David Minkin publisher AbovetheLaw Dealbreaker Breaking Media.jpg Yesterday’s Lawsuit of the Day — Jones v. Minkin, a $44 million lawsuit against yours truly, Above the Law publisher David Minkin, and Dead Horse Media (now known as Breaking Media) — has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, University of Miami law professor Donald Jones.

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)(B), the dismissal is without prejudice. If Professor Jones wants to refile, he should note the statute of limitations (which had already run as to most of our posts about him by the time his complaint was filed).

There was NO SETTLEMENT in this case. Above the Law has made no changes to our prior posts, and we have paid no money to Professor Jones. The case was dismissed by the plaintiff without anything from our side, except a letter from our lawyer.

UPDATE (3:35 PM): We have offered Professor Jones a guest post on Above the Law in which to provide his side of the story, about either the lawsuit or the underlying facts. We have offered to keep the comments on that post closed or open, depending on his preference. (And we would have done this in the first place, had he made such a request.)

A huge thanks to our counsel, Marc Randazza.

Comment from Randazza, plus links to the notice of voluntary dismissal and other news outlets and blogs — we will UPDATE continually, so do check back for fresh links — after the jump.


Marc Randazza, who represented us in this matter, had this to say:

I’m relieved that Mr. Jones came to his senses. We were prepared to file a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions, and we were confident that both would have been successful. I am consistently unimpressed by academics and anti-speech parties who think that the courts are there for the redress of foolishness, not the legitimate redress of valid legal grievances.

Randazza has a post about the case up on his blog, The Legal Satyricon.

Comments on this post are open. We will be continually updating this post with links to coverage of the suit (as we did for our prior post).

Jones v. Minkin: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [Southern District of Florida (PDF)]

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Jones v. Minkin
Prior ATL coverage of D. Marvin Jones (scroll down to view all posts)

UPDATE (3:30 PM): Here are links to early coverage of the dismissal:
I shaved my balls for this? [The Legal Satyricon]
Plaintiff drops “Jones v Minkin” – It’s the Google Juice, stupid [Law and More]
Suit Against Above the Law Vountarily Dismissed by Plaintiff [WSJ Law Blog]
That Was Fast! Above The Law Lawsuit Dismissed [Law Review]

UPDATE (3:35 PM): We have offered Professor Jones a guest post on Above the Law in which to provide his side of the story, about either the lawsuit or the underlying facts. We have offered to keep the comments on that post closed or open, depending on his preference. (And we would have done this in the first place, had he made such a request.)

UPDATE (4:30 PM): Suit Against Above the Law Quickly Dismissed [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]

Comments are hidden for your protection. Click here to show them.

View Comments

  1. Posted by Douchie | November 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM

    FIRST.

  2. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM

    second

  3. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM

    So what were the settlement terms?

  4. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM

    I wanted to cross examine the Walrus with my spear. Damn it!
    The Most Interesting Eskimo in the World

  5. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM

    Epic lol.

  6. Posted by Douchie | November 4, 2009 at 2:40 PM

    3- you fail.
    I believe there was a settlement that involved the viewing of the Kash beaver shot?

  7. Posted by Cool_Face_Guy | November 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM

    who is Minkin? what case are you talking about?

  8. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM

    I shaved my balls for this?

  9. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM

    8,
    That is a typo. They meant Mandy Patinkin.

  10. Posted by Cool_Face_Guy | November 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM

    10 – did you just say Abe Lincoln?

  11. Posted by Partner Emeritus | November 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM

    This comment is addressed to the editor in chief of above the law.
    I predicted this result. I am impressed that it came this quickly. However, I am sure the good professor saw that his reputation would be irreparably impugned as a result from such a ridiculous lawsuit. I would also not be surprised if the U. of Miami Board of Trustees had a “little talk” with the professor.

  12. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:44 PM

    I can only laugh at this clown, I wonder if he proofed his motion to dismiss

  13. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:45 PM

    If it wasn’t already in the 4th tier, this pathetic complaint and case could have been a real embarrassment to u miami school of law. Being a toilet at least means they can’t suffer much fallout. Stetson grads must be loving this – their lesser competition knocked down yet another peg.

  14. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:47 PM

    11,
    No. I said Abraham Linkman. He is a retired 72 year old teamster from Pittsburgh.

