August 21, 2014

USA v. Kerik v. Tacopina v. Kerik Lurches Forward

The three-headed Kerik Tacopina litigation is slowly moving forward. As the Daily News observed today, the animosity between the parties has clearly spilled over to the lawyers, who are slugging it out in grand style.

These claims and counter-claims in this action -- Kerik says Tacopina is a drug-abusing, lying, adultering, racketeering attorney who disclosed Kerik's confidences to get out from under a possible federal investigation, and Tacopina is suing Kerik for saying that Tacopina snitched on Kerik to the feds -- were great grist for court-watchers. But now the lawyers have taken off the gloves.

Before I go any further, this post will really only be of interest to people who care about the players in the litigation or, like me, find these sorts of show-downs interesting. And on that note, there have been loads of comments from people with strong feelings about the litigants that have too often morphed into streams of consciousness that made little sense. I am urging these anonymous folks to both put their name on the posts, and, please people, exercise a little editorial control.

Anyway, Tacopina's attorney, Judd Burstein, has apparently asked federal prosecutors to file criminal charges against Kerik and his lawyer, Tim Parlatore, claiming that they based allegations in the current complaint on information taken from materials that were provided to Kerik in the criminal case under a protective order which barred Kerik from using the materials in any other litigation.

According to the News, Judge Loretta Preska yesterdat told federal prosecutors that she will not order Kerik and his attorney to reveal the sources of their claims in Kerik's civil action, and stated that the feds should either "put up or shut up," meaning, charge Kerik and Parlatore or forget about it.

Parlatore has responded by asking the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (which handles ethics complaints against lawyers) to investigate Burstein for, in sum, attempting to employ criminal charges to gain an advantage in a civil case.

On August 5, the parties appeared before Judge Laura T. Swain, who is overseeing Tacopina's defamation case. Judge Swain ultimately decided to stay matters in that litigation until at least November, based on the already pending Kerik v. Tacopina matter before Judge Koeltl, and the possible criminal contempt case before Judge Preska.

Earlier this week, Kerik filed the transcript from that appearance. It is an interesting bit of theatre and worth reading, if you care about this case. If you don't, well then, don't read it.

Meanwhile, the three-ring circus that is USA v. Kerik v. Tacopina v. Kerik continues.

S.D.N.Y. 14-cv-02374 dckt 000048_001 filed 2014-08-19 by ml07751


  1. To the owner of this web site,

    You have encourgaged the free expression of public opinions and views and you offer an "anonymous" catagory. However, you keep demanding names of the writers. I am neither a part of any team nor do I care to be. However, if you offer a web site to allow people to sound off their feelings, why do you keep asking for "names?" I mean really, are you looking to sell the names out to someone? What is the motive for that plea? How does it matter? In fact, what is the real purpose of this web site anyway? For public information, or, to gain new clients for your law firm while reporting on this legal battle?I mean if your simply looking at personal gain on this web site, say so. be honest with us. Knowing the unstable personality of some of the people involved, only a fool would release "names." and that may be a breach of your internet web site. If you cannot run this web site "anonymous" in the real sense I suggest instead of complaining out loud, you elimnate that option from your site or as Judge Preska elogantly put it, "Put up or shut up." If you cannot handle the freedom of your own web site, you may consider talking it down, or, removing any comments you disapprove of. Those are my humble meaningless public opinions. Please do not take it to heart. I like the site overall but you should be honest what you are trying to do, have a forum or solicit clients. Pick one. .

    1. This is an absurd comment. I don't care in the slightest who you really are. Anonymous commenting still allows you to create a name or nickname for yourself without revealing your actual identity. My motive is simply trying to distinguish between a host of "anonymous" commenters by asking people to make up some sort of name and stick with it.

  2. Bernard Kerik is libel-proof felon who has lost all sense of right and wrong! I'm not editorializing but truth-telling from personal experience! Bernie Kerik is full if contempt and I vote he return!

    1. Hard to argue the first sentence, I'll take your word on the second. The third sentence makes no sense as written.

  3. bahahah, yes, nothing makes sense