UPDATE: Overwhelming evidence against the entire firm of kelly warner law results in official charges.
Fake Lawsuits Fake Defendants Fake Notary's Fake Signatures Fake Court Documents .
State Bar File Took It Upon Themselves To File Charges Against Dan Warner Aaron Kelly and Raees Mohamed That Head Up The Kelly Warner Law Firm Located In Scottsdale Arizona.
After a 16 month investigation an official charges have been filed against Arizona based law firm Kelly Warner Law and the attorneys. Sources say "criminal charges are possible due to the nature of the allegations and the investigation could expand into the rest of the firm including the paralegal and other staff.
Other sources say Federal RICO Suit Is Imminent against members of the firm and Richart Ruddie as well others not named in the complaint.
- Daniel R Warner
- Aaron Kelly
- Raees Mohamed.
The charges include:
- Fake Lawsuits
- Fake Defendants
- Fake Notary's
- Fake Signatures
- Fake Court Documents
We will have more on this story as it develops.
The complaint is below. PRINTER FRIENDLY COPY CLICK HEREdan warner supreme court Complaint
Previous article below.
THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA ATTEMPTS TO SHIELD EXPOSURE OF ATTORNEY DANIEL R. WARNER FROM POTENTIAL CRIMINAL CONDUCT
The Legal Practices of Attorney Daniel R. Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law Firm
In reviewing the previous posts concerning Daniel R. Warner, he is an Arizona licensed and practicing attorney. He is a partner of Kelly/Warner Law in Scottsdale, Arizona. He is a member of the State Bar of Arizona (“SBA”). He has bragged to clients about having close ties within the SBA staff due to volunteer work directly for the Bar’s support attorney services. Warner has engaged in conduct associated with his legal practice that garnered a significant amount of attention from major media outlets, previous clients, a U.S. (Federal) District Court, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, and the Bar. Also, at the behest of the Chief Federal Judge William E. Smith for the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI) has been involved in an investigation.
The business practices of Warner and his law firm were first exposed by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh who writes the legal blog for the Washington Post, The Volokh Conspiracy. In posts extensively researched and authored by Professor Volokh, he would detail with supporting evidence the “legal strategy” of Warner and the Kelly/Warner law firm. These strategies were incorporated in civil litigation that included the practice of submitting court filings that knowingly listed “FAKE” defendants, plaintiffs and notaries. Many of these court filings also included “FORGED” notary seals as a means intended to validate the existence of “FAKE” litigants. Upon further extensive research it would also be uncovered that the lawsuits themselves were based upon deliberately fabricated claims and allegations with no basis in facts. The purpose of the lawsuits in question was to remove and/or censor factually accurate information disseminated on the Internet concerning Kelly/Warner clients, Warner and/or the law firm itself. In a nutshell, lawsuits were filed to restrict the TRUTH and FACTS about individuals (clients and Warner himself) detailing their reprehensible conduct from being discovered by the general public.
The State Bar of Arizona was Notified of the Misconduct of Warner
The Bar was notified of the activities of Warner with confirmed fillings of official complaints by a few individuals, including Professor Volokh. It has been verified that an investigation was “initiated by the SBA” concerning the many serious allegations against Warner and Kelly/Warner Law with communications received from “Staff Bar Counsel” Bradley Perry who is overseeing the case.
The public website provided by the SBA has the obligatory “About Us” page to advocate its unwavering commitment to truth and justice for all (of course). If only such high ideals were actually practiced in reality. Under their “Core Values” the SBA list and define them as “we use these values to shape our work and ensure that our approaches are consistent with our results.” One such value (allegedly) is:
“Integrity: This value represents our commitment to truth in all of its forms and in all of our actions. It is adherence to the spirit as well as to the letter of the law. It is consistency, transparency, and accountability for what we say and what we do, as individuals, as professionals, and as an organization”.
Nice words. Unfortunately, they are the usual meaningless self-serving proclamations with no substance. They are nothing more than an organizations obligatory word salad. The only purpose such “words” serve in practical application is a stratagem of deception to lull the general public into a false sense of assurance that the SBA protects the public from attorney malfeasance. They don’t. The main purpose of the SBA is to PROTECT the members (lawyers) who finance the entire operation, including all salaries of those employed. The “Staff Bar Counsel” for example. No conflict to see there (sarcasm).