  15. Posted by Andrew Dhuey | November 4, 2009 at 2:47 PM

    Well, the professor sought around $2 million, so I’m guessing the parties split the difference and ATL will be handing over a cool million.
    But seriously, the professor should be embarrassed that he ever filed this. The copyright claim didn’t even include an allegation of ownership of the photo at issue.

  16. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:47 PM

    Lat, are you going to celebrate with some ass tonight in the MePa district?
    Truck Tuckerson

  17. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM

    I must say that your lawyer’s wife is HOT!

  18. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM

    U miami is the u penn state state college campus of the south.
    Was the case dismissed with prejudice? If so, will he refile with some sort of constitutional/equal protection claim, in light of the prejudice?

  19. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:50 PM

    the title for your lawyer’s post on this is better

  20. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:51 PM

    19 = reading fail.
    “But if Professor Jones were to attempt to refile, he would encounter a statute of limitations problem.”

  21. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:51 PM

    This is still embarrassing for UM Law.

  22. Posted by Cool_Face_Guy | November 4, 2009 at 2:52 PM

    19, its only dismissed with prejudice if the party making the motion to dismiss can show substantial likelihood of injury and no chance of success. It’s under FRCP 47. hth

  23. Posted by Professor Jones | November 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM

    Lett mee eksplane myselt.
    I dissmissedd thiss lawsuif becuz I did nit want two ass oshiate myselt wifh fhis rifrat.
    And I’m skaird fhat the kort will misunnderstand whut I ment by frying all my friable klames.

  24. Posted by Affirmative Walrus | November 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM

    Mr. Jones is a disappointment to victimology.
    This case was eminently friable.

  25. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM

    21 = sense of humor fail; 19 = very funny

  26. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM

    23 – missed hilarious troll jole by 19. PREJUDiCe. Get it?

  27. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM

    4, 7, 16 – Note this paragraph:
    “There was NO SETTLEMENT in this case. Above the Law has made no changes to its prior posts and has paid no money to Professor Jones. The case was dismissed by the plaintiff without anything from our side, except a letter from our lawyer.”

  28. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM

    This makes me really sad. Just another example of the white (sorry yellow) man keeping the black man down. Stay Strong Brother… Barrack will be sure to appoint you to the Supreme Court to make up for this injustice.

  29. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:56 PM

    Anyone who dismisses the complaint of a black man is racist.

  30. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM

    Marc Randazza . . . isn’t he the guy who’s defending the creator of the Glenn Bleck raped and murdered yadda yadda yadda website?
    A quick Google search tells me yes. Yes he was. Way to snag a snazzy lawyer on this one. I bet he was disappointed that he didn’t have the chance to use “abject imbecile” in a brief.

  31. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM

    Prof. Jones hoped ATL would try and save a few bucks by having Mystal handle it. When that didn’t happen, and Jones read the negative reaction to his claim throughout the legal blogosphere, he punted.

  32. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 2:58 PM

    At least ATL is not gloating. Classy comment from your lawyer and really classy opening it back up for more comments. While it is obvious that ATL would have likely prevailed either on the substance or because of continued embarassment for the Prof, it is worth thinking about how ATL’s gossip affects people (even drives them to irrational actions, like a dumbass lawsuit). Personalized attacks on people who are not deserving (ie not caught as hypocrites nor truly public figures) are not cool.
    It is a round world, and the same small minded, cowardly, racist audience you play to will enjoy it when you get yours.

  33. Posted by Cool_Face_Guy | November 4, 2009 at 2:59 PM

    27 – I did. Also, the game.

  34. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:00 PM

    33 – If you think the gossip affects people badly, then you should opt out and not read this site.

  35. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM

    Congrats to UM Law for this awesome guerilla PR tactic.

  36. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM

    33, considering how inappropriate the lawsuit was – sanctionable, according to some other law professors – this is an understated post. Not much gloating here.
    It makes sense for ATL to clarify that there was “NO SETTLEMENT.” Otherwise they will attract more lawsuits like this one. That isn’t gloating, it is just fact.

  37. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:02 PM

    24 = total fail

  38. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:03 PM

    33 – STFU.
    And don’t read this site if you think it’s so bad. By giving it traffic, you are only contributing to the “problem.”

