Kluger v. Randazza, the Appeal!

This just in -- formerly anonymous blogger appeals poorly-conceived order enjoining her from posting "defamatory blogs in the future" that concern a local developer.

You can read the opening brief here.

In other news, Jack Reiter wrote a pretty darn good motion to dismiss the RICO suit against Lewis Tein pending before Judge Cooke.

Here's a taste:

Although the Second Amended Complaint is longer, it suffers from the same defect that warranted this Court’s October 10 Order. Despite listing hundreds of invoices purporting to identify legal services rendered to the Tribe, juxtaposed with a litany of Lewis and Tein’s alleged household purchases, the Second Amended Complaint does not identify a single incident of purported fraud. The allegations do not provide any basis upon which Lewis or Tein can defend themselves. Furthermore, because the Court has already given the Tribe the opportunity to allege their RICO claim with the requisite particularity, there is no basis for giving the Tribe yet another opportunity. Simply stated, if the Tribe had the ability to advance a claim for fraud or RICO, it would have done so. The Court should dismiss this case with prejudice as to Lewis Tein.

Listen, it's very hard to properly plead a RICO claim even when you have fantastic facts and evidence.

Methinks Judge Cooke will give this a close read.

3d DCA Watch -- Conform or Be Cast Out!

Hi kids, perhaps it was a bad batch of Thanksgiving stuffing, but this week the bunker-dwellers are a decidedly disagreeable bunch.

Four civil opinions, and half are dissents.

The first one involves a terrible crime committed at The Naked Truth, and whether or not the establishment provided negligent security.

Here in dissent is Judge Rothenberg's description of the security in place at this "pleasure emporium":

It is undisputed that the establishment is well-lit, with regular and neon lighting throughout the store; there were sixteen cameras in operation at the time of the assault (some of the cameras record continuously, twenty-four hours a day, while others record when triggered by a motion sensor); there were signs inside the store informing patrons that they were being videotaped by cameras on the premises; the store utilized “drop safes” to limit the cash being held in the registers to an amount of less than $200; the sales clerks were able to view twelve of the sixteen cameras simultaneously via a monitor from a slightly elevated platform that also provided greater visibility of the store and its patrons; there was only one door (except for an emergency exit) which was locked; and patrons were only able to enter if the sales clerk “buzzed” them in. The store also contained several alarm systems, including a perimeter alarm, a fire alarm, a burglar alarm, police alarms, and panic alarms that could be triggered by pressing a fixed alarm button or activated remotely.

What does it say about us as a society that a local porn shop needs to go to these lengths to keep their employees safe?

The second one involves a purported oral loan modification that occurred "in open court" after a foreclosure judgment.

Judge Rothenberg thinks there is a slight problem with the majority opinion:

I also disagree with the majority’s decision to affirm on grounds not relied on by the trial court or argued on appeal—that the statute of frauds, section 687.0304(2), Florida Statutes (2012), requires that “an agreement to lend or forbear repayment of money . . . , to otherwise extend credit, or to make any formal financial accommodation” must be in writing. Because this issue was not relied on below, nor argued on appeal, we are in no position to consider the merits of such an argument, especially since the loan modification offered by Deutsche Bank was in writing, and was accepted by and executed by the Vargases, and the posture of the proceedings was a motion by the Vargases to compel Deutsche Bank to execute the agreement it allegedly agreed to honor.

Aren't there some rules about deciding on grounds no relied on below or argued on appeal?

In other news, Marc Randazza speaks out on Judge Leesfield's preliminary injunction banning his client, a formerly anonymous blogger, from publishing future defamatory blog posts about a local developer.

What are the odds that order will stand up on appeal?

Score One for Alan Kluger!

 
As you know, we have been covering the case between Alan Kluger and Marc Randazza over an anonymous blogger and her dispute with a wealthy local developer.

Carlos Miller and Random Pixels have been writing about the controversy as well.

In the state court action before Judge Leesfield (there is also federal litigation before Judge King), Alan won a big victory for his client:  an expansive preliminary injunction order that purports to enjoin "defamatory" blogging, stalking and tortious interference.

Although the Court notes that she made no findings of fact and that a trial on the defamation claim will be held in the future, Judge Leesfield nonetheless ordered the defendant "not to enter defamatory blogs in the future."

Question -- how will the defendant know in advance whether a blog entry is possibly defamatory or not?

Over to you, 3d DCA!

Kluger v. Randazza!

 
And Carlos Miller has the video.

Random Pixels adds his $.02.

This is like an internet party!

(To be fair, people do make mistakes sometimes.)

Props to Judge Leesfield for putting the issue of cameras in the courtroom to bed quickly and efficiently (and correctly).

She will make a GREAT mediator.

BTW, in the related federal case, Judge King just denied a joint motion for protective order, noting the SD FL's liberality when it comes to public records and public proceedings:

In addition, the parties elected to seek (and defend) relief in a publicly operated forum, namely the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The proceedings held in federal and state courts are open to public observation by any interested party. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4 for the Southern District of Florida, absent some extraordinary need for secrecy, the judicial acts performed should be open to public scrutiny.

The Court finds that the parties have not shown good cause to justify their desire for secrecy. Therefore, the Court cannot, and does not, approve the motion for protective order.

Now when can we have cameras in federal court?

Developer's Suit Against Blogger Survives Motion To Dismiss!

We've been tracking this case brought by a wealthy developer against a local, formerly anonymous blogger over negative blog posts for a while, and now Judge King has authorized the suit to proceed:

In short, Defendant acknowledges using Plaintiff's copyrighted picture without Plaintiff's consent, but argues that she was not liable under copyright's fair use doctrine. The Court, being fully briefed on the matter, finds that Plaintiff has adequately stated a prima facie case of copyright infringement; on these facts and filings, Defendant's fair use defense is not appropriate for determination on a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be denied.

In other words, the fair use doctrine defense will have to be decided on summary judgment:

Here, Defendant alleges that her use of the Image was not for parody but for news reporting and commentary. (DE #14, p. 10). Though news reporting and commentary lend themselves to fair uses, see 17 U.S.C. sec. 107, such a determination is far from automatic and is more appropriately resolved after the complaint has been answered and parties have evaluated any need for discovery.

But if the Image and the posts in which it appears are in the complaint, what further discovery would be needed?

If they are not, perhaps put them in the answer and move for judgment on the pleadings?

Dear Alan Kluger: Don't Sue Marc Randazza!

The Good Randazza has all the details and links here, but my favorite has to be this letter from Kluger to Randazza, where Alan writes "[s]hame on you for continuing to assist and encourage this unscrupulous cyber bully."

Do appeals to shame really work anymore?

Guess we'll see.

Take a look at the draft complaint the big boys sent to Randazza, and judge for yourself.

Suing a lawyer for "acting in concert" with their blogger client seems like a (gargantuan) stretch, but what do I know?

Kluger's complaint against Google(!), pending before Judge Cooke, is here.

Oh, btw -- GO HEAT!!!

Dear John Doe: Welcome to Rule 11!

In the anonymous blogger case pending before Judge Cooke, The Kluginator has filed a little document known in legal circles as a "Rule 11 motion."

Here is the blockbuster opening paragraph:

Defendant and his counsel have misapplied existing law in Defendant’s Counter-Complaint. To begin with, Defendant cannot maintain the Counter-Complaint under the fictitious name “John Doe” and be permitted to use his anonymity as both a sword and a shield. Moreover, Defendant and his counsel have asserted duplicative counts for declaratory relief that fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and are merely denials of the properly dismissed Count III, rendering the Counter-Complaint moot and therefore seeks an improper advisory opinion from this Court. Further, Defendant’s Counter-Complaint is a clear attempt at forum-shopping and judge shopping. Despite having proper notice of the frivolousness of their positions, Defendant and his counsel have refused to withdraw the Defendant’s Counter-Complaint [D.E. 1]. Accordingly, sanctions should be imposed against Defendant and his counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

Ok, I agree none of that sounds too hot, but on the other hand that's pretty much a day in the life at any given moment in state court.