The Bar is a Sham: Employs The Strategy of NO Transparency
The Bar’s claim of “transparency” and “accountability” is a complete fallacy. In fact, with just a simple review of their actual policy and procedures in handling complaints it becomes abundantly apparent the reality is the complete opposite. From direct experience, here is what occurs:
1. A complaint is filed with the SBA which receives a “screening.” The majority of complaints filed are rejected at this stage and Complainant informed the SBA will not investigate the claims further. What is the number of complaints filed with the SBA? What is the percentage of complaints rejected at the “screening” phase? This information is NOT available on the website. When the SBA was contacted directly for this information, the answer was that information is NOT released to the public. Why not? This is NOT “transparency.”
2. The unknown percentages of complaints that do go beyond the SBA “screening” process are forwarded to the offending attorney (Respondent). The Respondent has 20 days to provide a response to the SBA addressing the claims of the Complainant. The Complainant may or MAY NOT receive a copy of the response the SBA receives from the Respondent.
3. According to the SBA guidelines the investigation is based on “clear and convincing evidence.” Yet the letter (if one is even sent) received from the SBA notifying the Complainant of the response openly discourages any reply (rebuttal) as “no further written reply is needed.” The SBA does NOT want to receive additional FACTS associated with the cases that are sure to exist and would likely advance an investigation committed to extracting the TRUTH based on FACTS. Presumably the SBA’s concern is there they may be cause that would dispute and/or irrefutably disproves the self-serving and likely misrepresentations, if not outright lies, of the “Respondent” attorney. It is claimed to be “not necessary” because (of course) an officer of the court (a title for attorneys) would only unquestionably engage in honesty and adhere to the ethical professional code of conduct for attorneys. Everyone knows lawyers would NEVER lie. This is intentional sarcasm as personal experience has demonstrated this is NOT what occurs.
4. What happens at this stage is… a whole lot of nothing. What the Complainant WILL experience is MONTHS of waiting for ANY form of an update from the SBA. If they pursue an update by contacting the SBA by telephone, they will be told how “backed up” the SBA is and the file is being worked on. They will hear something soon. They won’t, more MONTHS will pass of a whole lot of nothing.
5. The obvious strategy of the SBA is to drag the investigation process out to the maximum time period possible to dilute the resolve of the Complainants. The old adage of “time heals all wounds” with the bonus of protecting the interest of the Respondent attorneys. Plus there is the reality of the findings at the conclusion of the “investigation,” which based on the available data, is there in all likelihood will be little to NO REPERCUSSION actually realized by the offending attorney. There are exceptions to this reality, but they are VERY few and occur rarely. This FACT bears out with a simple examination of the attorneys who actually have their license “suspended” (disbarred) for any period of time. This information is available online and categorically demonstrates the clear bias favoring the attorneys. With the THOUSANDS of complaints filed with the SBA, the number of attorneys who receive any form of repercussions of significance is approximately a dozen - yearly. This is NOT an exaggeration, as of the end of August the number of suspensions is exactly twelve during 2017. The percentage of actual meaningful rulings against the attorneys is in the 0.1 of ONE PERCENT. According to the SBA 99.9 % of all complaints do NOT merit an attorney having their license suspended for any period of time. Seems a little skewed – you think? Somehow 99.9% of all complaints are unworthy of attorney repercussions.
6. What generally occurs when a strong case extends beyond the “screening” process and is investigated for MONTHS by the SBA? Here is an example of such a case (short version):
1. Attorney engages in obvious ethics misconduct during a civil litigation. The presiding Judge finds the conduct of the attorney so egregious that it merits sanctions that include a $5000 fine with the threat of additional sanctions of $1000 weekly until the original sanction is paid in full and the underlying misconduct is rectified.
2. The grieved party would file a complaint with the SBA addressing the misconduct recognized and detailed by the Arizona Superior Court Judge. After enduring the exact BAR process explained above to render its findings, the case is finally concluded after taking OVER a year to “investigate.”
3. The SBA ruling is rendered. The attorney had in fact engaged in conduct violating the code of ethics for an Arizona licensed attorney. The penalty being the requirement to watch a 30 MINUTE VIDEO on the importance of practicing law within the ethical parameters of the SBA. Of course, to be watched on the merit system. REALLY - this is an actual case that occurred under the auspices of the SBA. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
The position that the Bar’s function is protecting the general public by providing “accountability” and “transparency” in the governance of licensed attorney of Arizona is painfully absurd. Such proclamations defy the TENS of THOUSANDS of complaints filed by disenfranchised “clients” only to see a handful of the most obvious of grievances garnering meaningful retribution. The SBA’s self-adulation in declaring a commitment to “integrity” for “what we say and what we do” is clear shameless hyperbole and hypocrisy. This claim is a blatant lie easily disproved with a simple review of the numbers and the FACTS. Even though it requires some due diligence tenacity to overcome the complete lack of “transparency” of the SBA, the FACTS can be established and it is a dismal and disgraceful record.
State Bar Blocks a Complaint Filed by the “Victim” of a Warner “Fake” Lawsuit
It can be surmised that the methods applied by the SBA to protect the best interest of accused member attorneys go well beyond concealing the FACTS with a NO “transparency” agenda. When dealing with particularly egregious conduct of member attorneys, the SBA will interject their influence to block out the actual “victims” from participation in their own cases.
As previously summarized the odious legal tactics of Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law firm generated national media attention and would be the catalyst for a number of individuals filing Bar complaints. In an example of undeniable clarity, the true agenda of the Bar would be exposed by their “initiating an internal investigation” and naming THEMSELVES as the Complainant of the claims against Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law firm. On its face this would seem to be an appropriate advancement of the matter in recognizing the seriousness of the allegations by the SBA. However, when you understand the process and procedures employed by the SBA after being consigned as an “internal investigation,” it becomes evident the reality is the polar opposite. This tactic creates the means by which the SBA takes over total control of all aspects of the investigation. It limits, if not eliminates completely, any disclosure during the evaluation and findings concerning the serious allegations detailed in the complaints. Not even the “VICTIMS” themselves are allowed to be actively engaged participants in the investigation – to their own grievances. The Bar assures the “VICTIMS” they MAY be called upon as “witnesses” – “if necessary.” Maybe they do – maybe they don’t.
When you pull back the curtain of SBA propaganda, what you are left with is an agenda of obstruction, censorship and direct control of the narrative of the attorney’s wrong doing. This practice of the SBA being the Complainant and relegating the actual “victims” to possible “witnesses,” the “victims” are no longer included in the process that would provide them the response required in 20 days by Warner. The “VICTIMS” do NOT have the opportunity to review, let alone refute any false and or fabricated claims being advanced as a defense for the alleged offenses committed. The “VICTIMS” will not be updated during the process throughout the MONTHS of so-called investigation. MAYBE… after the completion of the so-called investigation, the “VICTIMS” may be called as “witnesses” before a tribunal of judges. In the event the SBA just decided not to pursue any disciplinary action against Warner or the Kelly/Warner Law firm, the “victims” are likely to not even receive any kind of notice.
It is very telling the response received from the SBA when one of the “victims” expressed an adamant objection to being stonewalled from participating in the SBA complaint process of inclusion. The “victim” received a letter from Staff Bar Counsel Bradley F. Perry overseeing the “investigation” stating:
RE: File No: 16-3120 Respondent: Daniel R. Warner
Dear “victim name”:
We received today your letter regarding your formal ethics complaint against Daniel R. Warner. The information you provided is already in the Bar’s possession and therefore a new complaint is not necessary.
I appreciate your investment in this matter and your continued willingness to work with the Bar as needed.
Granted it is a polite response, but make no mistake the clear intent of the letter being “don’t call us, we will call you.” The stated plan of the SBA is to dismiss a “formal complaint” as “not necessary.” This would be akin to filing a criminal complaint with law enforcement, say for sexual abuse, and to be told that the perpetrator is already under investigation so addressing your allegations of a crime committed is “not necessary.” Thank you for coming by and have a nice day. The only thing more shocking then the callous disregard and patronizing tone toward the “victim” is the open commitment to a policy of obstruction that the SBA’s obtuse indifference in revealing this truth with a written confirmation. An update to this situation is this “victim” would receive absolutely no further information from Mr. Perry or the SBA concerning the so-called investigation of Warner – NOTHING for MONTHS and counting. This is a travesty of justice to victim rights. The public are chumps. The SBA does NOT care as they are serving the best interest of their masters, the paying attorney members of the SBA such as Warner.
State Bar’s are a Sham: In Arizona “Rule 70” Protects Lawyers From Having Misconduct Exposed, “Public Access to Information” is Specifically Restricted (Censored) from the Public’s Review
Proof positive that the assertion the SBA persona depicted to the general public is a rouse and sham is verifiable by researching the Arizona Legislative Statutes. Specifically, the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona,Rule 70. Public Access to Information. The TRUTH is “hidden” in plain sight.
Rule 70 is Arizona legislation specifically addressing the right to public access to information concerning the SBA complaint process. What Rule 70 does is RESTRICT – BAR – HIDE – OBSTRUCT - ELIMNATE the disclosure of the information and evidence gathered concerning misconduct perpetrated by Arizona Licensed attorneys. This legislation was written, introduced and passed into law by the attorney lobby utilizing an Arizona Congress consisting of a majority of elected officials who themselves are members of the SBA. It is a law passed that directly protects many of the legislation members and their lawyer colleagues. Apparently this did NOT represent a conflict of interest despite the clear self-serving benefit to the legal community at large. You can NOT find similar legislative protections for any other profession that RESTRICTS and/or directly FORBID “Public Access to Information” such as concerning the improprieties of attorneys. It is truly mind boggling the brazen corruption perpetrated against the general public’s welfare by lawyers. All of whom are members of the SBA, which upon thorough research reveals the sole purpose being an elaborate protection scheme under the guise of legitimacy.
Conclusion: The State Bar is a Bogus Enterprise “OWNED” by the Attorneys
In conclusion, let’s revisit the stated “Core Values” of the SBA in claiming “we use these values to shape our work and ensure that our approaches are consistent with our results.” Well… mission accomplished. Ironically they have succeeded in providing a TRUTHFUL assessment of their work made available for all to see. The Bar’s work is so shoddy and overtly designed to protect and/or conceal the malpractice of their lawyer member masters that these “approaches” do in fact garner “consistent” “results.” Unfortunately, those being to obscure any/all “transparency” and dismiss culpability for misconduct thus no actual “accountability.” In some extreme cases such as Warner’s, even illegal malfeasance that may rise to the level to be deemed criminal conduct requiring intervention by the FBI. The SBA’s results are VERY “consistent” in not providing the general public any real protections as falsely projected as the duty and objective of the organization. The concept of having a State Bar looking after the interests of the general public is a sham; instead they only serve the purpose to protect, embolden, empower and enrich crooked lawyers paying membership fees. Cynically it could be argued SBA fees collected from attorneys represent a form of liability insurance of sorts. What really happens in these situations amounts to the metaphorical raping and pillaging of the general public by SBA protected lawyers laughing all the way to their banks.
Other Related Articles Below.
Mar 14, 2017 - Paul's assiduous lawyering has now borne fruit: Richart Ruddie, who ... to the United States Attorney for investigation”; Levy's post states that.
Apr 17, 2017 - Paul Alan Levy, Richart Ruddie Settles Anti-SLAPP. Claims, Makes ... has been investigatingfraud and other misbehavior related to the.
Paul's assiduous lawyering has now borne fruit: Richart Ruddie, who runs a ... file be despatched to america Lawyer for investigation”; Levy's publish states that.
This is a developing story on the Kelly Warner Law Firm in Arizona. Apparently Judge Patricial Starr signed an illegal order that was...
Attorney Aaron Kelly and his law partner Daniel Warner are currently under investigation by the Arizona Bar for legal misconduct. Sources have now...
The question of the day is whether or not it’s easy to get disbarred in the state of Arizona? The answer might surprise you....
According to Rick DeBruhl, Chief Communications Officer of the State Bar of Arizona, Attorney Daniel Warner is currently under investigation by the Arizona Bar....
Former NFL Cheerleader Megan Welter was arrested for beating up her boyfriend Ryan McMahon in 2013. Shortly after the arrest, due to Welter's high...
Despite being called out for its previous questionable attempts at Internet censorship, an Arizona law firm has moved on from the small fries and...
UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh released this article on The Washington Post yesterday that alleges that Attorney Aaron Kelly filed another fraudulent legal case...
In the popular TV series, Better Call Saul, Attorney Saul Goodman is a hapless lawyer that will do anything to win. In many cases,...
USA Herald recently reported on a developing story involving Attorneys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly. Both Warner and Kelly have been involved in seemingly...