Of Parsimony and Ockham’s Razor

January 31, 2012

The Ockraz Logo

“I offer no apology; I am the victim here, not a miscreant.”~ Joseph Rakofsky

Occam’s razor, also known as Ockham’s razor, or in Latin referred to as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness), is the principle that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually offers the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.

My co-defendant and local counsel in the Rakofsky v. The Internet lawsuit, Eric Turkewitz has  posted a new update #4 which includes a new court filing by the plaintiff, Joseph Rakofsky:

Update #4, 1/31/12 – Rakofsky’s Reply to other defense opposition to the motion in the Appellate Division to lift the stay for him only. No response to our papers (which were served 1/26/12, one day before they were due to be served): RakofskyReply. The opposing papers to which he refers are here: Teschner  (Yampolsky) Opp and Weissman (Reuters) Opp

Some may describe Rakofsky’s Reply Affidavit and legal writing in uncharitable terms:

bewildering

Delphic

cryptic

enigmatic

fathomless

impenetrable

incognizable

inconceivable

inscrutable

mystifying

perplexing

puzzling

sibylline

unfathomable

ungraspable

unimaginable

unintelligible

unknowable

Not I. I merely report the facts in evidence. Yet, the correct adjective escapes me…Ah, yes, “incomprehensible”, or as in Rakofsky’s own words:

The subtleties of Rakofsky’s formidable legal argument and rhetorical flourishes are exemplified in the following precatory phrasing:

As Ken @ Popehat remarked on Twitter:

par·si·mo·ni·ous (pär s -m n – s). adj. Excessively sparing or frugal. par si·mo ni·ous·ly adv. par si·mo ni·ous·ness n.

Whatever one may think of Mr. Rakofsky or his lawsuit, one cannot call him parsimonious in his prose.

As Edmund Burke once said:

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.

Or, in the immortal words of Titus Livius:

There is nothing worse than being ashamed of parsimony or poverty.

The day of judicial reckoning fast approaches….

Previous Related Posts:

2 Comments | Eric Turkewitz, Joseph Rakofsky, Rakofsky v. The Internet | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Antonin I. Pribetic

Zen and the Art of Blawging Maintenance

November 7, 2011
Everything Zen

Norm Pattis wrote a post a few months ago entitled: Updated: Rakofsky: Is Internet Mobbing A Tort? charitably offering up to the Plaintiff in the Rakofsky v. Internet litigation the makings of a new nominate tort: Read the rest of this entry »

3 Comments | plausibility, plausible, pleading, pleading standard, Pleadings, Rakofsky v. The Internet, tort, torts | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Antonin I. Pribetic

The Rakofsky Effect: It Actually Works!

October 26, 2011

1. My post coining the phrase based upon my reply to Nathan Burney on Twitter:

2.   Someone else then submits the phrase to The Urban Dictionary:


3.  Rakfosky then confirms the hypothesis and proves the theory by filing a new Notice of Motion and supporting Affidavit .As Eric Turkewitz, (co-defendant and local counsel assisting pro hac vice counsel Marc Randazza, representing 20 of the Rakfosky defendants) notes:

[Rakofsky] has now filed a motion to amend the complaint a second time, with a 300-page whopper including 1,248 paragraphs. He has 78 causes of action and demands, and, if my calculations are correct, he demands $145,000,000 in damages.

…

Part 1 of the proposed Second Amended Complaint is here and Part 2 is here.

4. Finally, it appears I am no longer the lone Canadian in this internet version of Franz Kafka’s The Trial. Welcome Canadian Lawyer Magazine and Reuters Canada as co-defendants! (see page 167 of the proposed Second Amended Complaint).

See also, Ken’s post at Popehat.com: The Tort of Internet Mobbing Is Perfect For Suing The Internet.

Leave a Comment » | Eric Turkewitz, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, frivolous, Marc Randazza, Rakofsky v. The Internet | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Antonin I. Pribetic

Permanent Injunction Granted in Landmark Ontario Libel Judgment

August 5, 2011

“The defendant, J. Robert Verdun (“Mr. Verdun”) has engaged in a deliberate, concerted and relentless campaign over a number of years to injure the reputation of the plaintiff, Robert M. Astley (“Mr. Astley”).  And he has done so with malice.  That was the clear and unequivocal verdict of the jury.”

The Honourable Madam Justice Chapnik, Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Astley v. Verdun.

Back on May 30th, 2011, Michael McKiernan of Law Times reported on a “Landmark ruling in libel suit“  :

A jury has awarded $650,000 to a director of the Bank of Montreal after finding renowned shareholder rights activist Robert Verdun had defamed him.

The award to Robert Astley, who is also chairman of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, included $400,000 for aggravated damages. That makes it one of the largest aggravated damages awards in Canadian history, lawyers believe.

The civil jury rejected Verdun’s defences to eight statements on May 20, finding all of them were defamatory and that he had acted with malice.

The verdict brings an end to a five-year legal battle between the two men over Verdun’s opposition to Astley’s appointment to the Bank of Montreal board.

On June 14th, 2011, in Astley v. Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651 (CanLII), Madam Justice Chapnik granted the plaintiff, Astley a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, Verdun from disseminating, post on the Internet or publishing, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, any statements or comments about the plaintiff. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | defamation, Defamation Law, injunctions, internet, internet defamation, libel | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Antonin I. Pribetic

The Rakofsky Transcript: Cost = $1400; Value = Priceless

June 3, 2011

Eric Turkewitz, the author of the New York Personal Injury Law Blog and representing 33 of the “Rakofsky 74″ defendants (now 81 in total) in Rakofsky v. The Internet, has posted Rakofsky v. Internet (First Motion) – New York Personal Injury Law Blog.

Eric has filed  a motion is to extend the time to answer for all defendants, to establish a unified schedule for making motions and answering, and to admit Marc Randazza pro hac vice. He has posted a copy of his ably drafted Affidavit and a copy of the much anticipated Trial Transcript.

According to J-Dog (the pseudonymous author of the Restoring Dignity to the Law Blog) in response to The Rakofsky’s demand for an apology and retraction (and compensation), J-Dog offered to correct his entries and apologize if The Rakofsky provided proof that the facts were different than what the Washington Post claimed. The Rakofsky then replied:

“I have a transcript, but you’re the one who wrote the story and you need to get it yourself. The transcript cost me $1400. I insist that you not take my word for it and buy the transcript yourself, which you should have done before you presumed to harm me.”

The transcript may have cost Rakofsky $1400, but from where the ‘Rakofsky 74′ defendants sit, it is priceless.

Related articles

1 Comment | Eric Turkewitz, ethics, First Amendment, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, Marc Randazza, Rakofsky v. The Internet | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Antonin I. Pribetic

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 962 other followers