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

-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, et ano. Plaintiffs, -against-

TNDEX NO. 105573/2011
NOTICE OF MOTION

THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, et at. Defendants.

------------------------ ..--------------------------------------.-J(
sTRnvrADAME: PLRASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Affidavit of Joseph Rakofsky, Esq., dated the 24th day of October, 2011, the Exhibits, and thc proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court, at the Motion Support Office Courtroom of the Supreme Court, New York County, at the Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, Room 130, New York, New York, on the 17th day of November, 2011, at 9:30 am, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for: (1) an order, to permit Plaintiffs to serve a subpoena upon all web hosting

companies andJor agents of defendant Harmed Ventures, LLC, who possess equipment used to operate or maintain the website BanniNation.com, which is owned or operated by

Banned Ventures, LLC and/or "Tarrant 84" and/or "Graham"; (2) an order, to permit Plaintiffs to serve a subpoena upon Google, Inc. so that

plaintiff may ascertain such anonymous defendants' website's IP address, email addresses, first and last name of"J-Dog" and all other information in Google, Inc. 's

possession concerning RestoringDignityToTheLaw.Blogspot.com

and pseudonymous

defendant J-Dog, such information being stored in Google's cache system for only a very limited period of time.

(3)

an order, to preserve electronic data and forbidding any party from

destroying, altering, deleting or spoiling their communications, documents, other material and content relevant and material to this case. (Forensic Analytical Computer Expert's Affidavit is attached as Exhibit 1.) (4) an order, pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), permitting Plaintiffs to file and serve

a Supplemental Summons and a Second Amended Complaint (A) to restate their causes ofaction;(I3) to dismiss eight ("8") parties; (C) to add fourteen ("14") parties; (D) to eliminate the prayer for the prior restraint of certain defendants formerly sought by plaintiffs; (E) to add new causes of action; and (F) to state bases of jurisdiction. (5) an order, pursuant to CPLR 3025, deeming (A) all previous amendments

to the caption of this action, and (B) all additional amendments proposed on this application, to be approved by this Court so that the caption will be authoritatively established and accepted by the Clerk when papers arc tendered to it; and (6) an order, to be made pursuant to this Court's inherent authority to control

the conduct of the attorneys who appear before it, on papers, in person, or both, and referring this matter to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department for such investigation and such additional actions as that Committee may deem to be appropriate; and (7) an order, finding that RICHARD BORZOUYE, ESQ. (A) failed to protect

Plaintiffs properly while seeking leave to withdraw as their counsel; (B) abandoned his professional responsibilities to Plaintiffs while seeking leave to withdraw as their counsel; (C) failed to serve this Court's Order dated July 22,2011 upon Plaintiffs in the manner andlor within the time limits directed by this Court in such Order; (D) failed to

2

file a Retainer Statement; (E) failed to file a Letter of Engagement; and (F) engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. (8) an order, pursuant to CPLR 305(a) and 2001, deeming the so-called

"Amended Summons" to be a "Supplemental Summons"; or, in the alternative, an order, pursuant to CPI,R 305 (e) and 2101(c), allowing Plaintiffs to amend the title of the latter paper to read "Supplemental Summons"; and (9) an order, pursuant to CPLR 305 (a) and 2001, deem ing the original

Summons and the so-called "Amended Summons" to be sufficient despite the absence of (A) a statement ofthe specific basis of venue (i.e., Plaintiff JOSEPH R.A.KOFSKY's residence in New York County); (B) Plaintiff JOSEPH RAKOFSKY's specific residence

address in New York County; and (C) the date on which each of those papers was filed by the New York County Clerk; or, in the alternative, an order, pursuant to CPLR 305(c), allowing Plaintiffs to serve amended versions of those papers upon all Defendants by first class mail; and (10) an order, pursuant to CPLR 305(a), permitting Plaintiffs to serve a new

Supplemental Summons on fourteen ("14") new additional Defendants; and (11) an order, pursuant to CPLR 3014, 3016(a), and 3025(b), permitting

Plaintiffs to serve their proposed Second Amended Complaint on all Defendants (A)(i) to clarify certain aspects of the causes of action alleged on behalf of Plaintiff Rakofsky for libel, and (i i) to treat each libelous utterance as a separate cause of action (causes of action 1-38); (B) to clarify certain aspects of the cause of action alleged on behalf of Plaintiff Rakofsky for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress (cause of action 39); (C) to clarify certain aspects of the cause of action alleged on behalf of both

3

Plai ntiffs for intentional interference with contract (cause of action number 40); (D) to clarify certain aspects of the cause of action alleged on behalf of both Plaintiffs [or violation of Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (cause of action number 41); (E) to state a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (cause of action number 42); (F) to state a cause of action for injurious falsehood (causes of action 43-77); (0) to state a cause of action for prima facie tort (cause of action num her 78): and (H) to clarify certain aspects of the ad damnum clause. (12) an order, pursuant to CPLR 3215, permitting Plaintiffs to obtain nine ("9")

entries of default against defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAH A. ROSENTHALL, FARAJI A. ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY and JJ3D.C0J\1, ADRIAN K. BEAN, ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEYAT-LAW and ROB MCKlNNEYo REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER; and for such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances herein. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that answering papers, if any, are to be served at least seven (7) days prior to the return date pursuant to CPLR 2214(b).

Dated: New York, New York October 24, 2011

Freehold, NJ 07728

Tel: (877) 401-1529
Fax: (212) 618-1705 JoscphRakofsky@gmail.com

4

TO: J ames Rosenfeld Davis Wright Tremaine New York, NY 10019

LLP

1633 Broadway, 27th Floor Tel: (212) 603-6455 Fax: (212) 489-8340
Email: jamesroscnfeld@dwt.com

Attorneys for Defendants:
THE LAW OFFICE OF JEANNE O'HALLERAN, LLC and JEANNE O'HALLERAN

Robert Balin
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1633 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 603-6440

Fax: (212) 489-8340 Pmail: robbalin@dwt.com Attorneys for Defendants:
CREATIVE Jennifer LOAFING MEDIA, WASIHNGTON

CITY PAPER and REND SMITH

L. Jones Proskaucr Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036-8299 Tel: (2J2) 969-3704 Fax: (212) 969-2900

j ljoncs@proskauer.com Attorneys for Defendants: AMERlCAN BAR ASSOCIATION, WEISS and SARAH RANDAG Chetan Patil Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N. W.,
Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 434-5811

ABAJOURNAL.COM,

DEBRA

CASSENS

Fax: (202) 434-5029
cpatil@wc.com Attorneys for Defendants:
THE WASHINGTON JENKINS POST COMPANY, KEITH

L. ALEXANDER

and JENNIFER

5

Thomas A. Catalano Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 tcatalano@lskdny law. com Tel: (212) 341-4298 Fax: (212)267-5916 tcatalano@lskdnylaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: LA W OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. DOUDNA and MICHAEL T. DOUDNA David Brickman P.C. 1664 Western A venue Albany, New York 12203 Tel: (518) 464-6464 Fax: (518) 464-6688 davidbrickman@verizon.net Attorneys for Defendants: KOEHLER LAW, JANlISON KOEHLER, SEDDIQ LAW, MIRRIAM SEDDJQ, THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC and MAXWELL S. KENNERLY John H. Teschner jhtesq@yahoo.com Attorneys for Defendants: MACE J. Y AMPOLSKY & ASSOCIATES MACEJ. YAMPOLSKY Eric Turkewitz The Turkewitz Law Finn 228 East 45th Street - 17th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 983-5900 Eric@TurkcwitzLaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law firm. Scott Greenfield, Simple Justice NY, LLC, Blog.SimpleJustice.US, Kravct & Vogel, LLP, Carolyn Elefant, MyShingle.com, Mark Bennett, Bennett and Bennett, Eric L. Mayer, Eric I.. Mayer, Attorney-At-Law, Nathaniel Burney, The Burney Law Finn, LLC, Josh King, Avvo, Inc., Jeff Gamso, George M. Wallace, Wallace, Brown & Schwartz, "Tarrants-l,' Banned Ventures Banni, Brian L. Tannebaum, Tannebaum Weiss, Colin Samuels, Accela, Inc., Crime and Federalism, "John Doe" #1, Antonin I. Pribetic, Steinberg Morton, Elie Mystel, AboveTheLaw.com, Breaking Media, LLC, David C. Wells and David C. Wells, P.c.

6

Mark Weissman Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C. 125 Broad Street, New York, NY, 10004 Tel: (212) 471-8503 Fax: (212) 344-333 MWeissman@herzfeld-rubin.com Attorneys for Defendants: THOMSON REUTERS DAN SLATER

7

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, et ano.

-------------------------------------------------------------------J(
Plaintiffs, -against-

INDEX NO. 105573/2011

AFFIDAVIT

IN SUPPORT

THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, et al. Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, ) ) SS: ) being duly sworn, deposes and says: PLAINTIFFS 1. I, JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, ESQ., am an attorney-at-law, duly admitted to

practice in the State of New Jersey. 2. I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action and have knowledge of the

facts of this case. 3. I make this affidavit in support of plaintiffs' motion for leave for an

immediate discovery order, to amend their complaint, for default judgments, for sanctions and for other relief. The averments set forth in this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 4. My knowledge of the case is based on a review of the pleadings and the

other documents in the file, the investigation of the case, and my knowledge of the

criminal case in Washington, D.C. indirectly related to the facts from which plaintiffs'
causes of action arise.

1

5.

I reside in New York County, New York, at 67 Wall Street, Apartment

24G, New York, New York 10005. 6. RAKOFSKY LAW FIRM, P.C. ("RLF"), a professional service

corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey, with a place of business at 4400 U.S. Route 9, Freehold, New Jersey 07728, is also a Plaintiff in this action.
7. I am the sole shareholder in RLF.

INTRODUCTION 8. This case is a civil aetion in which plaintiff lawyer and plaintiff law firm

seek money damages and other appropriate relief.
9. 10.

Plaintiffs, Joseph Rakofsky and RLF, are the moving party. Defendants are the responding party. Plaintiffs move for various forms of relief, based on recent developments,

11.

newly discovered information and the current posture of the case at this stage of litigation. CERTAIN EXHIBITS 12. An affidavit of a forensic analytical computer expert, which avers the which is

existence of evidence of child pornography on the website BanniNation.com,

owned or operated by "Graham" and/or Defendants Banned Ventures, LLC andlor "Tarrant 84," which was maintained by Defendants Banned Venturcs, LLC and/or "Tarrant 84," and/or its agents andlor its users for the purpose of destroying Plaintiffs Joseph Rakofsky and RLF is submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "I." 13. A copy of the original Summons in this action, which was filed on May

11, 2011, is submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "2."

2

14.

A copy of the original Complaint, which was filed on May 11, 20 I I, is

submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "3." The first cause of action began in paragraph 77 on page 14, and was for defamation by libel. The second cause of action began in paragraph 185 on pages 63-64, and was for violation of New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51. The demand lor relief began in paragraph 188 on page 64. 15. A copy of the so-called "Amended Summons" in this action, which should

have been styled a "Supplemental Summons," and which was filed on May 16,2011, is submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "4." 16. A copy of the Amended Complaint in this action, which was filed on May

16,2011 as a matter of right pursuant to CPLR 3025(a), is submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "5." The first cause of action began in paragraph 84 on page 15 and was for defamation by libel. The second cause of act jon began in paragraph 195 on page 66 and was for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. The third cause of action began in paragraph 208 on pages 72-73 and was for intentional interference with contract. The fourth cause of action began in paragraph 214 on page 74 and was for violation of New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51. The demand for relief began in paragraph 217 on page 74. 17. A copy of a proposed Second Amended Complaint, (A) to restate each

libelous utterance as a separate cause of action, (B) to restate the cause of action for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress in certain respects, (C) to restate the cause of action for intentional interference with contract in certain respects, CD) to restate the cause of action for violation of Civi I Rights Law § § 50-51 in certain respects, (E) to state causes of action for injurious falsehood, (F) to add a new cause of action for

intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (G) to add a new cause of action for prima facie tort based on "cyber-bullying" or "mobbing", (H) to dismiss eight

("8") Defendants; (I) to add fourteen ("14") additional Defendants, (1) to eliminate the request for the prior restraint of certain defendants formerly sought by plaintiffs, (k) to add bases of jurisdiction, and (L) to restate the ad damnum clause to clarify the relief requested on each cause of action, is submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "6." 18. A copy of a proposed Supplemental Summons to add fourteen ("14")

additional Defendants is submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "7."

19.

As I explain more fully later (see

,-r, 24 and 25, below),

I am a member of

the New Jersey Bar in good standing. A certificate reflecting my good standing issued by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on February 16,2011 is submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "8." 20. Copies of Affidavits of Service are submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibits,

labeled Exhibit "9(a)" through "9(i)." UNDERLYING FACTS 21. in June 2009. 22. I sat for the New Jersey Bar Examination on July 29 and 30, 2009, and 1 I attended Touro Law Center, and I graduated with the Juris Doctor degree

was later notified that I had passed the examination. 23. 24. I fulfilled all additional requirements for admission to the New Jersey Bar. 1 was admitted to the New Jersey Bar by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

on April 29, 2010.

4

25.

