First Amendment Attorney Issues Hilarious Rejection Letter To Hopeful Client Triggered Over Consulting Fees

An attorney known for his proficiency in First Amendment cases shared an absolutely hilarious response his office rendered to an aspiring client who was apparently triggered over a consultation agreement requiring payment for the consultation before entertaining the acceptance of his case “on a contingent basis.”

Even though the formal response shared by the attorney online didn’t directly identify who this rejected client was, friends and acquaintances of the individual wound up outing the person when coming to his defense – and this individual happens to be the person involved in the alleged Don Bolduc assault fiasco from earlier in November.

Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today – $1 Trial

On November 10th, failed New Hampshire Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Karlyn Borysenko took to Twitter to share a rather cryptic tweet, in terms of context, calling attorney Marc Randazza “a serious next-level asshole.”

Image Credit: Twitter

Needless to say, Borysenko’s post managed to catch the attention of Randazza – largely because she tagged his Twitter handle in her original post. For those unfamiliar with Randazza, he’s got quite the sense of humor and took the seemingly random insult as a badge of honor, reposting Borysenko’s tweet with the accompanying caption, “Sweet! I leveled up!!!”

Image Credit: Twitter

Borysenko took to the comments section of Randazza’s post mocking her ire, with the failed Libertarian candidate referencing a “letter” she’d apparently seen that was sent from Randazza’s law office to someone she referred to as “Joa” that evidently upset her and this Joa character.

“Own it if you like, dude, but I saw that letter you sent Joa, and I’ve never seen such an obvious confession of a man admitting he has a small penis in his life. Some women like tiny dicks, Mark. I wish you luck in finding them.”

Beat Big Tech With High-Speed, Secure & Anonymous VPN Service – 30 Day Free Trial

Given Randazza’s panache for humor atop of being a man of culture, he decided to share the letter at the center of the matter that had Borysenko all bent out of shape.


I am sending this letter on behalf of the Randazza Legal Group, PLLC to formally decline to represent you in your matter against [REDACTED]. You have indicated that you wish to be represented on a contingent basis and that you are upset that we sent you a consultation agreement that requires payment for the consultation. In fact, the word you used was ‘insulting.’ You also stated that we needed to take your case ‘more seriously.’ You also informed my paralegal that your friends are ‘really smart’ and they advised you to not sign our consultation agreement.

My time is valuable, and I have the right to sell it for whatever price I choose. We are not communists and we are not slaves – we get paid for our work. When we choose to take a case on contingency, that is because we are motivated to do so for numerous reasons. None of those reasons are ‘because my friend said you should.’

Part of the purpose of our consultation process, which we have carefully developed over time, is to screen for clients that we anticipate would be nothing but a pain in our ass. The screening process has done its job here. You can tell your smart friends that means we don’t want to represent you because you’re already a pain in our ass. Congrats on somehow finding friends, though.

To whatever extent you may have a case, a subject upon which I am rendering no opinion, you should take it up with another lawyer. You should do so without delay because there might be a statute of limitations issue or other deadline on your claim, if you have one. You should make sure that any advice you get is from a lawyer, and not from your ‘really smart’ friends, who I can already tell are idiots. I do not want to represent you. My offer to consult with you is revoked. I want nothing to do with you. Please take comfort that I have taken your matter ‘more seriously;’ this letter is the result.”

Image Credit: Twitter

As evidenced by the redacted portions of the rejection letter shared by Randazza, he personally opted not to out the individual who sought his legal assistance in a civil case – but it was through Borysenko’s incessant clamoring on Twitter about the matter that wound up revealing who this individual mocked in the rejection letter is.

When Borysenko mentioned the letter being sent to a person named “Joa,” she was referring to a local libertarian activist in New Hampshire named Joseph Hart, who often goes by the name Joa Orga. Hart was the man caught on camera accosting Republican senatorial candidate Don Bolduc earlier in November, which led to Hart being arrested on-site and released shortly thereafter – as well as generating headlines at the time alleging Hart assaulted Bolduc.

As evidenced by Borysenko’s Twitter feed in the days following the Hart/Bolduc incident, Hart’s arrest and the subsequent headlines arising from the incident was something Borysenko crusaded against, with her posting numerous videos of the incident and claiming that Hart was the one assaulted by Bolduc and asserting that Hart “is working through how many lawsuits he wants to file against” media outlets’ characterization of the original incident.

Image Credit: Twitter

Borysenko had also gotten into an online spat with Aidan Kearney of Turtleboy Sports fame on November 3rd, one day after the Hart/Bolduc incident, apparently incensed over Kearney’s own reporting on the alleged assault of Bolduc where she continued to peddle claims that he would be targeted for lawsuits by Hart in the future.

Image Credit: Twitter

Going back to the letter issued by Randazza’s office refusing to represent Hart, some of Hart and Borysenko’s fans (and even Hart himself, under his “@breakingtheflaw” online handle) chimed in on the outrage party. One commenter accused Randazza of “being such an asshole to someone who has a perfectly defensible case,” with Kearney shooting back with, “It’s clearly not a good case, or else Marc would take it. Joa wanted him to take a losing case for free.”

Hart went on in the thread to accuse both Kearney and Randazza of not having watched the video at the center of the originating Bolduc incident, to which Kearney clarified, “I saw it. You trespassed and got charged for it. That’s why Marc isn’t taking your [case],” with Randazza confirming Kearney’s aforementioned assessment with, “That is ONE reason.”

Image Credit: Twitter

The prior description of Hart being a local Libertarian activist in New Hampshire is arguably a generous description, as he’s more largely thought to be a public annoyance by locals and has been for several years with stunts that include harassing local cops and doxing their spouses.

But when it comes to the concept of Hart having an actionable claim of defamation (which seems to be the angle he’s trying to pursue against media reports over the Bolduc incident), he likely doesn’t have a case considering the brief and chaotic circumstances of the original incident, him being trespassed and arrested over the incident, and the relatively high bar for proving a defamation claim.

Quick – Do This Before Biden “Fixes” Your Retirement Plan Next…

Laat een bericht achter.

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd.