY everhappens,,didnotoccurinthecasereferredtointheirarticle. with malice through HACKERSON' TIIOMAS 201I'ST' 6' 179- On April and hate,

in

standards due consideration for the without manner grossþ irresponsible 60

of

by responsible parties' in information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed Law Grad's Incompetence Leads reckless disregard for the truth, published that "Recent or in part, for incompetence to Mistrial.,, HoweveÍ, there was no mistrial, either in whole to in their publication' on the part of RAKOFSKY, the "recent law grad" referred

180.OnAprilL,2}||,MICHAELT'DOUDNALAW'throughDOUDNA' due consideration for the with malice and hate, in grossly irresponsible manner without

followed by responsible standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily article entitled' parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their

"D'c''s

"Rakofsky described his Lawyer's Inexperience obvious; Judge Declares Mistrial" that This behavior' as the jury, sayin gthat"he had never tried case before"' inexperience to

judge on this case to declare mistrial' well as other tell-tale signs of inexperience led the for refusing to get Another disquieting fact is that Rakofsþ fired an investigator

of ethics' The Defendant in witness to lie about the crime in question. Talk about breach by Rakofsþ's lack of this case suffers the most, as his right to afatr trialis compromised that RAKOFSKY requested experience and his behavior. However, the record is clear defendant and was so permitted' that he be permitted to withdraw as lead counsel for the and thæ Judge Jackson granted

RAKOFSKY's motion solely because RÄKOFSKY

between him and his client' and moved for his own withdrawal because conflict existed Judge Jackson did

not grant amistrial, either in whole or in part, because of "Rakofsky's

lack of experience and his behavior'"

l81.OnAprill3,20l1,YAMPOLSKY&ASSOCIATES'through manner without due YAMPOLSKY, with malice and hate, in grossly irresponsible and dissemirration ordinarily consideration for the standards of information gathering

followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard for the 61

truth, published in their

article entitled, "I Never Tried case Before...But what's the Big Deal?" that "the attomey told the investigator via an attached e-mail to 'trick'

testiffing in court that

govemment witness into

she did not see his client at the murder scene." However, no such

email was ever written and therefore, neither YAMPOLSKY

ASSOCIATES, nor

YAMPOLSI(Y, could ever have seen such an email'

182.

On April 8,2011, O'HALLERAN LAW, through O'HALLERAN, with

malice and hate, in grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible

parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled, "Mistrial in

Murder Case Because of Atty Incompetence" that "A judge recentþ declared mistrial in murder case because of the defense attorney's incompetance. [slc]" However, the

is clear that RAKOFSKY requested that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel and was permitted, and that Judge Jackson granted RAKOFSI(Y's motion solely because

RAKOF'SKY moved for his own withdrawal because conflict existed between him and his client andthatno mistrial was ever granted by Judge Jackson, either in whole or in paÍI,,,becavse of the defense attorney's incompetence,fsic]" whether the reference to the ..defense attorney" be intended to refer to RAKOFSKY or to his co-counsel, Grigsby,

who was not permitted to replace RAKOFSI(Y as lead counsel.

SCHILLER, through wEAvER, with

183. On April 13,2011, REITER

malice and hate, in grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible

parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled, .,Competence" that "The final straw for Judge Jackson was frling he received on Friday,

62

April

from an investigator hired by Rakofsky, who Rakofsky later fired and refused to

pay when the investigator failed to carry out his request to "trick"

witness "to say that

she did not see the shooting or provide information to the lawyers about the shooting."

However, RAKOFSI(Y neither "fired" nor "refuSed to pay" an investigator "when the investigator failed to carry out his request to 'trick'

witness 'to say that she did not see

the shooting or provide information to the lawyers about the shooting,"' which

RAKOFSI(Y never did as REITER

SCHILLER and WEAVER would have known

had they read the email containing the alleged request to the "investigator."

184.