  39. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:03 PM

    32, Mystal couldn’t have handled this case since he is not admitted to the NY bar. Try to find him on the NY court website.

  40. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:03 PM

    29 = Win.. I guess he didn’t have any friable issues

  41. Posted by Quinn_Remains | November 4, 2009 at 3:03 PM

    If Prof Jones had CHECK HE EMAILS and had Quinn on his side, his lawsuit would have REMAINED friable

  42. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:04 PM

    33, Professor Jones is a public figure – by his own admission. Read the first few paragraphs of his complaint.

  43. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:05 PM

    Of course they are going to gloat. They should gloat and have every right to gloat. In fact, they didn’t gloat enough. Stupidity should be laughed at and ridiculed.
    How embarrassing for UM and UM Law…

  44. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:06 PM

    33, why shouldn’t they open the comments? The default is to have open comments.
    They kept comments closed “to respect the judicial process.” Now that the case has been dismissed, there is no need for that.

  45. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:06 PM

    37, “case withdrawn, no settlement” — that’s not gloating and it says it all. “I am continually unimpressed by academic …” coupled with an invitation to a new forum — that’s gloating.
    Whatever, their choice. I just, personally, hope it comes around for them. That’s all and I know I am in the minority in this crowd.

  46. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:07 PM

    If you’re the good professor, how do you disseminate the fact that you were not guilty of this charge to the people who end up on the ATL website after searching for your book? Hmmm, aside from the gross underlawyering, this seems to have done the trick. Now he’s just a bad litigator rather than a cheap solicitor.

  47. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:07 PM

    Professor,
    How does it feel
    to be
    a horrible lawyer?
    To have an education
    that doesn’t even allow you to
    draft a complaint that a
    first year attorney could do.
    You really
    suck.

  48. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM

    The case should have been dismissed with extreme SNU SNU!

  49. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM

    What are u miani law schools’ employment numbers? Can someone who had this man teech them the law geta job in big laws?
    Haha thay should be ashaimed. Morrons!

  50. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM

    46 – You don’t like ATL, but you still read it – and comment, adding to their traffic and page views. You are part of the “problem.”
    A news outlet has no power if nobody reads it. You only make ATL more powerful with your visits.
    Comment again, give Lat & Co. another page view to sell their advertisers….

  51. Posted by Professor Jones | November 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM

    33…
    Why doo yoo fheenk I’m nof a publik purson?
    I’m az publik az Protessor Gafes now. Don’t not fry fo fell mee I’m nof a publik purson.

  52. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:10 PM

    Wow–
    This case–and ATL’s commitment to
    truth and justice has entered the hallowed pantheon
    of seminal cases that will re-define American jurisprudence.
    BFD–complaint dismisses w/o prej.
    Don’t break your back atl, patting yourself on the back
    or hurt your arms in the circle jerk.

  53. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:10 PM

    Darn! Some of us HLS 1Ls were hoping to cite your case for our memo on diversity jurisdiction based on allegations of libel on the internet.

  54. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM

    Why are Black people always so angry?

  55. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM

    I bet Randazza has a **great** network.
    “Randazza has a practice that primarily focuses on the areas of First Amendment litigation, adult entertainment, trademark and copyright litigation, and domain name arbitration disputes.[9] He serves as General Counsel to Corbin Fisher, an adult media company. He has represented a number of well-known adult entertainment companies including Kink.com, Bang Bus, and Milf Hunter.”

  56. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM

    47 – Now he’s a cheap solicitor AND a bad litigator.

  57. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:12 PM

    47 just made the most astute point I’ve seen on this site in a very long time.
    -not 47
    To add my two cents: Maybe ATL should add to the story a clear statement that the police dismissed the case and didn’t pursue any legal action against the professor as a show of good faith that they don’t actually have any interest in destroying this guy’s reputation or hurting his book sales.

  58. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:13 PM

    I would have gladly represented Mr. Minkin and all I would have asked for in return is one night of naked sexy sexy with Kash. Yes please thank you.
    ShaFeef

  59. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:13 PM

    47 – I have so$e swamp land to sell you in louisiana. Real nice, and a bargain. I’ll throw in the tower of london if you act now.

  60. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:13 PM

    14 = Stetson grad.

  61. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:14 PM

    I think we need a beer summit.

