Brooke Goff sues law firm over fake photo showing her holding a penis
Brooke Goff recently sued Attorney Eric Reinken, Attorney Danielle Diberardini-Albrecht and paralegal Frank Zachmar, at the Reinken Law Firm, for creating and texting a picture of Brooke holding male genitalia with “an unknown substance” on Brooke’s face. An unknown Reinken employee sent the picture to Brooke, who sent a message to Eric Reinken demanding an explanation. Reinken apologized. That wasn’t good enough for Brooke Goff, who is married to CT Superior Court Judge Angeline Ioannou-Goff. Brooke sued Reinken, Diberardini-Albrecht and Zachmar for creating the picture and making lesbian jokes about Goff, the same person who posts ridiculous pictures of herself in billboards all over CT highways. Not to mention Brooke announces to the world every day on her website that her firm is about “female empowerment” and she conducts interviews about her openly gay life as a lesbian.
Before Goff went big time in the personal injury racket and married Judge Angeline Ioannou-Goff, Brooke worked as a lowly paralegal at the Reinken law firm from 2009-2016. Why did Brooke sue Reinken for such stupidity? Nobody in their right mind would take the altered picture of Brooke seriously, it was all in jest, just like Brooke’s ridiculous advertisements on the highways. Brooke must have brought this lawsuit as a way to get even more publicity, free no less. I believe anything Reinken created or anything his employees said about Brooke is protected by the First Amendment. If Reinken files a motion to dismiss based on the anti-SLAPP suit statute, Brooke will be responsible to pay Reinken’s attorneys fees and costs.
What kind of damages can Brooke prove from this stupidity? Brooke and her wife Judge Ioannou post Instagram videos of their houses in their “Luxury Home Portfolio” on Instagram. They seem to be in the high end property flipping biz if you enter their names into the West Hartford land records portal. This is in addition to the big bucks that Brooke generates in the ambulance chasing racket. Yet Brooke filed paperwork requesting a prejudgment remedy attachment against Reinken in the amount of $350K. Please! How is Brooke going to prove that she suffered $350K in damages. Give me a break!
Attorney Jared Alfin, who represents Brooke Goff stated in the lawsuit that Reinken’s employee Frank Zachmar is a licensed CT attorney. Frank is not a licensed attorney. Frank is a paralegal. Frank should sue Brooke and Alfin for falsely referring to him as an attorney and defaming his good name. What’s the difference between a giant catfish and a lawyer: one is a bottom-dwelling, slimy, scum-sucking scavenger… and the other is a fish.
6 thoughts on “Brooke Goff sues law firm over fake photo showing her holding a penis”
I’m not a fan of Brooke Goff’s advertising. I don’t know if I would ever call her. But I definitely would not call the Reinken law firm. But You sound like you have your own issues with Brooke Goff. On the one hand you said her position was a lowly paralegal while at the Reinken firm , but then accuse her of defaming Frank Zachmar, by referring to him as an atty , when he’s a paralegal! Well , Which way is it? Is a paralegal a lowly position , or is it esteemed ? Or does your opinion just depend on who it is ? Brooke can self deprecate , that doesn’t give others permission to belittle or humiliate her in that way. It’s not funny, but very typical of immature , insecure, possibly bitter men! Only real live assholes would laugh at that. They do themselves no favors, but I’m sure they think otherwise ! No matter what, you can’t make what those at the Reinken law firm did, right. It was childish and disgusting! An apology doesn’t cut it. My money would be in her comeback, wonder if those jokers would be able to laugh . This writing has clinched it for me, it reads like a gossip tabloid . If that’s what you were going for, mission accomplished. I don’t see you as a credible source. I’m unsubscribing
The First Amendment does not discriminate, it protects all creative expressive, even the “creative” expression of bitter, childish, immature, disgusting, insecure “old” men (you forgot to mention Eric is old), and the petition clause of the First Amendment protects the rights of bitter, childish, immature, insecure “middle aged” lesbians to file lawsuits in court against the bitter old men, although Brooke’s case will probably get dismissed. This blog is very educational for people who are not that familiar with the First Amendment, how dare you refer to this blog as gossip trash! This is a “Schoolhouse Rock” moment that you do not appreciate. You should move to North Korea for a while and maybe then you will understand the contribution this blog makes to our Democracy.
Republic, not a democracy
Republic, not a democracy
Larry once again you providing very good information about our legal system and some confused attorneys.
I thought they stopped naming their kids Jared after SUBWAY Jared was exposed. The noticing …..