I am a member of the New Jersey Bar in good standing. An official

certificate of good standing issued by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on February 16, 2011 is submitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "8." 26. In May 2010 I was engaged to represent DONTRELL DEANER as a

defendant in a murder trial in the District of Columbia. 27. Although I had been previously engaged to represent other clients in other

trials, those cases ultimately did not go to trial, and this turned out to be my first trial. 28. 29. I was not -- and I still am not -- admitted to the District of Columbia Bar. For these reasons, I associated myself with SHERLOCK GRlGSBY, Grigsby Firm, with offices at 601

ESQ., an attorney who is a member ofIhe

Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20004. 1 understand that Attorney Grigsby was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in or about 2003, and has extensive experience in trying cases, including murder cases. 30. 31. I was admitted pro hac vice for the purposes ofthc Deaner casco During the trial a conflict-or-interest arose when my client insisted that I

pose certain questions which, in my judgment, were inappropriate and contrary to his penal interests. 32. As a result, I was ethically compelled to ask the Trial Judge to effectuate a

mistrial, and to allow me to withdraw [rom the representation. His Honor did both of those things.

5

THE ONSLAUGHT OF DEFAMATION AND OTHER TORTS 33. On Friday, April 1,2011, The Washington Post published a story in its

paper edition concerning the Deaner trial, and was severely critical of my professional performance. 34. The story spread like wildfire both on the Internet and in traditional paper

publications; I was vilified in the worst of terms, and this included the assertions that I am allegedly incompetent to practice law and/or that I committed the crime of attempted witness tampering andlor that I am associated with other illegal and illicit activity. Following below (see 35.

mr 35-43)

are nine (9) examples.

On April 1, 2011, Defendant The Washington Post, acting by and through

Defendant Alexander and Defendant Jenkins, with malice and hate, in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, and in reckless disregard for the truth, published that I allegedly wrote and sent an email to an investigator in which I allegedly 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." I never wrote or sent any such email; therefore, neither The Washington Post, nor Alexander, nor Jenkins, could possibly have seen such an email. 36. On April 3, 2011, Defendant Shingle, acting by and

through Defendant Elefant, with malice and hate, in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, and in reckless disregard for the truth, published, in an article entitled, "From tiny ethics mishaps, do major missteps grow?"

6

that "Joseph Rakofsky of The Rakofsky Law Firm ... was dismissed by a Superior Court judge for a performance that the judge described as "below \.... any reasonable person hat would expect in a murder trial." However, the record is clear that I moved for leave to withdraw as lead counsel and that Judge Jackson granted my motion solely because a confl iet of interest arose between my cl ient and me, and that his Honor never granted a mistrial, whether based upon my "performance" or any "ethics mishap", which did not occur, anyhow. On Thursday, March 31. 2011: Judge Jackson said "[T]here's no allegation here that Mr. Rakofsky or anybody associated with the defense has engaged in anything unethical or has violated any ethics or rules of conduct. And I haven't found any quite frankly. My rulings yesterday concerned - my rulings stand as they did, but I have not in any way, shape or form found that Mr. Rakofsky or Mr. Grigsby engaged in unethical conduct." 37. On April 4, 2011, Defendant City Paper, acting by and through Defendant

Smith, with malice and hale, and in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, and in reckless disregard for the truth, published in an article that: "A Friday hearing fell apart when Judge William Jackson declared a mistrial, partially because Rakofsky's investigator filed a motion accusing the lawyer of encouraging him to 'trick' a witness." However, the record is clear that I moved to withdraw as lead counsel for Deaner because a conflict of interest arose bet ween my client and me; that Judge Jackson granted my motion to be relieved as Jead counsel for Deaner; and that Judge Jackson never "declared a mistrial," even in part, because

7

"Rakofsky's investigator filed a motion accusing the lawyer of encouraging him to 'trick' a witness." I never encouraged anyone to trick a witness. 38. On April 4, 2011, Defendant ABA, acting by and through Defendant ABA

Journal and Defendant Weiss, with malice and hate, in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, and in reckless disregard for the truth, published an article in which they stated that: "The judge declared a mistrial after reviewing a court filing in which an investigator had claimed Rakofsky fired him for refusing to carry out the lawyer's emailedsuggestionto.trick.awitness ." My 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 a weekly email to members was and is a complete fabrication that is factually untrue in all respects. Judge Jackson never declared a mistrial that was based, either in whole or in part, upon the "investigator's" "motion," which was never formally filed with the Court.

Rather, the record is clear that I moved to withdraw as lead counsel for Deaner because a conflict arose between my client and me, and that the only action taken by Judge Jackson with respect to me was to permit me to withdraw as lead counsel for Deaner for reasons entirely unrelated to any claims of the "investigator" referred to by the ABA and its employees. At no time did Judge Jackson grant a mistrial after reviewing any "court filing in which an investigator had claimed that [I} fired him for refusing to carry out [my] supposed emailedsuggestionto maliciously published. 'trick' a witness" as ABA, ABA Journal and Weiss

8

39.

On April 4, 2011, Defendant Kravet and Defendant Simple, acting by and

through Defendant Greenfield, with malice and hate, in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, and in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled "The Truth Free Zone Eats One Of Its Own," that: "To put it another way, the judge not only found Rakofsky too incompetent to handle the case, but too dishonest." However, the record is clear that I moved for leave to withdraw as lead counsel for Deaner because a conflict of interest arose. Judge Jackson granted my motion solely because a conflict of interest arose between my client and me, and not because His Honor found me to be either "too incompetent to handle the case" or "too dishonest," much less both, as Defendants Kravet, Simple, and Greenfield erroneously published. (See ~ 28, above, for remarks attributed to Judge Jackson on Thursday, March 31,2011.) 40. In addition, on April 4, 2011, Defendant Kravet and Defendant Simple,

acting by and through Defendant Greenfield, with malice and hate, in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties, and in reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled "The Truth Free Zone Eats One Of Its Own," that "no one should be surprised that Rakofsky's willingness to lie on the internet is reflected in his character as a lawyer." However, I never "lied" on the internet, and my character is not a reflection of "lies," as Kravet, Simple, and Greenfield erroneously and maliciously published.

9

41.