Further, on April 13,2011, REITER

WEAYER, with malice and hate, in

SCHILLER, through

grossly irresponsible manner without due

consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily

followed by responsible parties, in reckless disregard for the truth, published "Judge Jackson declared

mistrial and fired Rakofsky and his local counsel that day, and will

appoint new counsel for Deaner." However, the record is clear that RAKOFSKY moved the court to be permitted to withdraw as counsel for his client because between him and his client and Judge Jackson granted

upon RAKOFSKYTs motion to withdraw

conflict existed

RAKOFSI(Y's motion solely

as counsel because

conflict existed between

him and his client. However, Judge Jackson never "fired Rakofsky" and never declared mistrial.

AS AND FOR

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION T]NDER VIOLATION OF

THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW

63

185.

Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the paragraphs above.

186.

Defendants

jointly

and severally violated the provisions of Sections 50 and

51 of the New York Civil Rights Law in that each defendant used for advertising pu{poses, or the pu{poses of trade, the name, portrait or picture of plaintiff

living person

without first having obtained the written consent of plaintiff.

lS7.

direct and proximate result of the violation of Sections 50 and 51 of

As

the New York Civil Rights Law plaintiff may maintain this action to prevent and restrain the use thereof and seek damages for injuries sustained by reason of such use.

RELIEF SOUGHT

188. Plaintiffs

request that

the court order and temporarily enjoin

(a)

WASHINGTON POST from publishing the online versions of the defamatory WASHINGTON POST April 1, 2011 and April 9, 2011 articles, along with comments attached thereto, (b)

CREATM

and

CITY PAPER from publishing the on line version

of the defamatory CREATM and CITY PAPER April 4, 2011 afücle, along with comments attached thereto, (c)

MEDIA through ATL from publishing the on line

version of the defamatory MEDIA through

ATL April 4, 20ll article, along with

comments attached thereto, (d) ABA through ABA JOURNAL from publishing the on

line version of the defamatory ABA through ABA JOURNAL April4,

20ll

and

April

8,

2017 articles, along with comments attached thereto, (e) SHINGLE from publishing the on line version of the defamatory SHINGLE April 3, attached thereto,

20ll

afücle, along with comments

(Ð SIMPLE through BLOG SIMPLE from publishing the on line

version of the defamatory SIMPLE through BLOG SIMPLE April 4, 2011 article, 64

alongwithcommentsattachedthereto,(g)MAY alongwithcommentsattachedthereto,(g)MAYERLAwfrompublishingthe ERLAwfrompublishingtheonline online article, along with comments 2011 4, April LAW MAYER version of the defamatory of the defamatory Grrrr pubrishing the on rine version attached thereto, (h) GTrr{

fto

attached thereto' (Ð comments with along article, April 2, 2071

from publishing

theonlineversionofthedefamatoryC&FApril4,20Tlarticle,alongwithcomments of the pubrishing the on rine version from LAwyER thereto, c) A..TDENT attached

defamatoryACCIDENTLAWYERAprilS,20llar defamatoryACCIDENTLAWYERAprilS,20llarticle,alongwithco ticle,alongwithcomments mments of the version line on the publishing LAw attached thereto, (k) FARA.rr defamatory FARAJI

LAw

comments attached thereto, with along article, Aprî|2,2011

G)BENNETT&BENNETTfrompublishingtheonlineversionofthedefamatory thereto' BENNETT

BENNETT April

attached 4'2011 article' along with comments

(m)SEDLAwfrompublishingtheonlineversionofthedefamatorySEDLAwApril

5,zl|Iarticle,alongwithcommentsattachedthereto,(n)THEDAILYand ADVANTAGEfrompublishingtheonlineve ADVANTAGEfrompublishingtheonlineversionofthedefamator rsionofthedefamatoryTHEDAILYand yTHEDAILYand

