Lori Palmieri, The Stink of Pathetic (Update)
And then, quietly nestled in the file, was another paper, entitled stipulation, between Joseph Rakofsky and a defendant named Lori Palmieri from Tampa, Florida. It had been in the file since last July, but no one noticed. No one knew who Lori Palmieri was, and her presence or absence didn't make anyone's radar. But there was the stip alerting all that she the action against her was discontinued pursuant to a "confidential agreement." She settled.
What Lori Palmieri wrote about Joseph Rakofsky is lost to the ages. No one seems to remember anything about it, or her, except Rakofsky, and now it's gone. In its place is new post, clearly part of her settlement, in which she humiliates herself. Worse still, as she exposed her shame to the public, no one noticed. The post is dated July 1, 2011, and not until the stip was accidentally found in the file did anyone bother to look. It's like Lori Palmieri never existed.
The first inclination is to castigate Palmieri for her cowardice and ignorance. She could have done nothing and won, since Rakofsky couldn't get jurisdiction over her no matter what. But more importantly, there was no cause of action, no valid claim. She's a lawyer, and there's no excuse for her not knowing. And still she collapsed in a demonstration of spectacular cowardice and ignorance.
Last month, I posted about New Jersey lawyer, Joseph Rakofsky regarding his representation of a criminal client named Dontrell Deaner in a murder trial in Washington, DC after The Washington Post’s article. Mr. Rakofsky is unhappy about the content of the post and believed it defamed him. Thus, I am included in the Supreme Court of the State of New York civil action of Rakofsky v. The Washington Post Company, et al. As a fellow criminal defense practitioner, I regret this misfortune that has befallen Mr. Rakofsky. To the extent that I have in some way perpetuated others’ comments on his professionalism, I wish that had not occurred.
Palmieri "perpetuated" nothing, as no one knew she existed except Rakofsky. Until now, when the only thing known about her is that she is pathetic.
But after looking at Palmieri's website, her disgrace begins to make sense. It stinks of desperation, using every gimmick the marketers promote. From the creepy video to the badges near her head. She has a flawg attached to it, which includes insipid blurbs. She was no blawger. She couldn't have cared less about free speech or, for that matter, what Joseph Rakofsky did to poor Dontrell Deaner. She was the caboose, jumping on what she thought was a train that might gain her a fee after thinking people had done their work. She tagged along, hoping someone would notice. The only person who did was Rakofsky.
Standing up to Rakofsky wouldn't get her a client or make her a dime, so why bother? Cut your losses and run, get out of this. So the price was to humiliate herself publicly by writing such utter stupidity? Who cares? Not Lori Palmieri, who had no real horse in the race.
It is easy to pick up these articles and run with them because it makes for interesting posts. Nevertheless, we should all endeavor to look beyond the content that newspapers print to the people behind them. There is a great deal more to know about Mr. Rakofsky than what was written in my blog. No doubt, his course of conduct going forward will give better insight into the kind of man and lawyer he is. I, and perhaps many of the other bloggers who cited to the Washington Post’s article, did not have the benefit of the entire story. We should have done better.
Palmieri speaks for no one but herself. Others knew exactly what they were writing and why. Others were disinclined to disgrace themselves by saying whatever it took to beg out of the case. Others did better. Palmieri did not.
There are a few messages here, but the one that stands out after the amazement at Palmieri's cowardice and ignorance is the abject failure of the all the marketing gimmicks, scams and schemes, to make anyone notice Palmieri existed. Here she was, humiliated in all her glory, and no one noticed. No one cared. She did everything the marketers said a lawyer should do to become a thought leader, a game changer, a player on the internet. And she was still a nobody. The only thing her shamelessness brought her was a lawsuit, and subsequent humiliation. It doesn't get more pathetic.
When this first became known, announced by Eric Turkewitz after he obtained the judge's terse reaction to Rakofsky's latest papers, rejected as "incomprehensible," it was astounding that someone who claimed to be a criminal defense lawyer would be so weak, so ignorant, such a coward. But after reflection, the anger and amazement wore off. Lori Palmieri may be all those things, but what she mostly reflects is a sad, pathetic lawyer who was so desperate for a case that public humiliation meant nothing to her.
And if Turk hadn't accidentally stumbled across the stipulation, the monument to Palmieri's disgrace, no one would have ever known she existed. No string of marketers' adjectives can cover the stench of this massive failure. It's not just the odor of cowardice and ignorance, but the stink of pathetic humiliation.
Update: After writing this post, I happened upon a comment left by "Lori D. Palmieri, Tampa Criminal Attorney," dated May 25th, left at a post by Jeff Gamso on Rakofsky.
It just goes to show you how important it is to do your research when hiring a criminal defense attorney! In light of being sued by Rakofsky for an earlier blog post on this same topic, I decided to follow up with another addressing the lessons learned - mainly focusing on asking questions about experience, certifications, reputation etc. Rakofsky shouldn't have accepted this case, but to eliminate this from ever happening to you - we should all do our homework!
The funny thing about irony is how often it bites one in the butt.