Further, on April 4, 2011, Kravet and Simple, through Greenfield, further

maliciously states: "You aren't willing to pay the price that Joseph Rakofsky is now going to pay. The internet will not be kind to Rakofsky, nor should it. If all works as it should, no client will ever hire Rakofsky again. Good for clients. Not so much for Rakofsky, but few will cry about Rakofskys career suicide." In that statement, Defendants Kravet and Simple, acting by and through Greenfield, recognize the extraordinary damage that bas been done to my career, yet erroneously and maliciously publish such damage as "suicide," when, in truth it is "character assassination" and the "murder" of my reputation by Defendants Kravet and Simple, through Defendant Greenfield, and other publishers similarly situated, including, but not necessarily limited to, the defendants named in the proposed Second Amended Complaint (Exh."6"). Defendants Kravet and Simple, through Defendant Greenfield, further recognized the extraordinary damage that has been done to my career by publishing, "Think about Joseph Rakofsky. And know that if you do what he did, I will be happy to make sure that people know about it. There are probably a few others who will do so as well. What do you plan to do about those loans when your career is destroyed?" 42. On April 4, 2011, Defendant Mayer Law, through Defendant Mayer, with

malice and hate, in a 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, "Lying Piece of $% "& with Screenshot as Evidence" that "the mistrial was because of Rakofsky' s hlatant ineptitude." However, the record is clear that I moved for leave to withdraw as lead counsel and was permitted to do so. Judge Jackson granted my motion because a

10

conflict of interest occurred between my client and me, and never granted a mistrial "because of [my] blatant ineptitude." 43. On April 13,2011, Defendant Reiter & Schiller, acting by and through

Weaver, with malice and hate, in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily fol1owed by responsible parties, with reckless disregard for the truth, published in their article entitled "Competence" that "The finaJ straw for Judge Jackson was a filing he received on Friday, April I 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" a witness "to say that she did not see the shooting or provide information to the lawyers about the shooting." However, Ineither "fired" nor "refused to pay" an investigator "when the investigator failed to carry out [my] request to 'trick' a witness 'to say that she did not see the shooting or provide information to the lawyers about the shooting. '" I never did this, as Defendants Reiter & Schiller and Weaver would have known had they read the email containing the alleged request to the "investigator." 44. None of these stories was the expression of an opinion as opposed to a

statement of alleged fact. 45. 46. Each of these stories was obviously "of and concerning" me. None of these stories was a fair and true report of the subject judicial

proceeding in that everyone of them wac;embellished with commentaries that deprived them of fairness and truth and/or stated assertions of alleged fact that were patently and provably false.

11

47.

Dozens of additional publications of the same defamatory character are

alleged with precision in Plaintiffs' proposed new pleading (see Exh. "6", below). INITIAL REPRESENT ATION IN THIS ACTION

48.

I engaged RICHARD BORZOUYE, ESQ. ("Attorney Borzouye") of

BORZOUYE LAW FIRM, P.C, 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, New York 10005, to represent my professional corporation and me in this action. 49. J\.s I set forth in greater detail below, I have come to believe that Attorney

Borzouyc and his law finn failed to represent me competently and properly. 50. Shortly after the original Summons (Exh. "2") and the original Complaint

(Exh. "3") were f led and service of process was underway, I found that additional parties

were continuing to defame me.
51. I have learned Attorney Borzouye erred in advising that a document be

styled an "Amended Summons" instead of a "Supplemental Summons." I respectfully suggest that this improper nomenclature did not cause any prejudice to any original Defendant or any additional Defendant. Accordingly, the error should be disregarded. CPLR § 200] provides, in full, as follows: § 2001. Mistakes, omissions, defects and irregularities. At any stage of an action, including the filing of a summons with notice, summons and complaint or petition to commence an action, the court may permit a mistake, omission, defect or irregularity, including the failure to purchase or acquire an index number or other mistake in the filing process, to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just. or, if a substantial right of a party is

not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect
or irregularity shall be disregarded, provided that any applicable fees shall be paid.

12

52.

It has been brought to my attention that neither the original Summons

(Exh. "2") nor the so-called "Amended Summons" (Exh. "4") clearly specifics (A) that the basis of venue is my residence in New York County, or (B) my address in New York County. In addition, it has also been brought to my attention that the date of the filing of the original Summons (Exh. "1") and date of the filing of the so-called "Amended Summons" (Exh. "4") do not appear on the faces of those documents. All three of these omissions violated CPLR 305(a), which provides, in relevant part, as follows: Rule 305. Summons; supplemental summons, amendment. (a) Summons; supplemental summons. A summons shall specify the basis of the venue designated and if based upon the residence of the plaint iff it shall specify the plaintiff s address, and also shall bear the index number assigned and the date of filing with the clerk of the court. _.. Where, upon order of the court or by stipulation of all parties or as of right pursuant to section 1003, a new party is joined in the action and tile joinder is not made upon the new patty's motion, a supplemental summons specifying the pleading which the new party must answer shall be filed with the clerk of the court and served upon such party. 53. I respectfully suggest that these omissions have not caused any material

prejudice to, or interfered with any substantial right of, any original Defendant or to any additional Defendant added pursuant to the so-called "Amended Summons" (Exh. "4"), and that they should be disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001 (which is quoted in '151, above), 54. In the alternative, I respectfully request that I be allowed to amend the

original Summons (Exh. "2") and the so-called "Amended Summons" (Exh. "4") pursuant to CPLR 305(c), which provides, in full, as follows:

13

(c) Amendment. At any time, in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, the court may allow any summons or proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued is not prejudiced. MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY ORDER 55. 56. This case involves communications made on the Internet about plaintiffs. The content of the communications appears on Internet websites and is

contained in computer hardware such as servers owned and/or operated by certain web hosting businesses and/or defendants. The content also is contained or may be contained in another electronic format, the emails and documents of defendants in the desktop, laptop or other electronic devices and computers of the defendants. 57. The above-mentioned content is discoverable material as it is material and

relevant to the case. 58. The content of the communications is or may be trial evidence used in

proving plaintiffs' causes of actions. 59. Since electronic data is easily capable of being deleted or destroyed,

without a backup copy of the data, it is urgent that the court issue an immediate discovery order, ordering all parties to preserve electronic data and forbidding any party from destroying, altering, deleting or spoiling their communications, documents, other material and content relevant and material to this case. 60. It is especially urgent that an order be entered requiring preservation of all

data because plaintiffs have retained an expert in the field of computers who has determined that some defendants have published other illegal and criminal content on the internet in connection with defendants' defamatory communications about plaintiffs (see
14

Exh. 1). The child pornography was subsequently hidden by the owners and/or defendants and/or agents and/or controllers, but must be preserved for the above-stated reasons. 61. In addition, it would seem, some of the defendants' communications were

overlooked by such defendants and were not hidden by them. Certain defendants have coopted the image of Joseph Rakofsky and superimposed his image on other images, including but not limited to images of young children. Such defendants have published photos of a young girl in a bathing suit, who is described as being "Jailbait," jailbait being a girl with whom sexual intercourse is statutory rape and further published "Joseph Rakofsky rapes donkey's" and "Rape-ofsky." As mentioned previously, such defendants

have published child pornography, with the intention to associate plaintiff Rakofsky with it. 62. Further, plaintiffs have named several anonymous, "John Doe",

defendants in their lawsuit because several of the defendants that made wrongful and defamatory communications failed to identify themselves, or identified themselves only with pseudonyms. 63. Plaintiffs intend to discover the true identity of the anonymous!

