View More Categories

UPDATE: Dan Warner & Aaron Kelly Get Probation For Fraud Charges.

Daniel Warner & Aaron Kelly Placed On Probation For Fraudulent Activity.

More Fraud Claims & FAKE Lawsuits Surface Even After Plea Bargain.

“The allegations in the complaint are troubling and raise multiple concerns” stated the bar in the plea bargain.   Fake notarization's non-existent defendants across multiple cases; forged signatures…indeed, very disturbing to say the least.

Arizona: Attys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly of Kelly/Warner Law Agree to “Plea Deal” Imposing 2-Year Probation for Fraudulent Lawsuits Involving “Fake” Defendants and FAKE Notaries

The State Bar of Arizona (SBA) and the ethically challenged attorneys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly of the Scottsdale located Kelly/Warner Law firm have reached a settlement – otherwise known as a “plea deal.” The penalty agreed upon is a two-year probation period for both attorneys for a pattern of conduct that was deemed serious ethical violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The SBA had engaged in an extensive year and a half investigation into a complaint originally submitted by respected UCLA legal professor Eugene Volokh that detailed a number of alleged fraudulent lawsuits filed by Kelly/Warner as part of their online reputation repair services. Professor Volokh also authored a piece for his legal blog for The Washington Post. The scheme involved the filing of lawsuits claiming defamatory content online directed against Kelly/Warner Law clients. The issue that would be investigated and ultimately result in the disciplinary repercussions was the knowingly naming “fake” defendants and/or plaintiffs that had nothing to do with the objectionable content being disseminated online. To further advance the nefarious nature of these fraudulent lawsuits was the use of non-existent notaries and official seals forged to validate court filings as having parties properly verified.  

How the scheme worked was by filing fraudulently prepared lawsuits naming non-existent and/or “fake” litigants, the parties whom may have actually authored and posted the targeted online content would not be made aware that there even existed a legal challenge to said content being litigated in the judicial system. The net result would be due to unchallenged allegations; the presiding judge would issue Court Orders declaring default judgments or approve submitted agreements of parties validated with “forged” notary seals. With an official Court Order having been rendered declaring the identified content as “defamatory,” the next stage involved demands that the content be removed from websites and/or Google to deindex. The deindexing of the content would effectively make it not findable via your standard online search results. Thus the client achieving the desired result of “online reputation repair” for the Kelly/Warner Law efforts by having (factual) derogatory information removed from Internet discovery.

What is important to note is the admissions of both attorneys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelley that they had engaged in violations of their professional duty to conduct their legal practice in an unethical manner was truly egregious. They willfully did not abide by the requirements of the legal profession. What is an unfortunate fact is the reality of the State Bar of Arizona without dispute is the most lenient bar association in the entire country. It can be easily surmised that the conduct identified to have been perpetrated by attorneys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly would have resulted in DISBARMENT; at the very least lengthy SUSPENSIONS issued by the vast majority of state bar associations.

It is important to clearly articulate what exactly was executed as a legal strategy to circumvent the dominion of the judicial system. Attorneys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly actively marketed an online reputation repair services claiming Internet law expertise which involved utilizing and taking advantage of the civil litigation procedures that they were well versed in its processes. Simply stated – they “gamed” the judicial system. What is important is such devious manipulation of one of most important institutions as the judicial system should NOT be so easily executed circumventing all legal protection to the unaware victims of the scam – making a mockery of the very basis of the “rule of law” doctrine. It is hard to imagine that a non-lawyer civilian conducting such a brazen fraud upon the courts would not be met with CRIMINAL CHARGES. An alarming realization of the Kelly/Warner legal manipulation scheme is both the simplicity and the likelihood of success. Not only should have attorneys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly been levied permanent DISBARMENT, there should have been criminal charges liability for committing willful FRAUD.


It was NOT a surprise that Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly would eventually be exposed engaging in fraudulent activities in filing completely false and fabricated lawsuits. Simply put – it was a total scam based on “reputation repair” services promising to remove negative content being disseminating online that can greatly affect a person’s personal or business affairs. This has become a burgeoning legal business as negative reviews being discovered on the Internet can destroy a reputation and/or business overnight. The Kelly/Warner Law angle to charge clients enormous legal fees was to file completelyFAKE lawsuits against non-existent people. Here is how their scam worked:

A)     Bad and/or negative posting are easily found online on such websites as (ROR). The website ROR being one that does NOT remove postings even when the party that made the posting requests them to do so. They don’t care. It can be quite a task to get postings to go away.

B)      What do you do? The Kelly/Warner Law answer was to sue… someone…anyone…. Actually, no one. It really didn’t matter as the strategy was to proceed through the litigation process anonymously with ZERO transparency.

