2015.94: Matthew’s Lawyer Letter (And Randazza’s Response)

I’m just going to leave this here for right now. I have plenty to say about it, but I’ve got a couple of other thinks in the hopper.


As requested, I directed Matthew’s letter to my lawyer. Here is Marc Randazza’s response on my behalf. He’s much nicer than I would have been:



26 responses to “2015.94: Matthew’s Lawyer Letter (And Randazza’s Response)”

  1. Dear Mr. Bennett,

    I call your attention to the defamation law of libelslanders. You have NO RIGHT TO FUCK WITH MY REPUTATION BY SAYING I AM NICE! I demand that you rekkanize that I am a DICK!

  2. Oh Matthew, poor deluded Matthew. Mr. Bennett gave you the opportunity to consider your rash course of action. You chose poorly.

    Now a blustering and toothless demand letter. I can only wonder what is next?

    PS. I just LOVE how he writes the letter in 3rd person but is representing himself.

      • He’s citing O’Connor’s Texas Causes of Action. Chapter 18-A is defamation, and section 1.1 is O’Connor’s recitation of the “outline of elements” of the cause (in the 2015 edition, anyway). I guess he thinks O’Connor’s is a statute.

      • He cited the treatise as “Texas law?” I am trying to come up with a way to convey to a non-lawyer just how gobsmacking that is, and I am failing. That’s not just a 1L mistake, that’s like a first week 1L mistake. The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well in the Lone Star State!

      • OMG. The O’Connor’s cite. I just…I know STCL isn’t a top notch school but sweet Jesus on a Harley. I’m gobsmacked. How’d he pass the bar???

      • ” That’s not just a 1L mistake, that’s like a first week 1L mistake.”

        It’s not even a first-semester-Paralegal-Studies-at-a-community-college mistake.
        My husband isn’t studying law at any level, and HE was astounded at that cite.

      • For someone outside of Matthew’s state, “Texas Law Chapter 18A Section 1.1” looks plausible. I could probably refer to a treatise from this state and make it sound plausible for someone unfamiliar with how law is cited here.

        If someone were to take such a thing to a real lawyer in this state, I would likely be embarrassed. But that would be the risk I took by pretending that a treatise or forms-book was law. At 42, I presume that Matthew is old enough to decide if he wants to look like a goof.

        OK, maybe calling it “Texas Law” rather than “Tex.” is a little bit of a give-away. But I have seen worse from licensed attys in this state.

  3. You know, I’ve received my fair share of demand letters but I have never reread one, numerous times, questioning if it could be funny, ridiculous, and an absolute joke, simultaneously. I did with those one, and I’m still laughing. For the love and integrity of the legal profession, Mark, show this guy what you’ve got.

  4. Apparently he believes any publicity is good–even if he comes across as a bigger fool with evey utterance.

    Now he’s done it. You could remove everything but his demand letter and Marc’s response and he won’t be able to get his foot out of his mouth. (Not that I’m suggesting this. I don’t believe in caving in to First Amendment threats.)

  5. I am not a lawyer. I am a romance novelist. And a law librarian for a Very Big Law firm. And I’m in Houston, and I think the Fred Parks Library (at South Texas College of Law), and its its librarians most especially, are outstanding. And I know a lot of the professors at STCL are outstanding as well. And I’m embarrassed and pissed off at this asshole on STCL’s behalf.

    I wonder if Gerald Treece knows about this…

    • You are so getting sued for implying there is something wrong with saying Rakofsky on the internet and thus defaming Rakofsky.

  6. About 5 words into the paragraph on page 1, this thought kept running through my mind: “So THIS is why they say, ‘He who represents himself has a fool for a client’….”

    The fact that I am 100% sure that you could have torn him apart had you drafted your own response, yet instead had another attorney do so, in probably the most hilarious way I have ever read, just makes it that much better.

  7. Wait a minute….the whole third person thing is my domain exclusively.
    I think I’ll jump in on this lawsuit too.
    George is pissed. Geroge is very, very pissed.

  8. I really wanted to see this at the bottom of the reply:

    “PS – Snort my taint.”

    But … I know that’s a Ken White thing.

  9. I am not a member of Fidelity’s preferred list. However, I was in conversations with them earlier this year about joining, which I decided not to do. To briefly toot my own horn, I have 10 years of private practice doing solely estate planning (plus 7 years with the IRS), an LLM, and am Board Certified in Estate Planning by the Florida Bar.

    I find it quite odd that he sent you the email to begin with, as there is no way that Fidelity would accept you to their Estate Planning list. They tend to prefer, you know, estate planning attorneys. Now, if someone hired me to defend them in the lowest level of misdemeanor, I’m sure I’d commit such massive malpractice, that you, Scott, and Brian would all write mean things about me (and deservedly so).

    If anyone is interested, below is the initial invite from Fidelity. Note the email at the bottom if someone is interested in forwarding this all to them:

    The Fidelity Attorney Access Program® is an informational service made available to Fidelity Investments customers. Simply put, the program provides customers with access to a list of Trusts and Estates attorneys practicing in their local area. The program was developed in response to the requests of our customers for names of attorneys in their area who could provide estate planning-related legal services. You have been nominated by a representative at a local Fidelity Investor Center as a potential participant in the program.

    At Fidelity Investments, we encourage our customers to consider estate planning as an integral component of their overall wealth planning strategy. As you are aware, the estate planning process typically requires the creation and/or review of a variety of legal documents. Since Fidelity Investments does not provide legal services or advice, through the Fidelity Attorney Access Program, we are able to respond to our customers’ requests for assistance by presenting our customers with a list of several attorneys in their local area who participate in our program. Final selection of attorneys will, of course, be determined by the customer and any engagement will be considered a direct relationship between the attorney and the customer. This program is provided by Fidelity Investments as a convenience to our customers, and we do not specifically endorse the attorneys participating in the program or require any compensation as a result of an attorney’s participation.

    Prior to being listed in the directory, Fidelity Investments will perform a due diligence check of public records to confirm your qualifications. Also, you will be asked to agree to the terms of the Attorney Access Program®, agreement, including a requirement to maintain a professional liability policy in the amount of at least $2 million per incident.

    If you are interested in participating in the program and believe you can meet the minimum requirements described above, please return the signed Attorney Access Program® agreement, a completed profile questionnaire along with a certificate of insurance via:

    Email: [email protected]

  10. Just got off the phone with Randazza. He seemed happy to speak with up to a point. The moment I said looks like Pissed Consumer is beholden to Rogelio Garcia he hung up. Sure looks like the so-called defenders of the First Amendment don’t exactly believe it extends to all now does it? Charletans

  11. Are you interested in emails from the honey trap blog Good Jolly Politics? What’s his bucket Dave claims to not know how to read. Who is Randazza’s attorney? Pup Tent? Oh I mean white unorthodox Ken? Please forgive my typos in the previously sent message. I don’t quite know why but I seem to only caring about addressing all you first amendment profiteers when I am inebriated. Piracy on the new high seas am I correct?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.