  62. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM

    The professor is a total d-bag. During spring formal he got seemingly drunk and actually flirted with the law students!!! There are pictures of him (like the one below) with his arms around one, with her pulled in close like she’s his girlfriend.
    http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/400/45137997.jpg
    SUE ME FOR THAT PIC PROF!

  63. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM

    how can a suit dismissed today have a statute of limitations problem today if it didn’t when it was filed? it tolls while the suit is filed, you know.

  64. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM

    Please get dirt on Minkin–
    anyone who would buy this site–must have
    some pathologies

  65. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM

    John’s get let go by the cops all the time. So what was the $20 for? Honest question, just want to know what was really going on when he was falsely arrested.

  66. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:17 PM

    Razzle dazzle, bitches!

  67. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:19 PM

    So ATL’s lawyer was the guy who cited wikipedia in the Glenn Beck thing? Can you guys image the various documents we would have gotten to read from both sides in this case? One side can’t spell, and both write entirely ridiculous things in court filings. It would have been so much fun.

  68. Posted by Pacific Reporter | November 4, 2009 at 3:19 PM

    That was quick. Congrats!

  69. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:19 PM

    Of course there was underlawyering. Didn’t your law school offer Professional Responsibility? Lawyer’s are barred from bringing frivolous law suits. This suit could not have been any more frivolous if they tried. There was no “friable” issue in this case. Though I am sad, I was hoping that ATL would lose forcing Lat to sell Elie as whale meat to pay off the judgment. Darn now I still need to read his fat race baiting ass. O well I can at least take solace that my TTT degree still helped me pass the NY Bar on the first try while Elie and his Harvard degree could not pass. How many times did you fail before you gave up tubby?

  70. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM

    Big surprise. Next post, please.

  71. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:22 PM

    any other NYU law grads embarrassed he went to our school? forget that he works at UM.

  72. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:22 PM

    What Jones doesn’t realize is I had never heard of him before he filed this suit because I didn’t start reading this site until 2008. Now since he filed the suit he has just created more publicity for his incident. He didn’t think the whole thing through, which makes me laugh!

  73. Posted by Client9 | November 4, 2009 at 3:23 PM

    Professor Jones paid $350 in filing fees for his feeble complaint, after offering only $20 to a street hooker. He could have found a decent provider on the Internet for that $350 and avoided this fiasco. But then I guess that logic is beyond the grasp of a tenured U. of Miami law professor.

  74. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:24 PM

    64 – He would have to turn around and refile IMMEDIATELY.
    The post he complained about was published on 10/29/2007. He filed on 10/27/2009. There is a two-year statute of limitations.

  75. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:27 PM

    Kash,
    I would never dismiss your beaver if you lived in my tent with me.
    ShaFeef

  76. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM

    Frivolous lawsuit. Glad it was voluntarily dismissed.
    But you may want to put serious thought into getting yourselves a new attorney. What benefit does he serve by having a web site in which he talks about shaving his balls? And why put out a gratuitous nasty statement about the lawsuit after it was dismissed? He appears to have very poor judgment.
    I find it odd that you write from the premise that BigLaw is the gold standard in the legal profession, but your own lawyer is some small-time sole practioner dork.

  77. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:31 PM

    So hows about you let us see that snazzy letter that made it all go away?

  78. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM

    Kash,
    You are the viagra in my camel milk.
    ShaFeef

  79. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM

    78
    He’s cheaper

  80. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM

    78 – Lat hires that lawyer because he gets to pay in naked sword fights rather than money.

  81. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM

    76 – Can you provide a link to the text of the statute?

  82. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM

    79 -
    That’s what I’m looking for.

  83. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM

    NY BAR RESULTS OUT TOMORROW! http://www.nybarexam.org/

  84. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM

    Everyone, stop ripping on Miami Law. About 60% of our graduates end up in big law, we have the best faculty money can buy, and our weather and city are both phenominal. Everyone commenting against our school because of one lousy professor is just being rude.

  85. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:38 PM

    This would have never happened if Jones had hired Steve Sanders.

  86. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:38 PM

    “UPDATE: We have offered Professor Jones a guest post on Above the Law in which to provide his side of the story, about either the lawsuit or the underlying facts. We have offered to keep the comments on that post closed or open, depending on his preference. (And we would have done this in the first place, had he made such a request.)”