ADVANTAGEApril4,z[|larticle,alongwithcomm ADVANTAGEApril4,z[|larticle ,alongwithcommentsattachedther entsattachedthereto,(o) eto,(o) ALLBRITTONfrompublishingtheonlineve ALLBRITTONfrompublishingtheonlineversionofthedefamator rsionofthedefamatoryALLBRITTON yALLBRITTON publishing thereto, (p) RDTTL from attached comments with Ap^2,2011 articre, arong theonlineversionofthedefamatoryRDTTLAp theonlineversionofthedefamatoryRDTTLAprilT,20llarticle,alo rilT,20llarticle,alongwithcomments ngwithcomments on the line version of the publishing from LAw attached thereto, (q) K'EHLER artic'es, along with 20II 10, April and K'EHLER LAw Ãpri|2,2011 defamatory

commentsattachedthereto,(r)TLF commentsattachedthereto,(r)TLFfrompublishin frompublishingtheonlineve gtheonlineversionofthe rsionofthe defamatoryTLFAprill,z[tlarticle,alo defamatoryTLFAprill,z[tlarticle,alongwithcomments ngwithcommentsattachedthereto attachedthereto,(s) ,(s) BEASLEYFIRMfrompublishingtheonlineversionofthedefamatoryBEASLEY FIRMAprill,20tlarttcle,alongwithcommentsattachedthereto,(t)STEINBERG 65

STEINBERG MORTON from publishing the on line version of the defamatory MORTON April 1,

20ll

article, along

with comments attached thereto, (u) PALMIERI

LAW April 6' LAW from publishing the on line version of the defamatory PALMIERI (v) TANNEBAUM WEISS from 2017 afücle, along with comments attached thereto, WEISS April 1l'2017 publishing the on line version of the defamatory TAI\NEBAUM

BROWI\ from article, along with comments attached thereto, (w) WALLACE BROWN April 10' 2011 publishing the on line version of the defamatory WALLACE P'C' from publishing the on article, along with comments attached thereto, (x) WELLS line version of the defamatory attached thereto,

yELLS

P.C. April lg,2011 article, along with comments

(v) MCKINNEY LAW from publishing the on line version of the

defamatory MCKINNEY

LAW April 4, 20ll

afücl'e, along

with comments attached

the on line version of the thereto and (z) THOMSON REUTERS from publishing defamatory TIIOMSON REUTERS attached thereto and

April 4, 2011 article, along with

(AA) BANNED VENTURES

and

comments

BANNI from publishing the on

BA¡INI Aptil 23' 2017 line version of the defamatory BA¡INED VENTT]RES and (BB) ST' TIIOMAS from publishing article, along with comments attached thereto and 6,2011 article, along with the on line version of the defamatory ST. TIIOMAS April comments attached thereto and

(cc) MICIIAEL T. DOUDNA LAW from publishing

LAW April 8, 2011 the on line version of the defamatory MICHAEL T. DOUDNA

(DD) YAMPOLSKY article, along with comments attached thereto and AssoclATEsfrompublishingtheonli AssoclATEsfrompublishingtheonlineversionofthedef neversionofthedefamatoryYAMPO amatoryYAMPOLSKY& LSKY& attached thereto and (EE) ASSOCIATES April I3,20I7 article, along with comments

of the O,IIALLERAN LAW from publishing the on line version O,HALLERAN LAW April 8,

20ll

defamatory

atticle, along with comments attached thereto and 66

SCHILLER from publishing the on line version of the defamatory

(FF) REITER

REITER

SCHILLER April 13,2011 article, along with comments attached thereto.

189. As

direct, specific and proximate consequence of WASHINGTON

POST's, ALEXAIIDER's, JENKINS', CREATIYE's, CITY PAPER's, SMITII's,

MEI)IA's, ATL's, MYSTAL's, ABA's, ABA JOURNAL's, WEISS', RANDAG's' SHINGLE,S, ELEFANT'S, SIMPLE'S, BLOG SIMPLE,S, GREENFIELD'S, MAYER LAW's, MAYER's, GHH'S, GAMSO's,

X"s, "JOIfN DOE #l'sr"

ACCIDENT LAWYER's, "JOHN DOE #2's," FAR'AJI LAW's, FARAJI's' BENNETT

BEI\NETT,S, MARK BEI\NETT'S, SEI) LAW'S, SEDDIQ,S' THE

DAILY's, ADVA¡ITAGE's, SPERRY's, ALLBRITTON's, TBD',s, RI)TTL's, J-

I)OG's, HESLEP's, BEA]\I's, KOEHLER LAW's, KOEHLER's'