pseudonymous defendants. 64. Because plaintiffs' causes of action are time-sensitive, given the statute of

limitations for libel and other intentional torts, it is urgent that plaintiffs learn the identity of the anonymous! pseudonymous defendants as soon as possible. 65. Accordingly, plaintiffs request that this Court allow plaintiffs to seek

discovery immediately and serve a subpoena upon the web host businesses and/or

15

defendants that hosted the websites containing the highly illegal, Constitutionallyunprotected and defamatory communications, compelling said businesses to identify by name, address, IP address and other information, the parties that posted and communicated such illegal, Constitutionally-unprotected communications about plaintiffs. 66. In the alternative, plaintiff requests that the court declare that their actions defendants are timely filed, notwithstanding a lack and defamatory

against the anonymous/pseudonymous

of specific identification of said defendants by their true names. 67. In addition, after learning that he and his Internet website had been sued and anonymous defendant "J-

by plaintiffs, RestoringDignityToTheLaw.Blogspot.com

Dog" undertook to exploit his anonymity by subsequently refraining from posting on his website and removing the mechanism that allows visitors of such website to post comments and to send emails. 68. RestoringDignityToTheLaw.Blogspot.com is a website maintained by

Blogspot. Blogspot is owned by Googlc, Inc. 69. Because time is of the essence, plaintiff requests that th is Court aIlow

plaintiffs to seek discovery immediately and serve a subpoena upon Google, Inc. so that plaintitfmay ascertain such anonymous defendants' website's IP address, email

addresses, first and last name of "f-Dog" and all other information in Google, Inc.'s possession concerning RestoringDignityToTheLaw.Blogspot.com and pseudonymous

defendant "I-Dog," such information being stored in Google's cache system for only a limited period of time.

16

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND 70. On or about May 11,2011 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, pleading causes

of action for libel and for violations of the New York Civil Rights Law. 7) . On or about May 16, 2011 Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,

pursuant to CPJ ,R § 3025 (a), pleading causes of action for libel, intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, intentional interference with contract, and violations of the New York Civil Rights Law. 72. 73. Plaintiffs now seck leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint. A copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint is annexed hereto,

made a part hereof. and identified as Exhibit 7. 74. Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint adds fourteen new

defendants and adds three new species of causes of action, injurious falsehood, intentional interference with prospective advantage and cybcr-bullying, against the existing defendants. 75. Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint also sets out eaeh

injurious falsehood as a separate count or cause of action. 76. Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint also sets out each
COWlt

libelous utterance as a separate 77.

or cause of action.

Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint also revises the wording

of the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress claim, intentional interference with contract claim, and civil rights claim. 78. Last, Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint revises the ad

damnum clause with more specificity.

17

79. Complaint. 80.

Otherwise, the Second Amended Complaint is similar to the Amended

Before the briefing schedule was established, Washington Post Company

moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint as against it on the ground, inter alia, that it is not the owner and publisher of The Washington Post newspaper and website; that the owner and publisher thereof is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Washington Post, LLC, as a result of a 2003 transaction between Washington Post Company and Washington Post, LLC; and, therefore, that Washington Post Company is not the proper party defendant with respect to the claims asserted by plaintiffs in their Amended Complaint that relate to and arise from matter published in The Washington Post newspaper and website. Plaintiffs believe and intend to contend, based upon facts and for reasons they intend to set forth and support in opposition to Washington Post Company's motion, that Washington Post Company's motion on such ground, and the matter introduced by Washington Post Company in support thereof, are factually and legally insufficient to entitle Washington Post Company to the relief sought by Washington Post Company on such ground or to support the assertions made by Washington Post Company in support thereof. However, inasmuch as Washington Post Company has, by and in its said motion, asserted that Washington Post, LLC is a proper party defendant in this action, plaintiffs believe that it is in the interest of judicial economy that Washington Post, LLC be joined as a party defendant, as it would have been in plaintiffs' Amended Complaint had plaintiffs then been aware of Washington Post Company's aforesaid contention and assertions in its later-filed motion to dismiss, so that the issue created by such contention and assertions may be resolved at the earliest stage of pleading.

18

81.

Plaintiffs seek leave of court to file the Second Amended Complaint as

soon as possible, so as to not prejudice defendants under the current briefing schedule which requires defendants to file motions to dismiss by January 13, 2012. In the alternative, plaintiffs request that the briefing schedule be extended to accommodate the parties. 82. By being served with plaintiffs' motion now and seeing the proposed

Second Amended Complaint, defendants will have ample time to review the pleadings and act accordingly, as far as their prospective motions to dismiss are concerned. 83.

By being served with plaintiffs' motion and supporting affidavits and

exhibits, the existing defendants will have approximately three months to review plaintiffs' pleadings. 84. Plaintiffs are also notifying the parties that are sought to be added, in order

to provide adequate notice to them of this motion and the proposed Second Amended Complaint. 85. Accordingly, there will be no surprise or prejudice to defendants or

potential defendants. 86. Furthermore, the new causes of actions proposed to be added to the

Second Amended Complaint arise from the same operative fact pattern as the original causes of actions. 87. Therefore, defendants are not being served with any new statement of

background facts. 88. 89. In addition to the facts being the same, the damages sought are the same. Regarding the proposed changes that are revisions to the existing causes of

19

action and prayer for relief, the new wording will actually help the responding party by adding more detail and clarity to the existing Amended Complaint. 90. By being more detailed, more specific, and more comprehensive, the

Second Amended Complaint will satisfy the requirements of well-pleaded complaints: giving the court and parties notice ofthe transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action. 91. Accordingl y, there wi II be no prcj udi ce to the responding party by the

addition of plaintiffs' revised language to the amended complaint. 92. The defendants that are anticipated to respond to this motion and the

Second Amended Complaint arc either represented by counsel or are lawyers or law firms. 93. Consequently, any changes to the existing pleadings will be immediately

received by defense counsel, and not lay people who are unrepresented. 94. Therefore, potential delay or prejudice will be precluded since the

responding parties are already represented. 95. Litigation is dynamic and it is ordinary for a party to discover information

requiring amendment of the pleadings. 96. Since plaintiffs' investigation of this matter is on-going, there have been

discoveries of new wrongdoers which are the reason for amending the pleadings to add fifteen new defendants. 97. Plaintiffs also request leave of court to amend the Amended Summons as a

Second Amended Summons to account for the fifteen new defendants, as set forth above.

20

98.

