Marc Randazza On Sexual Allegations.

Marc Randazza

Attorney Marc Randazza, who we have mentioned before, has a really great article on sexual allegations and how they impact people over on the blog Legal Insurrection.

We think it is worth quoting here, and hope that you will go read the rest.

Marc Randazza: If the #MeToo pendulum swings too far, it may hit someone innocent

Every woman who is assaulted is not a “statistic,” she’s a person — and every man who has had to face a false accusation is a real person as well.

I know women who have been sexually assaulted and who have not gotten justice. All I have is their side of the story, and that has been enough for me to believe them — because I know them, and I know their character, and thus I believe them — without any reservation at all.

Professionally, I am representing multiple women in this situation – at a deep discount – because I believe in their right to tell their story without being sued for it. But for my pro bono representation, the Steubenville rapists would likely never have faced justice. I earned my battle scars in the fight for “me too” before “me too” was even a thing. And, every woman that I’ve represented in this capacity has gotten my services for free or super cheap.

But, I *also* know men who have been falsely accused — by vindictive lying women. I have seen at least two men’s careers destroyed by false accusations made for personal gain and vindictiveness.

I know men who have faced the real prospect of prison for a completely made up story by a woman scorned.

So, when you ask me to “believe women,” I can tell you “I do, very much so.”

Marc Randazza Talks With InfoWars. Wait. WHAT?

We were reading the blog Popehat and came upon a post by one of our favorite lawyers Marc Randazza.

Randazza, you may remember, wrote the brilliant brief in defense of language and speech in a case of copyright infringement launched by Paramount. There are not many people who would have the audacity and the genius to use the issue being argued against the people seeking to silence other, and Randazza pulled it off. His brief is the stuff of legends now.

Randazza is more than a Klingon speaking lawyer. He is a firm believer in the First Amendment and free speech. He and Paul Alan Levy are two people who, when we see their name, we make sure to read what they are saying.

Like many people on Popehat, we were shocked when we saw that Randazza had taken the time to be interviewed by


To say the least we, like many people, think the site is run by a crackpot who has made a living off of conspiracy theories and preying on people’s fears.

To put it bluntly, we aren’t fans.

So what in the aitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks was Randazza doing on that site?

He was invited and accepted the invitation. That’s what.

This is how Randazza characterized the interview:

Beer And The First Amendment.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We apologize for some of the language used in this post. Normally, we don’t allow terms like this in this space, but try as we might, we could not think of a way that would allow us to convey the story without using the language. Long time readers know this is not what we do normally, but in this case, we felt we had to.

Flying Dog Brewery is a craft beer brewery out of Frederick, Maryland.

(The beer is not available in Florida, so this is not us pushing the brand.)

To put it politely, Flying Dog has a history of naming their beers with “interesting” names. (One such beer is called “Raging Bitch.”)

Their labels are created by illustrator Ralph Steadman. He too has a “unique” style.

Brevard County: They’re At It Again.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We are breaking with our tradition of posting information on meetings the day of that meeting because in this case, the Brevard County Board of Commissioners is meeting tomorrow, Tuesday August 20, 2019 at 9:00 AM. So while many people are returning for dropping kids off to schools, shopping in the morning, or settling in at work, by the time they would read this post, the meeting would have started and any chance to comment would be lost.

On the agenda is item J-2 which is described as:

Policy on Board Operating Procedures And AO-23.

This item seeks to “update” the Board’s Procedures on how meetings are run.

In light of all of the recent controversy over comments made by people and Commissioners, as well as the stated intent of some Commissioners to limit or restrict ideas and speech, we were not surprised that this was back.

Palm Bay: The Lannon Memo On Speech.

At the last Palm Bay City Council meeting, City Attorney Lannon said he would prepare a memo justifying the legality of the new City Council policy on submitting visual presentations two days prior to any Council meeting in order to be shown to the Council and the public.

To refresh the memory of some, the rule reads:


A. Members of the public wishing to use electronic media when addressing city council must provide the electronic file to staff for screening no later than noon two (2) business days prior to the meeting. Screening ensures that the material is in a format capable of broadcast or presentation over the audiovisual system, and assures that the material is legally appropriate for broadcast over the audiovisual system and cable. No visual materials may be displayed through the audiovisual system that City staff has not screened. No visual presentations containing offensive material will be displayed or utilized in any fashion.

1. Visual materials include any visual or textual items that are to be displayed through the audiovisual system irrespective of their specific format or media. This includes, without limitation, photographs, audio and video presentations, charts, computer presentations, computer screen images, posters and flyers, whether in physical or electronic format.

2. Visual presentations during public comments are limited to times outlined above in this Section.

B. Visual materials do not include items held or worn by a speaker at the podium or worn by a member of the audience, even though such items may be televised through the cameras that view the audience and the dais.

The Lannon Memo has been prepared and sent out to the Council members. You can read a copy of the memo at the bottom of this post or by clicking here.

Before then, we want to address some of the things that are said in the memo itself.

First, Lannon goes over the history of the Florida Statute and cites the case Herrin v. City of Deltona from which Lannon quotes the decision and emphasizes a certain part of the text:

Dear Commissioners.

As we said yesterday, we sent an email detailing the issues we had with Commissioner Curt Smith’s “Censure Ordinance” that was to be voted upon for advertising funding on December 5, but was pulled from  the agenda.

This is a copy of that email.

Dear Commissioner,

As of 10:53 AM on December 4, 2017, the item we discuss below has been pulled from the December 5 agenda.  We do not know why it has been pulled only that it has been pulled. 

However, we believe that the ordinance never should have been proposed or written in the form you were presented during the Novermber 21, 2017 meeting. 

Therefore, because of our concerns with this proposed ordinance, we are sending the email below which we had prepared to send to you today on the ordinance.  We wanted to explain and give citations as to why the ordinance is flawed and unConstitutional as well as offering other means for dealing with certain conduct that is within Robert’s Rules of Order while not infringing on the protected speech of the public.

Thank you in advance for reading this.


A. Afterwit.

Dear Commissioner,

On December 5, 2017, you will discussing and voting upon Agenda Item VI(F)(2) which is under “New Business,” “Miscellaneous.”

The item is described as “Request for Advertising of a Public Hearing, Re: Censure Ordinance Governing Board of County Commissioners Meetings (District 4)”

This funding request should be voted down as the proposed ordinance is both superfluous and unConstitutional.

The proposed ordinance has basically two sections.  The first deals with the conduct of members of the County Commission and the second part deals with the speech of citizens.


It should be noted that the Agenda item before the funding request is to discuss: (more…)

Paramount v. Axanar Revisited.

Last May, we reported that Paramount Studios was dropping their copyright infringement lawsuit against a company by the name of Axanar who was making a very professional “fan film” based on the Star Trek franchise.

We based our post on the statement by J.J. Abrahms, who is the executive producer and “guardian” of the franchise.

In advance of the July release of Star Trek Beyond, it seems Paramount is going to try to get itself beyond a serious problem it’s having with the passionate fanbase of Trekkies, and clear up a PR black eye in the process. Tonight during a Trek fan event held on the Paramount lot, Star Trek Beyond executive producer JJ Abrams announced that the studio will be dropping a contentious lawsuit against a Star Trek fan film production. “This wasn’t an appropriate way to deal with the fans,” Abrams put it bluntly, signaling a major about face and many mended fences.

We got involved with this because of a legal brief filed by Attorney Marc Randazza on Paramount’s claim that they owned the language of Klingon. Acting on behalf of the Language Creation Society, Randazza wrote a brief that was so piercing, pointed, and hysterical that it made the rounds through people who don’t care about the Star Trek universe.

With the announcement by Abrams that the suit would be halted, we thought we were done with this.

Alas, we are not.

Paramount never truly dropped the suit which makes one wonder whether Abrams’ statement was more of a ploy to stop people from boycotting the film Star Trek Beyond. Whether the statement was honest, an attempt to stop the boycott of the film or whether Abrams’ views were overridden by the higher up and lawyers at Paramount, we may never know.

Axanar filed a motion to have the suit against it dismissed. Paramount responded to that motion, leaving that part in the hands of a judge.

Randazza, for his part, basically waved a flag saying “remember that amicus brief we filed that the court said didn’t need to be considered back in May of 2016? Well, it seems that this is a good time to refile that brief.”

On December 29, Randazza filed a motion seeking to have the LCS’s amicus brief be considered by the court.

Doghjey !


Paramount Studios has decided to drop their lawsuit against Axanar and let the fan film Star Trek: Axanar go forward.

We had been following this story not because of Paramount’s claim on the Star Trek franchise itself, but rather Paramount’s ridiculous claim they owned a language.

Our first look at this case was caused by attorney Marc Randazza’s amusing and spot on amicus brief filed on behalf of the Language Creation Society. After correcting some mistakes in our post, we posted Paramount’s response seeking to bar the amicus brief and Randazza’s response to that.

Our last post was to detail the judge’s orders essentially saying the legal question of whether a language could be copyrighted was not being argued and therefore the judge need not rule on the amicus brief. The judge did allow the Language Creation Society to file a brief if the issue needed to be decided down the road.

Now it appears that the lawsuit against Axanar will be dropped by Paramount. The source of this announcement?

Star Trek Executive Produce JJ Abrams himself.

« Previous Entries