C)      The foundation and basic premise of this strategy is based on the fact lawsuits can be very time consuming and costly. Plus, there is no assurance you will prevail. This is especially true when the original party who posted the negative comments is steadfast in defending their right to express their opinions.  This right strongly protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment, the Right to Freedom of Speech. They are justified in expressing their honest opinion in whatever postings they may choose to author. It can be VERY difficult to win this type of lawsuit.

D)     The Kelly/Warner Law solution (Scam) was to sue someone that doesn’t exist. In this way there is no one to object to the claims of the lawsuit and a victory by default is likely assured.

E)      The Kelly/Warner Law (Scam) also had an advanced scheme to move this strategy along even more efficiently as the judicial process can still move forward at a seemingly glazier pace. Kelly/Warner Law’s twist was to create a fake Defendant to “accept” a settlement for the lawsuit that presented to the courts an AGREE to an injunction that labels targeted content libelous. This “settlement” will move quickly through the judicial system as it appeared to the Court that the parties were in agreement. There was no obvious reason for pushback by the Court to clear cases off its docket when it APPEARED the parties were in agreement resolving the matter without further litigation. Apparently a win- win-win scenario for all – including the Court.

F)      In order to make the case move forward with this type of court filings it sometimes required the named parties, Plaintiffs and/or Defendants, to sign court documents and the signature required verification by a notary. That was cause for a problem when you were dealing with people who do not exist. The Warner solution; have the fake tools to create forged notary stamps for non-existent notaries. Why not? Fake Defendants – sometimes fake Plaintiffs - why not a fake notary?

G)     With all the legal paper work appearing to be properly in place, a Judge would naturally sign off on the “agreement” that was an Injunction that identified the links to the content being targeted for removal. A Court ORDER was issued identifying the content as libelous and subject to removal.

H)     The websites hosting the content targeted may or may not honor the Court’s ORDER; it depends on a wide range of legal issues and many specifics variables associated with the websites involved.

I)        However, it did not really matter what a website did in the end, the objective was always to get the Court ORDER to present to Google. With the Court Order, Google would be contacted toDEINDEX the content and thus in reality, makes it virtually impossible for the targeted content to be found as a search result. It was still there on the Internet, but the likelihood that this content would be found by anyone searching for results was so miniscule that it effectively can be said it had vanished (the number associated with a link being clicked when it does not appear in the first 5 pages of Google search results is in the ONE in MILLIONS). There you go – the Kelly/Warner Law online reputation repair stratagem.

J)       NOTE AT THIS POINT: The fact is the party who had posted the content in question would be completely unaware that such legal maneuvers had even occurred in some unknown courtroom.

This scheme perpetrated by attorneys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly as the main business practice as a law firm specializing in Internet Law was a complete mockery of the judicial system. The only outcome such nefarious fraudulent unethical conduct by licensed attorneys warranted was the DISBARMENT of such unethical lawyers. It is ONLY due to the Kelly/Warner Law firm operating under the governance of the State Bar of Arizona authority that resulted in such a lenient disciplinary conclusion of 2-year probation. One has to speculate if that was known and part of the business strategy for the legal practice from the start.

Original Charges Filed By The Arizona State Bar





UPDATE: Overwhelming evidence against the entire firm of kelly warner law results in official charges.

AZ Attorney General on Kelly/Warner Law Firm: “It appears the State Bar is taking appropriate enforcement action”

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.


dan warner supreme court Complaint


Previous article below.



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.

Apparently-fake-defendant libel lawsuit watch: Richart Ruddie & SEO ...

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.

Richart Ruddie stories at Techdirt.
The man behind many of these appears to be Richart Ruddie, who runs a ... law professor Eugene Volokh to assist in his investigation of the phenomenon of ...

Richart Ruddie Settles anti-SLAPP Claims, Makes Restitution; but the ...
Mar 14, 2017 - Richart Ruddie Settles anti-SLAPP Claims, Makes Restitution; but the ... My investigation of this scheme, which was reinforced by my ability to ...

Richart Ruddie Lawyer Under Investigation by Arizona Bar Another ...
Apr 25, 2017 - "Attorney Daniel Warner's friend and colleague, Richart Ruddie,, appears to ... Trade Practices, is now under investigation by the Arizona Bar.

Arizona Attorney Daniel Warner Under Investigation for Alleged Legal ...
Apr 20, 2017 - As a result of his discoveries, he began investigating Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly's connections to alleged court fraudster Richart Ruddie, ...

Richart Ruddie SEO Profile Defenders Tied to Filing Phony Lawsuits ... › ... › Profile Defenders
Oct 13, 2016 - ... on exposing a bunch of phony law suits tied to Richart Ruddie in which. ... Preferred solution if the investigation continues to show more fraud ...

The Dark Side Of Reputation Management: How It Affects Your Business
May 9, 2013 - I also had an interview on the phone with Richart Ruddie, the CEO of one of ... were dating someone you wanted to investigate at least lightly?

Media & Press Coverage of Profile Defenders' Shady Lawsuit ...
May 17, 2017 - The story of Profile Defenders, Richart Ruddie, and their illicit Lawsuit Removal scheme using bogus lawsuits with fake defendants was ...

Profile Defenders - Wikipedia
Profile Defenders or Profile Defenders Lawsuit Removal service is an Online Reputation Management company owned by Richart Ruddie. It was started in Fort ...

Mar 3, 2017 - Richart Ruddie, who ran a “search engine optimization” and “reputation management” ... investigate federal crimes implicated by the fraud.

When "reputation management" becomes perjury, forgery and fraud ...
Oct 11, 2016 - In a careful investigative report, UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh and ... that Richart Ruddie is the culprit; Ruddie runs "reputation management" ...

Filing Bogus Lawsuits As Part Of A 'Reputation Management' Strategy ...
Mar 22, 2017 - Apparently, Hirschhorn [attorney for Richart Ruddie representing him for a criminal investigation brought by the state at the request of Judge ...

DN 9 Supplemental Affidavit of Paul Alan Levy - DocumentCloud
Oct 10, 2016 - ... contract for the reputation protection company is Richart Ruddie. 6. .... by Professor Volokh (Giles Miller of insights 8r Investigations) couldn?t ...

Growing industry tries to repair businesses' online reputations - News ...
Aug 20, 2012 - ... of (online) searches do not go past the first page,” said Richart Ruddie, ... the company reaches out to the website to investigate whether the ...

[PDF]Eugene Volokh - Santa Clara Law Digital Commons

Apr 17, 2017 - Paul Alan Levy, Richart Ruddie Settles Anti-SLAPP. Claims, Makes ... has been investigatingfraud and other misbehavior related to the.

Real Online Reviews, Real Lawsuits, Fake Defendants? - Technologist
Oct 19, 2016 - ... a reputation management company headed by Richart Ruddie, which advertises a ... Ruddie declined to comment on Volokh and Levy's investigation. But, if Ruddie is drumming up bogus suits to get negative content ripped ...

6 days ago - The Dan Warner Accomplice Richart Ruddie admitted his ... to assist in his investigation of the phenomenon of fake litigation established that, ...

People Sue Nonexistent Individuals to Trick Google into Censoring ... › News › Web / Internet Life › SEO-Related
Oct 11, 2016 - ... Internet came to light following an investigation by The Washington ... Evidence links some of these cases to Richart Ruddie, owner of RIR ...

Legal Schnauzer: A "reputation management" company called Profile ...
Oct 3, 2016 - (1) Richart Ruddie and his colleagues at Profile Defenders ... an investigation must be conducted into the legitimacy of the statement. An untrue ...

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.


Arizona Judge Patricia Starr Allegedly Signed Illegal Order from Kelly Warner Law Firm

Jeff Watterson - 

This is a developing story on the Kelly Warner Law Firm in Arizona.   Apparently Judge Patricial Starr signed an illegal order that was...

Aaron Kelly Law Firm Resorts To Attacking Former Client Again On – Pattern...

Jeff Watterson - 

Attorney Aaron Kelly and his law partner Daniel Warner are currently under investigation by the Arizona Bar for legal misconduct.   Sources have now...

Should Attorneys Aaron Kelly and Daniel Warner Get Disbarred?

Jeff Watterson - 

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....

Arizona Attorney Daniel Warner Under Investigation for Alleged Legal Fraud

Jeff Watterson - 

According to Rick DeBruhl, Chief Communications Officer of the State Bar of Arizona, Attorney Daniel Warner is currently under investigation by the Arizona Bar....

NFL Cheerleader Megan Welter Lawsuit to Censor Media Contained Forged Signature

Jeff Watterson - 

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...

Law Firm’s Questionable Tactics Threaten Media Freedom

Jeff Watterson - 

Despite being called out for its previous questionable attempts at Internet censorship, an Arizona law firm has moved on from the small fries and...

Judge Colleen French of Maricopa County Defrauded by Attorney Aaron Kelly?

Jeff Watterson - 

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh released this article on The Washington Post yesterday that alleges that Attorney Aaron Kelly filed another fraudulent legal case...

Better Call Dan – The Real Life Saul Goodman

Jeff Watterson - 

In the popular TV series, Better Call Saul, Attorney Saul Goodman is a hapless lawyer that will do anything to win.  In many cases,...

Arizona Bar Opens Investigation on Attorney Aaron Kelly

Paul O'Neal - 

USA Herald recently reported on a developing story involving Attorneys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly. Both Warner and Kelly have been involved in seemingly...