Furthermore, cases have been settled with several of the defendants and

plaintiff requests leave of court to delete those defendants and causes of action from the pleadings. 99. amendments. 100. The efficient and effective administration of justice requires that plaintiffs CPLR §3025 (b) provides that leave shall be freely given, for

be allowed to amend their complaint as set forth above. 101. In addition to requesting a court order allowing a Second Amended

Complaint, plaintiff seeks a court order declaring that portions of the Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint are adequate under the procedural rules, in order to avoid and preclude frivolous motions to dismiss in connection with those portions. 102. Specifically, plaintiffs request approval of plaintiff's statement of venue,

based upon the residence of plaintiff individual in New York County, with plaintiff Joseph Rakofsy residing at 67 Wall Street, 24 G, New York, New York 10005. 103. Plaintiffs also request approval of the Summons' lack ofa filing date and and de minimus error. As for the

lack of address of plaintiffs on the grounds ofhannless

latter two omissions, they have been and will be corrected by the proposed Supplemental Summons and Second Amended Complaint that will state the filing date and will state plaintiffs' address. 104. Plaintiffs request approval of the designation of their Amended Summons

as a Supplemental Summons, rather than any other designation, as that is the most accurate term for the document.

21

105.

Finally, Plaintiff requests approval of plaintiffs' inclusion of seven

additional defendants in the Amended Complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs had authority pursuant to CPLR § 3025 (a) to add additional defendants within five days of filing their Complaint without leave of court or consent of the parties. THE JOINDER OF SEVEN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS BY WAY OF THE SO-CALLED "AMENDED SUMMONS" AND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS PROPER

106.

The caption of the so-called "Amended Summons" (Exh. "4") and the

caption of the Amended Complaint (Exh. "5") added seven new Defendants who were not named in the original Summons (Exh. "2") and not named in the original Complaint (Exh. "3"). They are: (A) Accela, Inc.; (B) Avvo Corporation; (C) Colin Samuels; (D) Joshua King; (E) Kravet & Vogel, LLP; (F) Nathaniel Burney; and (0) The Burney Law Firm, LLC. Putting aside the fact that the so-called "Amended Summons" (Exh. "4") should have been labeled "Supplemental Summons" to add new Defendants (CPLR 305 [a]), the joinder of the seven additional Defendants was proper: There was no order of the Court authorizing such joinder (CPLR 305 [a]); and there was no stipulation signed by all parties authorizing such joinder; but the Amended Complaint (Exh. "5") was filed on May 16, 2011, justfive days after the original Complaint (Exh. "3") was filed on May 11, 2011 (CPLR 305[a), 1003). IMPERFECTIONS IN THE ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND THE SO-CALLED "AMENDED SUMMONS" SHOULD BE DISREGARDED OR CORRECTED

107.

The caption of eaeh paper must state "the nature of the paper" (CPLR

2101 [cD, but the use of the expression "Amended Summons" instead of the expression "Supplemental Summons" should, in the absence of any tangible prejudice to the original 22

Defendants or the seven new Defendants, be deemed to be a "mistake, omission, defect or irregularity" within the meaning of CPLR 2001. The Court may permit this "to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just:' or "if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced." it "shall be disregarded .... " (CPLR 2001; see CPLR 305[cJ). 108. Both the original Summons (Exh. "2") and the so-called "Amended

Summons" (Exh. "4") were imperfect because (A) neither one of them stated the basis of the venue selected, namely, my residence in New York County (CPLR 305[a], 503[a]); (B) neither one of them stated my actual address (CPLR 305Ia1); and (C) neither one of them stated the date on which it was tiled by the New York County Clerk (CPLR 305 [a]). None of those omissions is jurisdictional, and none ofthem is prejudicial to the original Defendants or the seven additional Defendants. 109. I live in New York County at 67 Wall Street, Apartment 24G, New York,

New York 10005, but even if I did not live in New York County, venue would be proper in New York County pursuant to CPLR 509, which provides, in full, as follows: § 509. Venue in county designated. Notwithstanding any provision of this article, the place of trial of an action shall be in the county designated by the plaintiff, unless the place of trial is changed to another county by order upon motion, or by consent as provided in subdivision (b) of rule 511.

110.

This Court has not made an order changing the place of trial, and the place

of trial has not been changed on consent pursuant to CPLR 511. No party has invoked the
procedures specified in CPLR Sll(b) governing a change of the place of trial within the state ofN ew York. J

"One Defendant maintains that the state of New York is an inconvenient forum (CPLR 327[a]).

23

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 111. Summons. 112. On or about May 16,2011 Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, On or about May 11, 2011 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint with a

pursuant to CPLR § 3025 (a), with an Amended Sununons. 113. The Summons and Complaint contained a Notice to answer, requiring that

defendants file and serve an answer and/or notice an appearance within 30 days of being served with the Summons and Complaint. 114. The Amended Summons and Amended Complaint contained a Notice to

answer, requiring that defendants file and serve an answer and/or notice an appearance within 30 days of being served with the Summons and Complaint. 115. On or about May 18, 2011 defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A.

ROSENTHALL and FARAJI A. ROSENTHAL, were served with the Amended Summons and Amended Complaint. Please see Exhibits "9(a)" and "9(b)", true and correct copies of the Affidavits of Service upon said defendants, annexed hereto and made a part hereof. 116. On or about May 18,2011 defendants, ALLBRITTON COMPANY and TBD.COM, were served with the Amended

COMMUNICATIONS

Summons and Amended Complaint. Please see Exhibits "9(c)" and "9(d)", true and correct copies of the Affidavits of Service upon said defendants, annexed hereto and made a part hereof. 117. On or about May 18,2011 defendant, ADRIAN K. BEAN, was served

with the Amended Summons and Amended Complaint. Please see Exhibit "9(e)," a true

24

and correct copy of the Affidavit of Service upon said defendant, annexed hereto and made a part hereof. 118. On or about June 1, 2011 defendants, ROB MCKINN EY, ATTORNEY-

AT-LAW and ROB MCKINNEY, were served with the Amended Summons and Amended Complaint. Please see Exhibits "9(f)" and "9(g)", true and correct copies of the Affidavits of Service upon said defendants, annexed hereto and made a part hereof. 119. On or about June 1,2011, defendant, REITER & SCHHLER, P.A. and on

or about June 2,2011, defendant LEAH K. WEAVER. were served with the Amended Summons and Amended Complaint. Please sec Exhibits "9(h)" and "9(i)", true and correct copies of the Affidavits of Service upon said defendants, annexed hereto and made a part hereof. 120. Defendants, LAW OFFICE OF fARAJI A. ROSENTHALL, FARAJI A COMPANY and T13D.COM,

ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS

ADRlAN K. BEAN, ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY-AT -LA Wand ROB MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER, have [ailed to file a Notice of Appearance. 121. Defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHAl,L,

rARAJI

A.

ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS

COMPANY and TBD.COM, and ROB

ADRIAN K. BEAN. ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY-AT-LA\V

MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER have failed to serve a Notice of Appearance. 122. ROSENTHAL Defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHALL, AI,LBRITTON COMMUNTCA TIONS COMPANY FARAJI A.