TLX"s,

TURIG}VITZ,S, BEASLEY FIRM,S, KEI\NERLY,S, STEINBERG MORTON,S,

PRIBETIC'S, PALMIERI LAW'S, PALMIERI,S, TANNEBAUM \ilEISS,, TAIINEBAUM's,'WALLACE BROWY

s,

WALLACE'

s, WELLS P.C.'s,

WELLS"

MCKI|INEY LAW's, MCKI|INEY's, THOMSON REUTERS', SLATER's,

BAI\NED VENTURES', BANNI's, TARRANT 84's, ST. THOMAS" HACKERSON's, MICHAEL T. DOUDNA LA\il's, DOUDNA's, YAMPOLSKY

ASSOCIATES" YAMPOLSKY',s, O'IIALLERAII LAW's, O'HALLEtrlAN's, REITER

SCHILLER's and WEAVER'S acts, RAKOFSKY has suffered terrible

mental anguish, has been urable to sleep, has been subjected to physical pain as

result

of being unable to sleep and has been unable to participate in the majority of his

activities. Due

to

WASHINGTON POST's, ALEXAIIDER's, JENKINS',

CRE,ATIVE,S, CITY PAPER,S, SMITII,S, MEDIA,S, ATL,S, MYSTAL,S, ABA'S,

ABA JOURNAL's, 'WEISS', RANDAG's, SHINGLE's, ELEFANT's, SIMPLE's, 67

BLOG SIMPLE's, GREENX'IELD's, MAYER LA\M's, MAYER's, GHII's, GAMSO's,

F's, "JOIIN DOE #l'sr" ACCIDENT LA\ryYER's, "JOIfN DOE

#2,5,,, FARAJI LAW'S, FARAJI,S, BENNETT

BEI\NETT's, SED LAW's, SEDDIQ's, THE

BENNETT,S, MARK ADVANTAGE's,

SPERRY's, ALLBRITTON's, TBI)'s, RI)TTL's, J-DOG's, HESLEP's, BEAI['s,

KOEHLER LAW's, KOEHLER's, TLF's, TURKEWITZ's, BEASLEY FIRM's, KENNERLY's, STEINBERG MORTON's, PRIBETIC's, PALMIERI LA\il's, PALMIERI,S,

.WEISS,,

TANNEBAUM,S, WALLACE BROWII'S,

WALLACE's, WELLS P.C.'s' WELLS', MCKINNEY LA\il's, MCKINNEY's,

THOMSON REUTERS', SLATER's, BANNED VENTURES', BAIINI's, TARRANT 84's, ST. THOMAS', HACKERSON's, MICHAEL T. DOUDNA ASSOCIATES', YAMPOLSKY's, LAW's, DOUDNA's, YAMPOLSKY SCHILLER's and O'HALLERAI\ LAW's, O'IIALLERÄN's, REITER WEAVER's acts, RAKOFSKY's and RLF's reputations have been irreparably destroyed; RAKOFSI(Y and RLF have been dismissed by existing clients as

direct

result of the aforementioned defendants' malicious publications and have been forced to refer existing cases to other law firms to prevent against further damage to such clients as result of the aforementioned defendants' malicious publications. Because RAKOX'SKY suffered physical pain, mental anguish and aprofoundly traumatic emotional injury at the

hands

of $ASHINGTON POST, ALEXANDER, JENKINS, CREATM, CITY

PAPER, SMITH, MEDIA, ATL, MYSTAL, ABA, ABA JOURNAL,

\ryEISSO

RANDAG, SHINGLE, ELEF'ANT, SIMPLE, BLOG SIMPLE, GREENFIELD' MAYER LAW, MAYER, GHH, GAMSO,

F, "JOHN DOE #1," ACCTDENT

LA\ilYER, *JOHN DOE #2," X'ARAJT LAW, FARAJT, BENNETT 68

BEI\IIETT,

MARI( BENNETT, SED LAW, SEDDIQ, TTIE DAILY, ADVA}ITAGE' SPERRY'

