The lawyer who caught UNC giving $2.5m to white nationalists orders the white nationalists to create a $2.5m fund for Black students or face a lawsuit

Originally published at:


Ha ha! /Nelson


heh heh


So, lawful neutral or chaos neutral? Discuss.



I’d love to see these Nazi jerks turn over their ill-gotten gains. But this action seems a lot like extortion, “Do this unrelated thing or I’m going to sue you for copyright abuse”? That just doesn’t sound right to me.


He’s a lawyer, so obviously Lawful. As opposed to someone like Larry Klayman, who is simply a fraudster.

1 Like

I don’t think it is always safe to make that assumption anymore. Even the Attorney General of the United States has open disdain for rule of law these days.


“Try a murderer for not paying his taxes?”

“It’s better than nothing.”


That’s literally how they got the money in the first place, despite the fact that they didn’t even have any clear standing to sue.

What’s good for the goose-steppers is good for the gander.


Threatening a civil lawsuit when you have a legitimate claim generally isn’t extortion, even if the settlement you are seeking isn’t directly related to the damages.

It could be extortion if it threatened something OTHER than a lawsuit (e.g., reporting criminal activity to the authorities, or publicly releasing a secret).


The thing of it is, I have a hard time imagining that the actual settlement for the copyright abuse case would be 2.5 million dollars. If they were even to win.

I don’t think he’s nazi should be allowed to keep this money. I think it was aquired under false pretenses. If they do get to keep the money then people who negotiated at the college should have to pay for it personally, because they knew the Nazis didn’t have standing. The payoff was BS.

Really nice to see you combating bigotry for once, Randazza! Welcome to the fight.

He has form:

(Randazza represented Eiland-Hall in that case.)


Perhaps not, but it is not a crime to demand an outrageous amount for a settlement out of court. That doesn’t mean the other part has to accept. If you make the demands of someone you know doesn’t have the means to properly defend himself it’s unethical, but that hardly applies here.


Do you imagine the Nazis are ever going to turn their ill-gotten gains over to a scholarship fund for black people? I don’t, and I’m sure Doucette doesn’t either. It’s a foregone conclusion, but his demand serves to jerk their chain. They will no doubt react irrationally, which can only bolster his case.Also, extorting extortionists and defrauding fraudsters is poetic justice.


If a court makes a judgement against the first amendment rights of Nazis, and the judgement stands, that precedent can be used against everyone’s first amendment rights. This is the same reason the government uses terrorists and child pornographers when they want to break the fourth amendment.

Lawyers understand this, which is why first amendment lawyers take all kinds of cases, and why the ACLU has represented klansmen, too.


It’s not at all unrelated, is it?

1 Like

It’s indirectly related.

Having read Randazza’s essays over at Popehat for some time, I’ve found his approach to free speech more jingoistic than philosophical, his attitude towards bigotry more coddling than condemning. I won’t go so far as to say he replaced Clarkhat but by merely stating that I feel I get my opinion across.

1 Like