Bar Complaint Filed Against Lawyers Who Participated In Bogus Lawsuits Targeting Fake Defendants

from the more-water-on-the-grease-fire-that-is-the-reputation-management-business dept

The reputation management tactic of filing bogus defamation lawsuits may be slowly coming to an end, but there will be a whole lot of reputational damage to be spread among those involved by the time all is said and done.

Richart Ruddie, proprietor of Profile Defenders, filed several lawsuits in multiple states fraudulently seeking court orders for URL delistings. The lawsuits featured fake plaintiffs, fake defendants, and fake admissions of guilt from the fake defendants. Some judges issued judgments without a second thought. Others had second thoughts but they were identical to their first one. And some found enough evidence of fraud to pass everything on to the US Attorney's office.

But Ruddie couldn't do all of this himself. He needed lawyers. And now those lawyers are facing a bar complaint for assisting Ruddie (and possibly others) in fraudulent behavior. Eugene Volokh has more details at the relocated (and paywall-free!) Volokh Conspiracy.

The Arizona lawsuits... were filed by lawyers Aaron Kelly and Daniel Warner of Kelly / Warner Law, a prominent Internet libel law firm (though some were also linked to Richart Ruddie, Profile Defenders, and a company connected to Profile Defenders).

These two attorneys are now facing a bar complaint because of their actions in the Chinnock v. Ivanski case, another lawsuit with fraudulent legal documents. These were delivered to the court by Kelly and Warner, with their apparent approval of the fraudulent contents. The bar complaint [PDF] details the many falsifications in the lawsuit documents, including the faking of notary public signatures.

[40.] The complaint states Ivanski resides in Turkey and Chinnock resides in Colorado. The complaint states, "[t]he parties purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of Arizona law," but does not explain how the state courts in Arizona have jurisdiction to hear the matter....

[42.] Respondent Warner knew that Krista Ivanski is not a real person. Krista Ivanski was fabricated to serve as defendant in the matter.

[43.] Respondent Warner knew that Krista Ivanski did not post the 38 allegedly defamatory statements.

[44.] Respondent Warner knew that the 38 allegedly defamatory statements were not posted by the same person.

[45.] Respondent Warner knew that legal action regarding many of the allegedly defamatory statements was barred by the [Arizona one-year] statute of limitations ....

[46.] Alternatively, if Respondent Warner did not know the information in paragraphs 42-45, Respondent Warner failed to investigate the matter prior to filing the complaint.

[...]

[50.] The proposed order is signed by Ivanski and notarized by Amanda Sparks, a notary from Fulton County, Georgia. The Plaintiff's Verification attached to the original complaint and signed by Chinnock was also notarized in Fulton County, Georgia. According to the complaint, neither Ivanski nor Chinnock reside in Georgia.

[51.] There is no notary in Fulton County named Amanda Sparks. A search performed via the Georgia Superior Court Clerk's Cooperative Authority notary search shows no notary in Fulton County named Amanda Sparks. The notarization by Amanda Sparks is a forgery.

[52.] Respondent Warner knew that the notarization by "Amanda Sparks" from Fulton County, Georgia, was a forgery or failed to investigate the matter prior to filing the document.

And that's just the first of two forgeries included in documents in this case. The second forgery also pertains to a fake notary public in yet another state.

54.] The proposed Amended Order For Permanent Injunction is signed by Ivanski and notarized by "Samantha Pierce," a notary from Colorado. According to the complaint, Chinnock resides in Colorado while Ivanski resides in Turkey.

[55.] There is no notary in Colorado named Samantha Pierce. A notary search performed via the Colorado Secretary of State's website returns "no records found" for notary Samantha Pierce. The notarization by Samantha Pierce is a forgery.

[56.] The notary ID used by Samantha Pierce is 20121234567. The sample notary seal displayed on the Colorado Secretary of State's general notary information page uses notary ID 20121234567.

This is not the end of the complaint's allegations. It also alleges Aaron Kelly's case (Lynd v. Hood) involved fake notarization and fake defendants. The same goes for Gottuso v. Marks, which was handled by Aaron Kelly and involved a fictitious defendant. And so it continues for several more cases handled by Kelly and Warner. It also details a case handled by this law firm involving Richart Ruddie directly. The connection between Ruddie and the law firm goes beyond falsified documents. In this case, Ruddie was targeting posts critical of the Kelly / Warner law firm hosted at Ripoff Report but pretended the posts targeted Ruddie himself.

The lawsuit filed by Ruddie was fraudulent. Jake Kirschner did not post the allegedly defamatory statements. At least one of the statements was posted by an individual named Charles Roderick.

The allegedly defamatory statements are about Respondent Warner, not about Ruddie as alleged in the complaint.

Ruddie filed a fraudulent lawsuit to remove online criticism of his business associate Respondent Daniel Warner.

Respondent Warner knew that Ruddie filed the fraudulent lawsuit to achieve Respondent Warner's goal of removing the online criticism without having to prove the elements of defamation.

Multiple violations of attorney rules of conduct are alleged. So far, it's nothing more than a complaint and is still in need of review by a disciplinary judge. Questions will be raised about Kelly and Warner's complicity in these fraudulent lawsuit schemes. Kelly / Warner have already released a statement claiming the named lawyers knew nothing about the fraudulent claims contained in the documents they served to the court, nor are they required to. (Emphasis in the original.)

Internet defamation attorneys cannot and will not be held to a higher standard of care than normal attorneys. After a quick reading of the ethical rules, the comments thereto, and a case filed by the Texas Attorney General against a reputation management company, it should be evident to any reasonable person that the old saying, “where there is smoke, there is fire” is not necessarily true in the digital age today.

“An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation, but is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein, for litigation documents ordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client’s behalf, and not assertions by the lawyer.” ER 3.3 cmt 3 (emphasis added).

“The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. [And] [a] lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact.” See ER 3.3 cmt 8. “[A] lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client . . . .” Id. Although the firm practices far within and from “the line,” the comments to the ethical rules indicate that “the line” extends rather far.

So, the law firm is claiming to be another victim of a shady reputation management firm engaged in fraudulent lawsuits for the purposes of removing critical posts from the internet. This defensive statement may let readers know just how far attorneys can wander from due diligence without being slapped with sanctions, but doesn't do much to assure readers the law firm won't turn a blind eye to sketchy legal paperwork if the price is right. The post also throws some shade at Eugene Volokh and Paul Alan Levy with its final sentence, asking clients to let the law firm know if they are contacted by "alleged 'reporters.'"

While this plays out, we can expect the flow of bogus lawsuits to continue to slow. These tactics flew under the radar for a few years, but there are multiple private entities actively engaged in tracking down perpetrators. In addition, the issue has gone federal thanks to a Connecticut judge's decision to forward allegations to the US Attorney's office. I get that people are often disappointed Section 230 immunity doesn't allow them to demand delisting of content they personally find objectionable. The problem isn't with disappointed people, but rather the sketchy reputation management firms that promise (and bill for) stuff they can't legally deliver.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2018 @ 11:09am

    Bogus Lawsuit

    FBI using paid political research for a FISA warrant???

    that is too Rich... Seth Rich

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 2 Feb 2018 @ 11:10am

    Kelly / Warner have already released a statement claiming the named lawyers knew nothing about the fraudulent claims contained in the documents they served to the court, nor are they required to.

    "We don't know what we're doing, nor are we required to."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2018 @ 11:42am

      Re:

      After a quick reading of the ethical rules

      If you read the ethical rules after you've been accused of violating them, and even then only give them a "quick reading", perhaps that's part of the reason you've been accused of violating them. Just a thought.

      “An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation, but is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein,

      Yes, that's a comment on Arizona ethical rule 3.3. But perhaps you should have also read this comment on rule 3.1:

      What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients' cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith and nonfrivolous arguments in support of their clients' positions.

      Can you honestly say you did this?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2018 @ 11:44am

      Re:

      Where else have I heard that claim made, oh I remember, the police. It says something about US justice that the only ones who are expected to know anything about the system are its victims.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Feb 2018 @ 11:47am

      Re:

      "We don't know what we're doing, nor are we required to."

      “Congratulations, you now qualify for the office of President of the United States.”

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Feb 2018 @ 12:17am

      Re:

      Someone is using the Prenda playbook, let see how it works out for these geniuses who are sure THEY can make it work where others have fail so spectacularly.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2018 @ 1:14pm

    And yet i still hear advertisement for this company on a daily basis, all because people can say mean things on the internet

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2018 @ 1:14pm

    And yet i still hear advertisement for this company on a daily basis, all because people can say mean things on the internet

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Docrailgun, 2 Feb 2018 @ 4:48pm

    That's not what your quote says, though

    ... what it says is that the lawyers don't think that they are expected to tell the truth in court. They quote regulations that say that an attorney SHOULD know if something is true or not when they file it but theat they MUST do so. They're basically saying that an attorney's job is just to file paperwork given to them. the funny thing is that they're also saying that they don't prepare any of their own documents, they just file whatever is handed to them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2018 @ 12:52am

    Fake News?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    oliver, 3 Feb 2018 @ 3:28am

    Cue Lisa Simpson here.. "Mr Hutz are you a sheister..."

    That's all there is to be said abot those "lawyers".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 3 Feb 2018 @ 11:47am

    Hey Profile Defenders...

    there's smoke coming out of your dumpster.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.