ALLBRITTON, TBD, RDTTL, J.DOG, IIESLEP, BEAN, KOEHLER LAW, KOEHLER, TLF, TURKE\ryITZ, BEASLEY F'IRM, KENNERLY, STEINBERG MORTON, PRIBETIC, PALMIERI LAW, PALMIERI, TANNEBAUM WEISS,

TAIINEBAUM, \MALLACE BROWhI, \ryALLACE, WELLS P.C., WELLS, MCKIIINEY LAW, MCKII\NEY, THOMSON REUTERS, SLATER, BAIINEI) VENTURES, BAI\NI, TARRANT 84, ST. THOMAS, HACKERSON, MICHAEL

T. DOUDNA LÄW, DOUDNA, YAMPOLSKY O'HALLERAN LAW, O'HALLERAN, REITER

ASSOCIATES, YAMPOLSKY,

SCHILLER

has been deprived of the ability to provide legal services.

ANd WEAVER, hE

In addition, RAKOFSKY

suffered mental anguish and pain and suffering, for which,

it will require physical

rehabilitation and psychological treatment for the rest of his life, to deal with the various traumas associated with his reputation being destroyed due to the intentional or negligent

of \ilASHINGTON POST, ALEXANDER, JENKINS, CREATIVE, CITY PAPER, SMITII, MEDIA, ATL, MYSTAL, ABA, ABA JOURNAL, WEISS' acts

RANDAG, SHINGLE, ELEF'AIIT, SIMPLE, BLOG SIMPLE, GREENFIELD' MAYER LAW, MAYER, GHH, GAMSO,

F, "JOHN DOE #10',ACCIDENT

LAWYER, "JOHN DOE #2," FARAJI LAW, FARAJI, BENNETT

BENNETT,

MARI( BEI\NETT, SED LAW, SEDDIQ, TITE DAILY, ADVANTAGE, SPERRY, ALLBRITTON, TBD, RDTTL, J-DOG, IIESLEP, BEAN' KOEHLER LAW, KOEHLER, TLF, TURKEWITZ, BEASLEY FIRM, KENNERLY, STEINBERG MORTON, PRIBETIC, PALMIERI LAW, PALMIERI, TAIINEBAUM }VEISS,

TANNEBAUM, WALLACE BROWII, WALLACE, WELLS P.C., WELLS'

MCKI|INEY LA\il, MCKIIINEY, THOMSON REUTERS, SLATER, BAIINED 69

MICHAEL VENTURES, BANNI, TARRAIIT 84, ST. THOMAS, HA'CKERSON' T. DOUDNA LAW, DOUDNA, YAMPOLSKY

ASSOCIATES' YAMPOLSKY'

O'HALLERAII, REITER

O'HALLERAI\

has been injured

addition,

SCHILLER

ANd WEAVER' IN

by those acts engaged in

heretofore by

CITY PAPER' WASHINGTON POST, ALEXANDER, JENKINS, CREATIVE' RAI\DAG' SMITH, MEDIA, ATL' MYSTAL, ABA, ABA JOURNAL, WEISS' MAYER LAW' SHINGLE, ELEFANT, SIMPLE, BLOG SIMPLE, GREENT'IELD'

MAYER, GHH, GAMso,

F, r.JoHN DoE #1," ACCIDENT LA\ryYER'

*JOHN DOE #2," FARAJI LAW, FARAJI, BENNETT

BENNETT' MARK

SPERRY' BEIINETT, SED LAW, SEDDIQ, THE DAILY, ADVANTAGE'

LAw' ALLBRITTON, TBD' RDTTL, J.DOG, IIESLEP, BEAN, KOEHLER STEINBERG KOEHLER, TLX', TURKEWTTZ, F¡FiASLEY F'IRM, KENNERLY'

WEISS' MORTON, PRIBETIC, PALMIERI LAW, PALMIERI TANNEBAUM WELLS', TAIINEBAUM, WALLACE BROWI\, WALLACE, WELLS P'C"

BANNED MCKINNEY LAW, MCKINNEY, THOMSON REUTERS, SLATER'