  87. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:39 PM

    Wait a second, one piece is missing! Where’s the letter from your lawyer???

  88. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:40 PM

    Is this an elaborate hoax, or does u miami really have a law school?

  89. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM

    31:
    Anyone who takes on that retarded serial-killer-looking prick Glenn Beck is awesome.
    Way to go ATL and Randazza! Keep it up!

  90. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM

    Now let’s see that Kash beavershot!

  91. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM

    18 — Yeah, she’s definitely hot. I frequently bang her , while that douche husband of hers types away on his infantile law blog.

  92. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM

    86 you spell as well as Professor Jones (“phenominal”) and your city is oppressively humid and crime-ridden…Epic Fail

  93. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:42 PM

    18 — Yeah, she’s definitely hot. I frequently bang her , while that douche husband of hers types away on his infantile law blog.

  94. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:42 PM

    86 – more like “best faculty a cool $20 can buy.” Troll on young trollster, troll on.

  95. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM

    Actually, let’s see the letter written by ATL’s lawyer.

  96. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM

    I suppose that I should know the answer to this question, but is U Miami accredited by the American Bar Association? Does anyone know whether the school is a member of the Association of American Law Schools?

  97. Posted by Andrew Dhuey | November 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM

    I’m surprised to see how many here don’t understand that ATL is not a typical defendant here — it has every reason to gloat, and from the highest mountain top. This is not only good exposure for the blog, but it is also a useful warning to potential future filers of silly cases against ATL: file and you’ll end up looking even worse.
    Regarding sympathy for the professor, I don’t see why anyone who read the complaint and understands the background would have any.

  98. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:45 PM

    86 – u miami doesn’t even have 60% employment, let alone 60% biglaw – EVEN IF U INCLUDE PARALEGALS AND JANITORS.

  99. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:46 PM

    88 – That’s a nice gesture by ATL.

  100. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:46 PM

    98 – No it is not.

  101. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:48 PM

    75-
    What? He’s got 6 months or a year. He got it in under the wire.
    I don’t guess anyone has considered the possibility that he filed it solely to get in under the limitations bar, now he has six months or a year to either hire a lawyer that isn’t an idiot or re-draft this lawsuit and get it back in.
    ATL and its loyal readership, as well as other legal bloggers, have done a great job of spoon-feeding him the law and schooling him up on what he needs to hit to at least avoid a motion to dismiss.
    This may not be the last you hear from him…I wouldn’t necessarily break out the champagne flutes yet…

  102. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:48 PM

    David Minkin is good looking. That is all.

  103. Posted by Partner Emeritus | November 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM

    I have no basis to judge the legal talents between a U. of Miami or Ave Maria law graduate. However, besides Ave Maria being located near my estate in Florida, I can attest that their graduates make decent golf caddies and know how to wash balls.

  104. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM

    ATL:
    Classy lawyer. The following are quotes from his Wikipedia description. I especially like his representation of the web site “MILF Hunter.”
    “Randazza has a practice that primarily focuses on the areas of First Amendment litigation, adult entertainment, trademark and copyright litigation, and domain name arbitration disputes.[9] He serves as General Counsel to Corbin Fisher, an adult media company. He has represented a number of well-known adult entertainment companies including Kink.com, Bang Bus, and Milf Hunter. He also represents non-pornographic media businesses such as BME and bloggers in SLAPP suits.[10][11]
    Randazza has gained notoriety for his defense of the adult entertainment field

  105. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:52 PM

    103 – But he did blow the statute on most of the posts about him in the first place.
    The last post – the one with the photoshopped graphic – is the stupidest one.

  106. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:52 PM

    SCREEN CAP OF NY BAR RESULTS LEAKED!!!!
    http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/400/45137997.jpg
    Sorry I could only get 300 names before they took the site down.

  107. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM

    104 = David Lat

  108. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:55 PM

    SCREEN CAP OF NY BAR RESULTS LEAKED!!!!
    http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/400/45137997.jpg
    Sorry I could only screen cap 300 names (mine being one of them!!!!) before they took the site down.

  109. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM

    SCREEN CAP OF NY BAR RESULTS LEAKED!!!!
    http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/400/45137997.jpg
    They were doing a test run of the website and I passed!!!! Sorry I could only screen cap 300 names before they took the site down.

  110. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM

    Marc Randazza
    You are my hero. This shit you filed in the glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com case was funny as hell. Your blog post about this was even funnier. Sorry you felt the need to shave your balls for this, but your hot ass wife probably appreciates it anyway.

  111. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM

    107-
    Willing to agree that you are right on the timing (haven’t looked at that to see). As far as responding to what people were saying in this comment thread, I think my point remains a valid one.
    -103

  112. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM

    86,
    Great point! You should tell USNews about this! If they only knew you have the best faculty money can buy, they’d surely bump you up from #71.

  113. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM

    All you 3Ls and first years who think the complaint was sanctionable are drinking too much ATL koolaid. The fact that a complaint is facially deficient and subject to defenses that may be raised in a MTD does not entail that the filing attorney has committed sanctionable conduct. It simply entails that, if those defenses are raised and argued persuasively, the case will be dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. If pleaded properly, this action would have legs on many of the facts alleged. But he would ultimately lose on a number of grounds that ATL could establish and present in a MSJ.

  114. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:06 PM

    86–Nice typo, retard. When trying to defend your TTT, at least spell “phenomenally” correctly. Tool. Your faculty, clearly, sucks. If that is the best you can buy, hire more fundraisers. Since you are probably unemployed, maybe you could apply for that job, just make sure they give you a staff of proofreaders.

  115. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:08 PM

    78 – maybe there is a lesson to be learned in that.

  116. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:09 PM

    78 – maybe there is a lesson to be learned in that.

  117. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM
  118. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:15 PM

    you certainly join an esteemed client list at the Randazza Legal Group — my internet filter was working overtime

  119. Posted by SouthFloridaLawyers | November 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM

    Another big win for Marc!
    Congrats all around!!!

  120. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:27 PM

    PE,
    I didn’t realize you golf. What’s your favorite course?What’s your perfect foursome?

  121. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:32 PM

    115 sounds like Professor Jones with completely inappropriate use of the word “entail” (twice)

  122. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:34 PM

    Judging from his blog, Randazza doesn’t seem like the classiest guy out there, but at the same time, he certainly appears to be an obnoxious douche.

  123. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM

    I’m pretty sure he has a year to refile after the voluntary dismissal, even if the SOL would have otherwise expired during that year. If the claims were already time barred when the initial suit was filed, he’s obviously out of luck.

  124. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM

    Mmm, maybe it has to do with something i wrote over at patterico’s blog. see comment 12 and 13…
    http://patterico.com/2009/11/03/law-professor-needs-to-take-class-on-how-to-file-a-valid-legal-complaint/#comment-575570
    Just sayin’.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if the wide ridicule he has gotten for his shoddy work factored in to his decision. i will say that if he really got the charges of solicitation dropped and the record expunged, then that should be mentioned on this site just to be nice. i mean just because he is apparently an incompetant boob, doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve for the truth to be told.

  125. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM

    Mmm, maybe it has to do with something i wrote over at patterico’s blog. see comment 12 and 13…
    http://patterico.com/2009/11/03/law-professor-needs-to-take-class-on-how-to-file-a-valid-legal-complaint/#comment-575570
    Just sayin’.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if the wide ridicule he has gotten for his shoddy work factored in to his decision. i will say that if he really got the charges of solicitation dropped and the record expunged, then that should be mentioned on this site just to be nice. i mean just because he is apparently an incompetant boob, doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve for the truth to be told.

  126. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM

    Why would ATL want this suit dismissed? It’s a blog growth hormone. ATL could run daily updates and turn the story into a pandemic. Only Randazza would be dumb enough to want to dismiss it. Is he still an adjunct at Barrry? Prestigious. I hope he teaches sports law and not trial practice.

  127. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM

    Whatever happened to the University of Miami law school? Once upon a time they were a reputable law school with a good tax program. Now they are just laughingstocks. This is one of the more irrefutable and visible examples of what bozos they have teaching there, but it’s certainly not the only one.

  128. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 4:52 PM

    This is a shame. ATL needs a big slap in the face as a wakeup call to moderate posts that defame individuals (Ellie Weasel) and engage in anti-Semitic rhetoric.

  129. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:01 PM

    Randazza – No. 9 here.
    You stole my “i shaved my balls for this?” schtick and put in on your professional website? Wow.

  130. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:14 PM

    I want David Minkin to fertilize my eggs and father my first born son, who I will also name David Minkin, who will in turn continue the long MYSTERIOUS tradition, of fertilizing many more Minkins to come….

  131. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:22 PM

    I go to UM and I had a class with Professor Jones. Believe it or not, he is actually a really cool guy.

  132. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:22 PM

    Delete/ban 108

  133. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM

    Sucks when your own counsel calls your professional work “foolishness.”

  134. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM

    64: No tolling:
    In determining whether a claim is barred by statute of limitation, the period of time during which an ultimately voluntarily dismissed action was pending is not included because the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendency of a case if the case becomes voluntarily dismissed. See Houseweth v. Neimec, 603 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Hamilton v. Largo Paint & Decorating, Inc. 335 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Co., 216 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).

  135. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM

    64: No tolling:
    In determining whether a claim is barred by statute of limitation, the period of time during which an ultimately voluntarily dismissed action was pending is not included because the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendency of a case if the case becomes voluntarily dismissed. See Houseweth v. Neimec, 603 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Hamilton v. Largo Paint & Decorating, Inc. 335 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Co., 216 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).

  136. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:37 PM

    129 – Whatever happened to the University of Miami law school? Once upon a time they were a reputable law school with a good tax program. Now they are just laughingstocks?
    Vengeful, bigots who hurl venom to cover up their own shortcomings (i.e., Stotzky, Jones, Mahoney, Fenton, Valdez, Abraham) have chased off competent professors (Barnes, Deporter, Vladeck, Becker and Keller) and refused to even consider the hiring of others (SCOTUS Clerks), while the remaining competent professors (Rosen, Oxman) have stood by and let it happen. Those that have fought this struggle for failure (Hill, Widen, Langbein) have been shunted aside. Adjuncts who are the real brains (Redmond, Fraga, Fed Judiciary) don’t care enough about petty internal squabbles to become involved, and Shalala’s attention has been fixed on other parts of the University.

  137. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM

    115: how about pleading causes of action that don’t exist? You think that might be sanctionable? FAIL!!!

  138. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 5:58 PM

    Do you really use a counsel? Can’t you say “N.Y. Times v. Sullivan” yourself? Didn’t the law professor ever heard of this forgotten SCOTUS case?

  139. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 6:18 PM

    Don’t click on any link with “imageshack” in it.
    It’s the same guy who keeps posting an obscene cartoon, over and over again.

  140. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 7:24 PM

    72: fellow NYU Law grad here–’77. Yes, so that means that Jones was there at the same time I was (he grad ‘76), although I didn’t have the so-called pleasure of meeting him personally.
    Don’t know what years you were there, but there was an old lion of a professor named Herb Peterfreund (author of the text on NY Practice), who was still teaching in ‘77. He had seen NYU rise from a half-decent commuter law school to a nationally ranked school. He always said: “Don’t ever do anything to embarrass the school”.
    Professor Jones created a complaint that would embarrass a first year student.
    To the rest of the readers: NYU is a helluva lot better than Professor Jones.

  141. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 8:02 PM

    Pardon my fellow UM law graduate who lied to you that 60 percent of us start our careers in large firms. I would be surprised if 30 percent of us had jobs, period.
    I’m looking for work. What are the chances that Jones would hire me as co-counsel?

  142. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 8:43 PM

    REIGIONAL TRANSLATION: Ceptun for the coverage of the Jones suit, the last ATL post was morein two years ago, so the statue done expired.

  143. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 8:58 PM

    Professor’s arrest = negative media blast
    Charges dismissed = footnote
    Sue ATL citing dismissal = priceless coverage
    For you lawyers who practice law in a vacuum = ATL has given this low cost pro se suit invaluable media attention clearing the Professor of the most damaging negative attention. I am willing to bet that the Professor knew it had no legal merits when he filed. Now ask yourself: what did ATL give him?

  144. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 9:52 PM

    145 – trolling for hookers commonly gets dismissed. Unless jones comes on as a guest blogger and explains his $20 offer, nobody cares.

  145. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 10:37 PM

    Sex act from hooker: $20
    Filing fee in federal court: $350
    Proving to the entire world you are a jackass: priceless

  146. Posted by guest | November 4, 2009 at 11:55 PM

    Did I shave my balls for this schtick guy = MEGAWIN!!!
    I need to start shaving my balls.

  147. Posted by guest | November 5, 2009 at 1:16 AM

    That complaint was a complete fabrication. Jones took a Pretrial Diversion plea, meaning he just had to attend some classes and pay court costs and a fine. In return, the state dropped the charges against him.
    I know the State Attorneys who handled Jones’ case. The idea that his arrest was racially motivated is an outright lie.

  148. Posted by guest | November 5, 2009 at 3:03 AM

    I can confirm what 149 says through second hand sources. Those sources had Professor Jones for Criminal Procedure and received a C+ or lower in his class.

  149. Posted by guest | November 5, 2009 at 9:11 AM

    3L at Miami here. Just some random facts on D-Marv.
    He no longer drives a Benz SL500. He drives a 2010 SL550 w/amg package….red. It’s pretty baller.
    He’s a high level belt in some kind of martial art…Judo or something? I’ve seen him in the gym in his “gi.”
    60% of us get biglaw. If by 60% you mean 2%.
    Even the other profs here are embarassed due to his actions.
    I haven’t taken his crim pro or con law 2 classes, but my friends have. The shit that comes out of his mouth is simply out of this world.
    He has a website…lol…
    http://www.professorjonesspeaks.com
    Nothing much more needs to be said…

  150. Posted by guest | November 5, 2009 at 9:26 AM

    I really enjoyed reading this article. Thanks so much!

  151. Posted by guest | November 5, 2009 at 12:07 PM

    Above the law is a bunch of pussies. No mention of the lawsuit against them for weeks. When the story breaks, they don’t have the balls to post about it and allow comments.
    Then the lawsuit is dismissed, and ATL proclaims (yells) THERE WAS NO SETTLEMENT. No shit. you give him a free form column, under his control, and you sweep your douchiness under the rug.
    You quaked in your shoes, and then caved, and try to sell us that you won, all in self-serving arrogant style. Methinks you do the same thing with other potentially embarassing stories from people who pay you off.
    Sorry about referring to you as pussies. I like pussies. You are spineless slugs.

  152. Posted by Andrew Dhuey | November 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM

    153, check your facts. The case was filed on 10/27. ATL reported on it on 11/3 (exactly one week later — not “weeks”). I doubt they knew about the case the moment it was filed.

  153. Posted by subsilentio | November 8, 2009 at 1:45 PM

    This rambling, nutty pro se complaint is much more of an embarrassment to this so-called constitutional expert than the arrest could have been. For one thing, he blew the statute of limitations on most of the posts, for another, he completely failed to state any cause of action, even a frivolous one, against the Dead Horse defendant, and for another, it’s horribly written and practically unintelligible. It took him over two years to write this crap? Pathetic.
    For another, he appears to be attempting to state a claim against the site based on rude comments by commenters, which is probably outright frivolous, as such claims are absolutely barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
    What a clown.

  154. Posted by guest | November 11, 2009 at 3:22 AM

    Minkin is a good man. I saw him feed a hungry man once. Wait! That man was I!

  155. Posted by guest | November 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM

    The lawsuit seems completely without merit, yes.
    On the other hand, the cartoon was boorish, stupid, and completely unfunny. I have no idea what the AtL editors were thinking when they published it.
    And David Lat’s original post was, likewise, tasteless and unthoughtful. There is a world of difference between an accusation and a conviction. And shame on you, AtL, because lawyers, of all people, should understand the value of the accused’s day in court.
    A wrongful accusation is something that may happen to anyone. I think you can imagine how easy it is for an officer to fabricate a solicitation of prostitution charge. Now consider the additional risk a black man runs while driving an expensive car after dark. A perfect mark for an undercover working towards a “collar” quota.
    The charges were eventually dropped. I’m not saying the facts of the crime did or didn’t happen. I’m not saying it’s wrong to discuss the incident. But David Lat’s comment was misguided and mean-spirited.
    What on earth were you thinking, Mr. Lat?

  156. Posted by guest | December 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM

    It’s sad when bad professors happen to good schools. Their program will never be the same!

  157. Posted by guest | December 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM

    It’s sad when bad professors happen to good schools. Their program will never be the same!

blog comments powered by Disqus