25

and TBD.COM, ADRIAN K. BEAN, ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY-AT -LA W and ROB MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER, have failed to file or serve an Answer or other pleading. 123. No attorney has filed or served a Notice of Appearance, on behalf of

defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHALL, FARAJ} A. ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY and TBD.COM, and ROB

ADRIAN K. BEAN, ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER. 124. No attorney has filed or served an Answer or other pleading, on behalf of FARAJI A.

defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHALL, ROSENTIIAL, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS

COMPANY and TBD.COM,

ADRIAN K. BEAN, ROB MCKINNEY, ATTOR..NEY-AT-LA W and ROB MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER. 125. Defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAlI A. ROSENTHALL, FARAJI A.

ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS

COMPANY and TBD.COM,

ADRIAN K. BEAN, ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY -AI -LA Wand ROB MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER, individually or by counsel, have not responded to plaintiffs' Amended Summons and Amended Complaint. 126. Defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHALL, FARAJI A. COMPANY and TBD.COM, and ROB

ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS ADRIANK.

BEAN, ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY-AI-LAW

MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER, have not requested, nor been granted, an extension of time within which to file an Answer.

26

127.

Defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHAL, FARAJI A. COMPANY and TBD.COM, and ROB

ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICATIONS

ADRIAN K. BEAN, ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER, were not served with an additional notice of the claim, pursuant to CPLR § 3215 (g) 3, because this action does not involve nonpayment of a contractual obligation, but on the contrary sounds in tort. 128. Marc than 30 days have passed since defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON

FARAJI A. ROSENTHALL, COMMUNICATIONS

COMPANY and TBD.COM, ADRIAN K. BEAN, ROB

MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY -AT-LA Wand ROB MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER, were served with the Amended Summons and Amended Complaint (approximately 150 days have passed since defendants, LAW OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHALL, COMMUNICATIONS FARAJI A. ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON

COMPANY and TBD.COM, ADRIAN K. BEAN, ROB and ROB MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER,

MCKINNEY, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER, were served). 129. Pursuant to CPLR § 2217, I aver that there have been no prior motions in

the above-captioned action for a default judgment and no prior requests for a default judgment.

130.

For the above reasons, respectfully, Supreme Court must enter a default

judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants, LA W OFFICE OF FARAJI A. ROSENTHALL, FARAJI A. ROSENTHAL, ALLBRITTON COMMUNICA nONS

27

COMPANY and TBD.COM, ADRIAN K. BEAN, ROB MCKINNEY, ATTORNEYAT-LAW and ROB MCKINNEY, REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. and LEAH K. WEAVER. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 131. On or about May 9, 2011, plaintiffs retained Richard Borzouye, Esq. to

represent them in thi smatter. 132. Richard Borzouye has breached various rules of professional conduct,

deviated from standards of care, and otherwise acted wrongfully, causing damages and prejudice to plaintiff. 133. First of all, after noticing his appearance for plaintiffs, Borzouye abruptly

sought to withdraw his appearance only a couple of weeks into his representation of plaintiffs. 134. Plaintiffs relied to their detriment on Borzouye's representation and now

have been required to spend time and money to retain replacement counsel. 135. furthermore, Borzouye undertook to make secret communications to an

individual with whom he was specifically admonished and specifically instructed by Plaintiff Rakofsky to refrain from communicating, who sought to represent certain defendants, but was not admitted to practice law in New York, and therefore, was not yet admitted to practice in the case at Bar, which were damaging to plaintiffs' case and clearly should not have been made. 136. The result of the communications was that defendants and/or their

attorneys posted various comments on the internet that were damaging to plaintiffs and that certain defendants were exposed to various aspects of Plaintiffs' strategy.

28

137.

Rulc Ll of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer shall

not intentionally prejudice or damage the client during the course of his representation. 138. Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer shall

not knowingly reveal confidential information. 139. Borzouyc's secret and extremely improper communications with the

aforementioned individual were unnecessary and contained confidential information. 140. Furthermore, Mr. Borzouye failed to disclose material information to

plaintiffs before they retained him. Had the material information been revealed to plaintiffs, they would not have retained him, as .M.L Borzouyc has demonstrated a long history of abandoning clients in the middle of litigation. In fact, at the hearing on September 15,20 I I, even Judge Goodman acknowledged that Mr. Borzouye's refusal to attend the hearing evidenced his contempt for the rules of this Court and his patent pattern of completely neglecting his clients, who duly retained and compensated him for such representation and to protect their respective interests. 141. Further, Mr. Borzouye failed to serve this Court's Order dated July 22,

2011 upon Plaintiffs in the manner and/or within the time limits directed by this Court in such Order. 142. In addition, Mr. Borzouye failed to file the Retainer Statement for his

representation of plaintiffs in this casco 143. Engagement. 144. Simply, Mr. Borzouye engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Mr. Borzouye failed both to provide to clients and to file any Letter of

Professional Conduct.

29

145.

The above actions of Richard Borzouye, Esq. are wrongful and/or

violations of professional rules, standards and duties, and have damaged plainti ITs. 146. For these reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests that sanctions be imposed

upon Borzouye, attorneys fees be awarded to plaintiffs in the amount of $10,000.00, and that this matter continue to be stayed until the stay is dissolved by this Court, as was decided at the hearing before Judge Goodman on September 15, 2011. CONCLUSION 147. ANn RELIEF SOUGHT

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that the

instant motions he granted in their entirety. 148. ]49. No prior applications have been submitted. I am plaintiff in the above-captioned matter;

r have

read the foregoing

affidavit and know the contents thereof; the allegations are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
J

Dated: New York, New York October 24, 2011
,':~ ;: ......'':'.' :~:. r

Re ectfully Submitted,

, ~ e,ol......
,...1

~T

ph

akofsky,

s

(A pearingpro se)

RAYMOND GOODWIN N02ry Public. State of New York No. 01 G06245678 Oua!ifi~d In New York County Commission Explm$ Auq. 1. 2C 1~

4400 US-9 Freehold, NJ 07728 Bar: 03446-2009 Tel: (877) 401-1529 Fax: (212) 618-1705 JosephRakofsky@gmail.com

Sworn to before me on the c1!:f__day of October, 2011

30

TO:
James Rosenfeld Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1633 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 603-6455 Fa;..: (212) 489-8340 Email: jamesroscnfcld@dvvt.com Attorneys for Defendants:

THE LA W OFFICE OF JEANNE O'HALLERAN,

LLC and JEANNE O'HALLERAN

Robert Balin Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1633 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 603-6440 Fax: (212) 489-8340 Email: robbalin@dwt.com Attorneys for Defendants: CREATIVE LOAFIN G MEDIA,

W ASHTNGTON

CITY PAPER and REND SMITH

Jennifer L. Jones Proskauer Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299 Tel: (2121969:3704 Fax: (2] 21969:2900 jljones@proskaucr.com Attorneys for Defendants: AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, WEISS and SARAH RANDAG Chetan Patil Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202)434-5811 Fax: (2021434-5029 cpatil@wc.com Attorneys for Defendants: THE WASHINGTON POST JENKINS

ABAJOURNAL.COM,

DEBRA

CASSENS

COMPANY, KEITH

L. ALEXANDER

and JENNIFER

31

Thomas A. Catalano Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 tcatalano@lskdnylaw.com Tel: (212) 341-4298 Fax: (212) 267-5916 tcatalano@lskdnylaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. DOUDNA and MICHAEL T. DOUDNA David Brickman P.C. 1664 Western Avenue Albany, New York 12203 Tel: (SIS} 464:6464 Fax: (5182464-6688 davidbrickman@verizon.net Attorneys for Defendants: KOEHLER LAW, JAMISON KOEHLER, SEDDIQ LAW, MIRRlAM SEDDiQ, THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC and MAXWELL S. KENNERLY John H. Teschner jhtesq@yahoo.com Attorneys for Defendants: MACEJ. YAMPOLSKY & ASSOCIATES MACEJ. YAMPOLSKY Eric Turkewitz The Turkewitz Law Firm 228 East 45th Street - 17th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212}_983-5900 Eric@TurkewitzLaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: Eric Turkcwitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, Scott Greenfield, Simple Justice NY, LLC, Blog.SimpleJustice.US, Kravet & Vogel, LLP, Carolyn Elefant, MyShingle.com, Mark Bennett, Bennett and Bennett, Eric L. Mayer, Eric L. Mayer, Attorney-At-Law, Nathaniel Burney, The Burney Law Firm, LLC, Josh King, Avvo, Inc., Jeff Gamso, George M. Wallace, Wallace, Brown & Schwartz, "Tarrant84," Banned Ventures Banni, Brian L. Tannebaum, Tannebaurn Weiss, Colin Samuels, Accela, Inc., Crime and Federalism, "John Doe" #1, Antonin I. Pribetic, Steinberg Morton, Elie Mystel, Above'Thel.aw.com, Breaking Media, LLC, David C. Wells and David C. Wells, P.C.

32

Mark Weissman Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C. 125 Broad Street, New York, NY, 10004 Tel: (212) 471-8503 Fax: (212) 344-333 MWeissman@herzfeld-rubin.com Attorneys for Defendants:

THOMSON REUTERS
DAN SLATER

33

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, et ano.

-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
Plaintiffs, -against-

INDE)( NO. 105573/2011

AFFIDA VIT OF SERVICE

THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, et al. Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF )

N:L

\,_j

) SS:

)

__

~_\ _

_+'__\rIWQ)-'--=.L-=--l_~---=---. ---=-_\__:_'¥'

, being

duly sworn, deposes and says: I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age and reside in

On October 24,2011, I served a true copy of the annexed Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support, and Exhibits 1 through 9, by UPS Delivery to the attorneys for defendants as set forth be low: James Rosenfeld Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1633 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 603-6455 Fax: (212) 489-8340 Email: jamesrosenfeld@dwt.com Attorneys for Defendants: THE LAW OFFICE OF JEANNE O'fIALLERAN, Robert Balin Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1633 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 603-6440

LLC and JEANNE O'HALLERAN

Fax: (212) 489-8340 Email: robbalin@dwt.com Attorneys for Defendants: CREATIVE LOAFING MEDIA, WASHINGTON CITY PAPER and REND SMITH Jennifer L. Jones Proskauer Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299 Tel: (212) 969-3704 Fax: (212) 969-2900 j Ijones@proskauer.com Attorneys for Defendants: AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, WEISS and SARAH RANDAG

ABAJOURNAL.COM,

DEBRA

CASSENS

Chetan Patil Williams & Connolly LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 434-5811 Fax: (202) 434-5029 cpatil@wc.com Attorneys for Defendants: THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, JENKINS

KEITH L. ALEXANDER

and JENNIFER

Thomas A. Catalano Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 tcatalano@lskdnylaw.com Tel: (212) 341-4298 Fax: (212) 267-5916 tcatalano@lskdnylaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: LA W OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. DOUDNA and MICHAEL T. DOUDNA David Brickman P.C. 1664 Western Avenue Albany, New York 12203 Tel: (518) 464-6464 Fax: (518) 464-6688 davidbrickman@verizon.net Attorneys for Defendants:

2

KOEHLER LAW, JAMTSON KOEHLER, SEDDIQ LAW, MIRRlAM SEDDIQ, THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC and MAXWELL S. KENNERLY John H. Teschner 132 Nassau Street Suite 900 New York, new York 10038 jhtesq@yahoo.com Attorneys for Defendants: MACEJ. YAMPOLSKY & ASSOCIATES MACEJ. YAMPOLSKY Eric Turkewitz The Turkewitz Law Finn 228 East 45th Street ~ 17th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 983~5900 Eric@TurkewitzLaw,com Attorneys for Defendants: Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Finn, Scott Greenfield, Simple Justice NY, LLC, Blog.SimpleJustice.US, Kravet & Vogel, LLP, Carolyn Elefant, MyShingle.com, Mark Bennett, Bennett and Bennett, Eric L. Mayer, Eric L. Mayer, Attorney-At-Law, Nathaniel Burney, The Burney Law Firm, LLC, Josh King, Avvo, Inc., Jeff Gamso, George M. Wallace, Wallace, Brown & Schwartz, "Tarrant84," Banned Ventures Banni, Brian L. Tannebaum, Tannebaum Weiss, Colin Samuels, Accela, Inc., Crime and Federalism, "John Doe" #1, Antonin I. Pribetic, Steinberg Morton, Elie Mystel, Above'Ihel.aw.com, Breaking Media, LLC, David C. Wells and David C. Wells, P.C.

Mark Weissman Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C. 125 Broad Street, New York, NY, 10004 Tel: (212) 471-8503 Fax: (212) 344-333 MWeissman@herzfeld-rubin.com Attorneys for Defendants: THOMSON REUTERS DAN SLATER

3

I have read the foregoing; the aforesaid averments are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I belie hem to be true.

Executed on October 24, 2011
STATE OF NY COUNTYOFNY

ore me on the
c~
ATAN SUSSMAN
Notary Public. State of New York. No. 01 SU6113697 Qualified ill Queens County Certificale Filed in Nf!w Yerk County CommisSKlI1 Expires August 2, 2012

4

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, et ano.

-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
Plaintiffs, -against-

INDE)( NO. 105573/2011

THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, et al. Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDER, LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT, DEFAULT JUDGMENT. SANCTIONS AND OTHER RELIEF NOTICE OF MOTION AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT EXHIBITS 1THROUGH 9 (i) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, ESQ.
Plaintiff 4400 US-9 Freehold, NJ 07728 Tel: (877) 401-1529 Fax: (212) 618-1705 JosephRakofsky@gmail.com