MICHAEL VENTURES, BANNI, TARRANT 84, ST. THOMAS, HACKERSON' T. DOUDNA LAW, DOUDNA, YAMPOLSKY O'HALLERAN LAW, O'HALLERAII, REITER

ASSOCIATES' YAMPOLSI(Y'

SCHILLER

ANd

WEAVER

impaired, has lost his which has caused his health and quality of life to be profoundly

ability to work in

that meaningful way and to provide, for himself, the basic necessities

ahuman being requires for survival now and hereafter'

jointly and WIIEREX'ORE, the plaintiff pfays judgment against the defendants severally as follows: 70

A.

Permanently restraining defendants from publishing the name, portrait or picture of plaintiff without her consent;

B. in an amount

to be determined at trial of this action and that the court

assess

punitive damages, together with the costs of suit, disbursements and attorney's fees, and

C.

Such other and firther relief as to which this Court may deem proper and applicable to award.

7l

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

jury' Plaintiff hereby demands atrial by Dated: New York, New York MaY 11,201t RespectfullY Submitted,

By: JosePh RakofskY, Esq' 4400 us-9 Freehold, NJ 07728

(877) 40r-1s29 Bar Code 03446-2009 JosephRakofsþ@ gmail' com

BorzouYe, Esq

BORZOUYE LAW l'rRM' P.C' Attorney for Plaintiffs 14 Wall Street,20* Floor NewYork,NY 10005 Q12) 618-14s9 Bar Code R83461 AttorneYB zouY e@gmail' com

ì#

72

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COUNTY OF NEW YORK

-"

,dil--""ôrr*t--LAW FIRM, P.C., RAKOFSKY

Plaintifß,

SUMMONS

Civil Action -against-

THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY KEITH L. ALEXANDER JENNIFER JENKINS CRE,ATIVE LOAFING MEDIA WASHINGTON CITY PAPER REND SMITH BREAKING MEDIA, LLC ABOVETHELAW.COM ELIE MYSTAL AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ABAJOURNAL.COM DEBRA CASSENS WEISS SARAH RANDAG MYSHINGLE.COM CAROLYN ELEFANT SIMPLE ruSTICE NY, LLC BLOG.SIMPLEruSTICE.US SCOTT H. LAW OFFICE OF ERIC L. MAYER ERIC L. MAYER, individuallY CAT'¡SO, IIELMICK HOOLAHAN JEFF GAM SO, individuallY

CRIMEANDFEDERALISM. COM ..JOHN DOE #1'' ONTENU O-ACCIDENTLAWYER. OM ..JOHN DOE#z"

rÀw oFFICE oF FARAJI A' RoSENTHALL

fnnnil A. ROSENTHAL, indtuiduallY BENNETT AND BENNETT MARK BENNETT individuallY SEDDIQ LA\M MIRzuAM SEDDIQ, individuallY

IndexNo

cD IGNITYT orHELAw'

ä3+%"#* *l.oocs+@YMAIL'coM"

BL

csP or'

ADRIAN K. BEAN TTESTEP

ASSOCIATES

DAN SLATER

eaÑÐ vENTURES' LLc BA}TNINATION.COM

LEAHK. WEAVER Defendants

oM

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:

yOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer inthis action and serve copy of yogr answer at Supreme Court of the State of New York, 60 Centre Street,

York,

NY 10007, or if the complaint is not served with the suÍtmons to serve notice of appealance, on the plaintiff

attomey within twenty one (21) days after the service of

this summons, exclusive of the day of service. If this service is not personally served upon you, or if this summons is served upon you outside of the State of New York, then

your answer or notice of appearance must be served within thirty (30) days' In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default, for the demanded in the comPlaint.

Dated: New York, New York May 1l,20ll Respectfully Submiued, Esq

BORZOtryE LAW FrRM, P.C. 14 Wall Street, 20ú Floor New York, NY 10005 AttorneyB rzorty @gmail. om

Qrz) 618-14s9

Bar Code R83461

Rakofsky v Internet

Recommend Documents