Tag: Stephanie Weissenstein

Judge-Doyet-A

The Tangled Web of Southern Holdings – Update

Any time you get close to an issue that stems from the original Southern Holdings lawsuit, the tangled web of deception grows.

The latest involves a hearing before S.C. District Court Judge Doyet A. Early, scheduled for Wednesday August 20, 2014, to hear Emergency Omnibus Motions to Compel the production of a settlement agreement for the Southern Holdings case that includes demonstration of “informed consent” by each of the original Southern Holdings plaintiffs.

The existence of an “informed consent” settlement agreement is required by state and federal law to demonstrate that attorney John Rakowsky, who represented the original seven Southern Holdings plaintiffs, had the “informed consent” of his clients to settle the Southern Holdings case.

Continue Reading →

A Brief Shining Moment for Southern Holdings Plaintiffs

Sunshine broke through into a S.C. Circuit Courtroom yesterday highlighting at least one brief shining moment for the plaintiffs of the original Southern Holdings lawsuit.

Judge Doyet A. Early, III showed his courtroom follows the law, which, especially for the original Southern Holdings plaintiffs through the years, has been all too rare. He held forth as a judge who is not interested in the corrupt backroom deals that often smear the S.C. legal system, but, rather, in the truth.

As a result of Judge Early’s decisions yesterday, attorneys John Rakowsky and Adrian Falgione will have to answer questions, both will be deposed and discovery will move forward in the Rakowsky v. Falgione et al interpleader action.

Continue Reading →

Smearing the Courts, Dismantling Justice

A S.C. Hotline, Grand Strand Daily Exclusive

By Paul Gable

It came to my attention recently that Stephanie Weissenstein, attorney for John Rakowsky, sent to the Court copies of two articles from Grand Strand Daily along with a letter dated January 9, 2012. While I appreciate Ms. Weissenstein making the court aware of the articles, I do question the logic stated in her letter.

In the letter, Weissenstein refers to the articles as “this slanderous campaign in effort to intimidate and harass my client and me, while also smearing the Courts.”

First of all, surely Weissenstein understands that the articles would fall under laws of libel, not slander, if she could ignore or negate the first amendment and prove malice aforethought. Second, her claims of intimidation, harassment and smearing fall apart when the facts included in the articles are considered.

Continue Reading →

Is Justice Truly Blind?

An accounting for expense funds in the Southern Holdings case provided Sep. 15, 2011, to James Spencer, former CEO of Southern Holdings, Inc., does not conform to S.C. reporting requirements for attorney trust funds.

The accounting, which, reportedly, comes from trust account records of attorney John Rakowsky, was provided to Spencer by attorney Stephanie Weissenstein of the Desa, Ballard, Weissenstein Law Firm. Weissenstein is representing Rakowsky in an interpleader action of the remaining Southern Holdings expense funds held in trust by Rakowsky. Rakowsky represented Spencer and his co-plaintiffs in the Southern Holdings case,

Under deposits, an amount of $67,500 is shown with no identification of who provided the funds or when they were provided. Rule 417 of the S.C. Judicial Department and Rule 1.15 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct require the date, source and description of each amount deposited to be included in the records.

Continue Reading →