What am I missing here?

(I sure hope they met and conferred on this one!)

Judge Moore Explains How to Download "Corbin Fisher Amateur College Men Down on the Farm" Using BitTorrent.

Hey it's a slow news day, what do you want?

Here's Judge Moore explaining how BitTorrent works (for those of you over 45):

Unlike traditional peer-to-peer ("P2P'') networks that require a user to download a file from a single source, the BitTorrent protocol decentralizes distribution of a file by allowing users to join a swarm of hosts to download and upload from each other simultaneously. The process begins with one user, commonly referred to as a "seed,'' who makes the file available. The seed then creates a "torrent'' file containing (1) a unique string of alphanumeric characters used to verify the data of the underlying file that is being transferred, and (2) a "roadmap'' to the IP addresses of other users who are sharing the file identified by the unique hash code. Am . Compl. 33(a). Other users, referred to as "peers,'' then download the torrent file, which in turn, allows them to identify and download from other peers who possess portions of the file described by the torrent. As each peer downloads a new piece of the file the peer becomes a source of that piece to other peers. Once a peer has accumulated enough individual pieces of the file, software allows the peer to reassemble the aggregate file.

And all just to see young men perform vigorous farmwork!

Alan Kluger Further Explains the "Meet and Confer" Requirement.

The parties in the anonymous blogging case could have had ten thousand "meet and confers" in the amount of time (not to mention money) they have spent debating the finer points of the Local Rule.

In our latest installment, The Kluginator further elucidates the difference between a "motion" and a "request" for purposes of the governmental mandate to actually communicate with opposing counsel:

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the local rules regarding pre-filing conferences for not only the Request, but also for their Request for Oral Argument on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 27] and their Request for Oral Argument on  Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [D.E. 29] (collectively, the “Requests for Oral Argument”). This is incorrect. Plaintiffs filed the Requests for Oral Argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(1), and they are not subject to the provisions of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). Moreover, the Request is merely a supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Requests for Oral Arguments and the Request are proper, and this Court should reject Defendant’s argument to the contrary.

Ok, stop:  what exactly is a "supplement" to a motion for remand?

Is that what happens when you forget to ask for fees in the actual remand motion, and then you have to file another document later asking for fees should the remand be granted?

Given the precarious nature of the "supplement" in the first place, how would it have hurt to get an angry polite response (ed. -- new oath and all) email from opposing counsel advising you to go to hail?

Now let's talk "requests" for oral argument.

Again, what if opposing counsel also wanted a hearing?  Wouldn't your request be stronger if the parties were united in their view that Judge Cooke should hold a hearing?

How would it have hurt to conferred?

Alan Kluger Explains Local Rule "Meet and Confer" Requirements.

In the anonymous blogger lawsuit filed by Alan Kluger's developer client, Alan has filed an explanation for why he didn't include a certificate of compliance with the "meet and confer" Local Rule 7.1.

I've said it before, but I see this case having a lot of potential:

Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand this case on July 27, 2011. [D.E. 10]. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand was essentially a response to Defendant’s Notice of Removal. [D.E. 1]. Defendant’s counsel, Robert Kain (“Mr. Kain”), personally hand-delivered the Notice of Removal to the undersigned, who advised Mr. Kain at that time that Plaintiffs would be seeking remand to state court. Mr. Kain did not agree to the remand, as further evidenced by Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Remand. [D.E. 13].

Undersigned counsel did not include a certification of good faith compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) in the Motion to Remand because the motion was in essence a response to the Notice of Removal and because it was obvious that Defendant opposed the remand. Undersigned counsel has since attempted to resolve the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand with Defendant, and Defendant remains unwilling to agree to the Motion to Remand or Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorneys’ Fees [D.E. 30] that was filed in connection therewith.  Plaintiffs will include certifications of good faith conferences in all forthcoming motions that are subject to such certification if and as this case proceeds in this Court.

Oh boy.

(Get that -- "if and as" this case proceeds before Judge Cooke; if "and as" -- hint hint!)

Ok, so no certificate was included because it was obvious that opposing counsel would not agree to the relief requested, and because Alan's motion was essentially a responsive pleading.

Is that an exception?

Liar Liar Pants on Fire?

It's pretty rare (or should be) to see one lawyer call another lawyer an outright liar.

It's even more rare to see that kind of thing in a federal pleading.

Yet in the case of the local anonymous blogger under fire for his/her posts about R.K. Associates, the "L" word has reared its ugly head:

Defendant's motion for reconsideration and the attached Declaration of Defendant's counsel, Robert C. Kain, Jr., (the "Kain Declaration"), are infested with falsehoods and mischaracterizations of law and facts in an underhanded effort to create an issue...There is no dispute that Defendant chose not to attend the hearing (or retain counsel to do so) in the State Court on the Motion to Quash that Defendant filed and which resulted in the Order (the "Hearing").  There was no court reporter at the Hearing, and Mr. Kain never contacted Plaintiff's counsel to inquire what actually transpired at the Hearing. Incredibly, however, in the Motion for Reconsideration and the Kain Declaration (in which Mr. Kain, as an officer of the Court, swore to the truth of the matters asserted therein), Defendant and Mr. Kain argue due process concerns regarding specific matters they claim occurred or did not occur during the Hearing.  These statements are blatant lies, and were sworn to by Mr. Kain without any basis or investigation (as such would have revealed the fallacy of the statements).

The brief goes on to call the statements "material fabrications" and "willfully false assertions" -- I should add that Todd Levine's declaration is also pretty incendiary.

I have no doubt these allegations will be quickly answered.

Alan Kluger vs. Marc Randazza in Anonymous Blogger Free Speech Fight!

I've not been shy in my admiration for the clever, snarky wit and attendant legal and writing skills of internet warrior/trailblazer Marc Randazza.

(Note to Surfside city attorney Lynn "Rage Against the Bloggers" Dannheiser -- your hilarious funny confusing Marc with the Italian place Randazzo's in the Gables remains a kneeslapper -- keep 'em coming!)

As Popehat documents, it is also a fact that Marc happens to find himself in the middle of lots and lots of interesting cases.

Marc's latest finds him before Judge Cooke in an important battle to preserve the rights of citizen journalists to blog anonymously -- does that sound too high-faluting for the kind of crap that passes for content here on this humble, time waster of a blog?

Yes, it does.

(Tim Elfrink provides all the background here).

But Marc eloquently lays out the larger principles involved in his motion to dismiss:

Plaintiffs, a series of real estate holding and management companies, and their directors,
accuse DOE of publishing defamatory statements concerning their business practices and other dealings through Google's Blogger service. Blogger is a service that allows users to create their own web blogs, or "blogs," on which they can express their opinions on numerous issues. Some blogs are general interest, while others may address specific, local issues, such as problems within a community, political matters, or topics of concern to consumers. Users of Blogger who create content - themselves known as "bloggers" - have the option of publishing their writings anonymously, as DOE has done in this case. Plaintiffs sued DOE for alleged defamatory material in a blog located at www.rkassociatesusa.blogspot.com and for false advertising under the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).1 Plaintiffs have subpoenaed Google for its records relating to DOE in an
effort to learn his true identity. Plaintiffs' request is improper, and implicates fundamental Constitutional protections.

Free speech is a central Constitutional value, and one of great historical significance. The Federalist Papers, for instance, were all written anonymously while being pointedly critical of the policies and leaders many people championed during America's move toward adopting a written constitution. The United States Supreme Court has further sanctified anonymous speech in an honest and open society through decisions including McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) and Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). See also City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 56 (1994) (noting that "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade").

With these principles as a backdrop, courts have grappled with the First Amendment significance of subpoenas used to unmask anonymous speakers who speak via the internet on message boards, review services and other forums. Here, Plaintiffs' Complaint demonstrates no basis upon which a defamation or false advertising action can proceed, and they have not made the required prima facie showings.

