Re: For Mike: vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuo

Thanks.  

Unless of course you were quoting the latin phrase at me.  ; - )

Serious note on a humorous note - this demonstrates one of the problem with our 
legal system.  This is the type of case that should be dismissed sua sponte by 
the judge assigned to it.  No one should have to file an answer to such an 
obviously bs suit.  Having to answer and appear in such a suit gives Rakofsky a 
partial victory - he has put his victims to the time and expense of having to 
even participate in his frivolous, baseless and malicious law suit.  


I'm not for an across the board loser pays system but there court rules that 
already exist in most states that would allow a judge to levy sanctions against 
Rakofsky.  Unfortunately judges don't do it nearly often enough.  


Mike F. 




________________________________
From: Johne Cook <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, May 19, 2011 11:25:24 AM
Subject: [DADL-OT] For Mike: vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super 
aures tuo

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/19/legal-rebuttal-vade.html

Legal rebuttal: "vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures
tuo"<http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/19/legal-rebuttal-vade.html>

Cory Doctorow <http://www.boingboing.net/author/cory-doctorow-1/> at 5:07 AM
Thursday, May 19, 2011

Eric Tukewitz, a New York lawblogger, was one of many, many people who
wrote about a badly managed legal defense from an inexperienced lawyer
representing an accused murderer. The defense was handled *very* badly, and
resulted in a mistrial, and then observers remarked in depth on the website
of Joseph Rakofsky, the inexperienced lawyer in question, and on the
erroneous impression of vast experience that the website created.

Rakofsky has responded by suing everyone involved, from the *Washington Post
*, who covered the story (in which they quote the judge in the case,
remarking unfavorably on Rakofsky's legal prowess), to the American Bar
Association, to the large number of lawbloggers who wrote about him.

Tukewitz is just one of the lawbloggers in question, but he's come up with a
legal rebuttal to Rakofsky's suit, which he considers baseless: "vade et
caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuo," which, loosely
translated, means "Go shit in a hat and pull it down over your ears" (lit.,
"go shit in a [knit] hat & let that same hat itself be pulled over your
ears.").

Now *that's* the law at its finest!

What was Rakofsky thinking? That a bunch of lawyers that make their living
in the well of the courtroom, accustomed to walking a high-wire without a
net as we cross-examine hostile witnesses, would somehow cower in fear at an
utterly frivolous lawsuit? Did he think that those of us that write blogs,
for all to see, might not somehow have a basic grasp of the First Amendment?
Didn't he know, well before he even went to law school, that people have a
right to set forth their opinions? How could he survive law school and pass
a bar exam without knowing constitutional fundamentals? Perhaps the better
question, why wasn't he thinking of what would happen in response to such a
suit? Was he a spoiled child that got everything he wanted simply by
throwing a tantrum?

And those of us that are practicing lawyers are the small fries, compared
with our co-defendants Washington Post, American Bar Association and
Thompson Reuters. Like they are going to roll over and pull down their
articles? Good grief.

Joseph Rakofsky -- I Have An Answer For You
<http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2011/05/joseph-rakofsky-i-have-an-answer-for-you.html>(

*via Lowering the Bar <http://www.loweringthebar.net/>*)

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |*
*
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot