Marc Randazza Is Against the First Amendment When He’s Exposed as Corrupt Attorney
Corrupt attorney Marc Randazza believes that he “seek[s] to preserve the First Amendment and ensure the right to free speech, however small or persecuted the speaker.” However, he is more than willing to hide behind European privacy laws in order to protect himself from free speech.
The site MarcRandazza.legal has exposed today a threatening letter sent, in a seemingly “discreet” fashion, to an English publisher who had published pieces by journalists about the corruption. In the letter, the “free speech defender” Randazza wants pieces about him taken down.
Marc Randazza hired an English law firm known as “Cohen Davis Solicitors” to shamelessly (and frivolously) take down multiple legitimate opinion articles with “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” plastered at the head of the letter. The warning was probably given in the hope that the letter will not be made public.
The articles Randazza wants deleted expose his past, including the many bar complaints and court rulings. The opinion of the writer agrees with many others and the opinion of probably the majority of those in the legal profession that attorney Marc Randazza is corrupt. Even judges said, hinted, or wrote that “tainted” Marc Randazza is corrupt, at the very least.
Who Is Attorney Marc Randazza (Randazza Legal Group)?
Marc Randazza is a “tainted” attorney who wasn’t good enough to represent even the InfoWars founder and conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones. Major news publications took issue with Randazza’s unique approach to the law, especially when it came to his dealings with pornography and notorious alt-right figures and neo-Nazis.
Randazza will try to argue that he is not corrupt. “The allegation of him being corrupt is pure fabrication,” states the letter. The Merriam Webster definition of corrupt is “dishonest or illegal behavior.” By saying that Randazza is corrupt, no one is accusing him of a crime, necessarily. They are simply saying that he is dishonest.
In a letter sent to a publisher, Randazza’s attorneys threatened to sue the company for defamation. However, almost nowhere in the letter were any of the facts published in the pieces disputed. Instead, it simply quotes large portions of text without saying why they were defamatory.
Here are the links that Randazza believes are defamatory. However, he has not proven them in court as defamation. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not these stories are true.
Randazza also claims that pieces published by Ars Technica are part of the defamation, but these pieces were not proven in an American court to be defamatory. At best, all the accusations are simply unproven claims.
Dwight Schar’s Attorney Randazza Manipulates The Truth
Randazza selected two pieces from the linked stories and claimed they were defamatory to him. He also tried to state that by linking to these stories, publishers were responsible for the content of the links.
There is no record anywhere of Randazza initiating a lawsuit against HuffPost or Ars Technica. There is also no record of HuffPost or Ars Technica settling with Marc Randazza outside of court. And of course, there is no record of Randazza winning a lawsuit against either of these media outlets.
Randazza must think he is the judge and jury in the United States, randomly assuming that pieces published in major publications as fact are defamation and false. The legal definition of defamation is “the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation.” In order for Randazza to say that something is defamation, he must prove it to be untrue. Nowhere in the document does he do so.
Randazza’s Definition of “Corrupt” is…. Corrupted
Instead, Randazza argues that he is “not corrupt or dishonest.” The letter stated, “He has not guilty of ‘serious misconduct’ in his legal practice.” [sic].
“The allegation of him being corrupt is pure fabrication,” states the letter. The Merriam Webster definition of corrupt is “dishonest or illegal behavior.” By saying that Randazza is corrupt, no one is accusing him of a crime, necessarily. They are simply saying that he is dishonest.
Randazza was issued a public reprimand by The Florida Bar on Sept. 3, 2020 DISCIPLINE CASE #201500718 against Marc Randazza. The reprimand was related to his ethical violations in Nevada, where Randazza, as a porn attorney, was sued by the State Bar of Nevada on nine charges of violations.
On January 14, 2019, the Arizona State Bar issued a public reprimand and a suspension based upon some of the misconduct that took place in Nevada. A new disciplinary case was opened in Arizona and California based upon further information and documentation of alleged misconduct by Randazza, to include allegedly lying in court documents related to the Alex Jones case in Connecticut. However, beyond the reciprocal disciplinary proceedings, Randazza was not charged with any new violations and the Arizona suspension was not put into effect.
On May 2, 2019, in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in a state bar disciplinary proceeding styled In re: Mark John Randazza, Case No. BD-2018-110, a hearing was conducted, which included an additional alleged ethical violation that the bar counsel claimed the State Bar of Nevada ignored. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not find this additional ethical violation existed and issued a stayed suspension of the same term as Nevada. The Florida Supreme Court conducted a similar reciprocal disciplinary proceeding; it found no aggravating factors, with the Referee finding that there was “no clear and convincing evidence to suggest that anything [Randazza] may have done on behalf of his other clients was actually adverse to” his complaining clients. Thus, Randazza was given a reprimand and one year probation in Florida.
The State Bar of Nevada charged Randazza for violating Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct on nine counts. He broke the rules in regards to:
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients,
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules,
Imputation of Conflicts of Interest,
Declining or Terminating Representation, Advisor,
Restrictions on Right to Practice,
Randazza two-timed his clients, who were pornographers, by working for other clients, who were also pornographers. He “solicited illicit payoffs,” said HuffPost. In 2010, Randazza tried to bribe a website so that he wouldn’t sue them, again. This solicitation was a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct.
The State Bar of Nevada sued for the suspension of Randazza’s license in 2018 with violations of ethics. His license was suspended for a year. However, the State Bar did not put the suspension into effect.
Randazza actually pleaded guilty to two violations: a bribe and a shady loan. He appealed his suspension to the Nevada Supreme Court, but was rejected.
Randazza Had To Be Fired Even By InfoWars’ Alex Jones
HuffPost writes that “outrageous” Randazza is “curiously chummy” with fascists and racists. Randazza has also represented several Neo-Nazis in court, including Andrew Anglin, who published the address of a Jewish realtor on the Nazi website The Daily Stormer.
But “rude” Randazza was so bad that even conspiracy theorist Alex Jones had to fire him. The InfoWars founder was told by a Connecticut judge that Randazza was “tainted.” The same judge accused Randazza of “serious misconduct.” In addition, Randazza lied while filing claims for Jones in the state of Connecticut, where he was not licensed to practice.
And Yet Dwight Schar Chose A Corrupt Porn Attorney To Represent Him
Attorney Marc Randazza, who was fired by InfoWars’ Alex Jones because a Connecticut judge accused him of “serious misconduct.” But he is Ryan Homes and NVR Inc., founder Dwight Schar’s attorney. Dwight Schar also chose a corrupt Marc Randazza to represent his Bella Collina in Florida.
One would think that Dwight Schar would have an issue with an attorney representing porn, neo-Nazis, with multiple state bar disciplinary proceedings and one that has one of the largest bags of legal scandals on the web. Does Dwight Schar pay Randazza for the dirty fight, frivolous lawsuits, lying or bending the law and then picking up the tab for the consequences?