Marc's adversary is longtime fave Alan Kluger, ably assisted by Todd Levine, who warned Tim over at New Times to be very very careful -- did I mention careful? about what he writes concerning the case: 

In the meantime, Levine has strong words for anyone who would consider writing about Katz's lawsuit. "I'd ask you not to publish anything about this," he says. "Even pointing people toward that blog could constitute further defamation."

How precisely?

Or will that just lead to another interesting Randazza defense?

Alan's vigorous response to the motion to dismiss is here, in which he describes Marc's argument as "specious" and his client's blog postings as "vile and defamatory per se."

To which I simply say -- carry on gentlemen, the yacht case can't continue forever!

SFL Friday -- I Like Exactly HALF This Picture!

Dang does Frank dress up nice!

I'm so pissed at Blogger for eating my posts and making me have to focus today almost exclusively on (1) my cases; and (2) deciphering the contents of Osama's porn stash.

Nearly as interesting as what's hawt right now in Abbottabad is this genuinely amusing defamation suit filed against the Internet.

Even better, our local intertubular representative in this epic legal fiasco is none other than bashful Brian Tannebaum.

Given the heavy hitters comprising the "Rakofsky 74" I am quite certain they will be ably represented, either by themselves or by that fabulous Coral Gables restaurateur Marc Randazzao.

This is the legal equivalent of Charlie Sheen -- someone needs to stop the train before it runs off the cliff.

(Let's see when -- or if -- Blogger posts this.)

Randazza Enters Lynn Dannheiser/Surfside Dispute.

Marc Randazza's law firm comes to the defense of Surfside bloggers who have been criticizing Surfside City Attorney Lynn Dannheiser and her recommendation to hire Gerry Houlihan.

Lynn's speech denouncing bloggers is already a must-see (part one is above).

Marc's work -- including his epic takedown of Glenn Beck -- is much admired in these parts, and I'm glad to see his firm helping out.

Lynn's letter to Marc's firm is offbeat, to say the least.

It starts by saying she's never heard of these guys and maybe they're related to a restaurant in Coral Gables?

Always a respectful way to begin.

Check out Randazza attorney Jason A. Fischer's reply, which has all of the trademark Randazzoa snark:

As a final point, we are obviously not affiliated in any way with Randazzo’s Little Italy restaurant in Coral Gables. Though we are well acquainted with that establishment’s quality cuisine. We presume that you were simply trying to make some kind of joke – one which nobody found particularly amusing, but one which was quite illustrative of the clear failure on your part to appreciate the seriousness of the charges that are being leveled against your employer. We trust that, should you continue to advise Town Commission on matters of constitutional compliance, you will crack fewer jokes and more volumes of case law.

Ouch.

Pro Hac Admission Throw Down!

 Order on Pro Hac

Ever get so pissed off over how big a jerk your opponent is being that you feel like moving to pull her pro hac?

I've researched this a few times but never actually pulled the trigger.

Well my buddy and intertubular lawyer extraordinaire Marc Randazza did, in the MD FL, when he allegedly found evidence of a purported misrepresentation on the pro hac form of his MI opposing counsel and also evidence that the "local" attorney sponsoring the pro hac was allegedly just a snowbird with a vacation home on the Gulf Coast.

Courtesy of Scribd, Randazza's motion to revoke the pro hac is here.

I liked this part:

Opposing a fellow attorney’s admission to practice pro hac vice is not an undertaking that is entered into lightly by any of the attorneys who have signed this Motion. In fact, none have ever done so, and all conferred at great length with respect to the propriety and necessity of doing so. The unfortunate and distasteful conclusion was that the undersigned were not only within their rights to bring this Motion, but that the Rules of Professional Responsibility compelled them to do so.

The Court wound up not revoking the pro hac, but did in fact conclude that the "local" attorney -- a FL Bar member btw -- was not a "resident" for purposes of the MD FL local rule:

The Court finds that there is no basis to revoke Mr. Sprinkle’s pro hac vice admission. However, the Court admonishes Mr. Sprinkle for his lack of candor in failing to disclose the Grievance Commission Request for Investigation filed against him. Moreover, Mr. Sprinkle chose as local counsel, an attorney who is not “resident in Florida,” Ernest I. Gifford, but has his primary residence in Michigan. Mr. Gifford is not a Florida resident within the meaning of the Local Rule and therefore cannot serve as local counsel for Mr. Sprinkle’s appearances in this Court. The fact that “Mr. Gifford considers himself to have dual residency in Florida and Michigan” does not make him a resident of Florida, when the main office of his law firm remains in Michigan, he votes in Michigan, and does not have a homestead in Florida. See Doc. 29. Mr. Gifford is not qualified to serve as local counsel in this case.

Oh well, at the least the case is getting off on the right foot!

"Pop Quiz, Hot Shot!"

I don't know about you, but I often begin my oral arguments with those immortal words from Speed.

It kinda throws the judge for a loop and signals to opposing counsel that you're ready to blow something up -- in other words, a nice icebreaker.

So how was your weekend? (Did you see this story about the recent trend to begin sentences with so?)

I know I know, Dennis Hopper RIP.

Sure he had a late, memorable run as a baddie (Blue Velvet, Speed, Waterworld), but I'll remember him for distinctive parts in films like Apocalypse Now, Hoosiers, True Romance and of course directing the lovely Jennifer Connelly in The Hot Spot.

I see my friend and sometime Miami lawyer Marc Randazza gets quoted in today's NYT on the proliferation of online SLAPP suits:

In the past, Mr. Randazza said, if you criticized a business while standing around in a bar, it went “no further than the sound of your voice.”

Now, however, “there’s a potentially permanent record of it as soon as you hit ‘publish’ on the computer,” he said. “It goes global within minutes.”

Indeed.

Remember that the next time you want to fragg someone anonymously, here or anywhere else.

What a surprise -- Toyota doesn't want to turn over documents, I don't quite understand this story about Bob Josefberg's daughter, and to quote Supertramp, it's raining again.

Stay dry, folks!

How to Write A Good Brief (Or Brief Blog Post).

Stay short and get to the point.

Simple, but way harder than it seems.

Have you read this Michael Kinsley piece on why newspaper articles are just too long:

The software industry has a concept known as “legacy code,” meaning old stuff that is left in software programs, even after they are revised and updated, so that they will still work with older operating systems. The equivalent exists in newspaper stories, which are written to accommodate readers who have just emerged from a coma or a coal mine. Who needs to be told that reforming health care (three words) involves “a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system” (nine words)? Who needs to be reminded that Hillary Clinton tried this in her husband’s administration without success? Anybody who doesn’t know these things already is unlikely to care. (Is, in fact, unlikely to be reading the article.)

Then there is “inverted-pyramid style”—an image I have never quite understood—which stands for the principle of putting the most-crucial information at the top of a story and leaving the details for below. Pyramid style is regarded as a bit old-fashioned these days, hence all those florid subordinate clauses at the top of both the Times and the Post versions of the health-care story. The revolt against pyramid style is also why you get those you’ll-never-guess-what-this-is-about, faux-mystery narrative leads about Martha Lewis, a 57-year-old retired nurse, who was sitting in her living room one day last month watching Oprah when the FedEx delivery man rang her doorbell with an innocent-looking envelope … and so on. (The popularity of this device is puzzling, since the headline—“Oprah Arrested in FedEx Anthrax Plot”—generally gives the story away.) But ruthless adherence to classic inverted-pyramid style can also lead to repetition of the story again and again, with one or two more nuggets of information each time.

And then, finally, comes the end, or “tag.” Few writers can resist the lure of closure—some form of summing-up or leave-taking. Often this is a quote that repeats the central point one last time, perhaps combining it with some rueful irony about the limits of human agency.

This is all true of course, but it applies with equal force to legal briefs and even crappy blog posts.

Most web readers -- readers in general? -- have short attention spans, and usually have heard something about your topic before they even get to your blog.

That means they are there for your take, your reaction -- is it funny, ironic, enlightening, dumb as bricks?

Whatever it is you have to get to it immediately or the reader loses interest and clicks on to some other bookmarked page -- usually boobies.

The same is true with writing a good brief -- was it Justice Roberts who remarked that he never read a brief and wished it was longer?

Case in point -- Marc Randazza, who continues to amaze with his niche practice of representing cheerios-eating pajama wearers and churning out dazzling work product that is unmistakably in his voice.

Give this counterclaim of his a read.

The case is pending in Orange County circuit court and involves some guy who shot at his neighbor's dogs and garnered quite a bit of press -- anyways, he wound up suing a Gainesville blogger for defamation.

Marc's preliminary statement is concise and compelling -- it provides both context and history yet frames the entire case perfectly.

You can read the suit filed by Killgore Pearlman against Marc's client here.

Marc Randazza Continues To Rule Our (Cyber) World.

We've previously discussed Marc Randazza's particular brand of legal brilliance, not to mention his great and utterly profane blog The Legal Satyricon.

Now, fresh off beating Glenn Beck to a bloody pulp, and forcing UM Professor Donald Jones to come to his senses about that meshuga complaint he filed, Marc has arrived to rescue some poor schmuck who tweeted and Facebooked a few times about a negative experience at a South Florida auto dealer.

Turns out this guy's tweets led to a "Dear John, We're About To Sue You" letter from West Palm attorney Douglas Thompson.

Randazza has written a responsive letter, pleading with Doug's client to get a little bit hipper to the way of the tubes:

“I must also point out how utterly foolish it would be for your client to do anything except back away from this dispute,” Randazza wrote. “My client posted his tweets about your client six weeks ago. A few of his friends and family had a chuckle about them, Mr. Alascio became bored with the subject, moved on, and it was all doomed to fade into obscurity. Because your client chose to attempt to bully my client into removing his obscure tweets, thousands of people are now aware of the fact that Route 60 Hyundai has customer service issues, and even more are aware of the fact that Route 60 Hyundai is trying to intimidate a dissatisfied customer from sharing his opinions.

“You may wish to do some research on a concept known as the ‘Streisand effect’ before advising your client further ...”

So true.

See this is where you have to advise your client to do the smart thing, not the one that "feels good," or "pays the bills" or is "legally tenable."

BTW, you can still vote for Marc's blog (and mine too) here.

Voting ends 12/31.

You'll Be Warm In the Arms Of the Mayor of Simpleton.

Any Glenn Beck fans out there?

(I'm not just referring to swlip).

Well, either way my friend Marc Randazza of The Legal Satyricon is representing the owner of the website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlin1990.com in a domain dispute filed by Glenn Beck before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

I know, the WIPO? I had never heard of it either, but best I can tell it's some kind of one-world socialist domain enforcement entity funded jointly by the UN, Bill Ayers, and Roman Polanski.

You can read Glenn's WIPO complaint here.

Since it's possible Glenn Beck fans may not also be fans of Gilbert Gottfried, let me explain -- the name of the disputed website is a nod to a routine Gilbert did at the roast of Bob Saget, where he repeatedly referred to.....yes, Saget's rape and murder of a young girl in 1990.

The phrase is now a well-known "internet meme" which if you don't understand ask one of your kids or grandkids to explain it to you.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Beck fans may be confused by the website.

Marc's response is brilliant, and I urge everyone to take a look. In it he explains the social, cultural, and political background behind the site, the First Amendment implications of Beck's attack on what is clearly political satire, and the utter idiocy of Beck's claim of confusion.

There are too many highlights in Marc's brief, but this should give you a taste:

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent’s website wondering “where did all the race baiting content go?” We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent’s website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent’s website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck’s very rhetorical style. Beck’s skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent’s constitutional rights.

I also really enjoyed Marc's patient and thorough explanation of the evolution of "internet memes" and how God does not really kill kittens when....well, you know the rest.

Have fun betraying your alleged principles, Mr. Beck.