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

Heh. I thought of that after I sent it. I figured you'd know I meant 'for
Mike because I know he'll be interested in the article' and not 'because
Mike needs to add something noxious to his chapeau.'  ; )

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |*
*


On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]>wrote:

> 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
>
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot