COURT’S RULINGS BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE LAW TO PROTECT ATTORNEY DANIEL WARNER.

View More Categories

COURT’S RULINGS BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE LAW TO PROTECT ATTORNEY DANIEL WARNER.

PLAINTIFF CHALLENGES LEGALITY OF SUCH BIAS AND DEFERENTIAL TREATMENT

It is the presumption of the “rule of Law” that forms the foundation to our judicial system. It is based on the dictates of our founding fathers that in a democracy the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by decisions of an individual. Unfortunately, the reality being realized all too often in our courts today is judges who ignore “the rule of law” to administer the control of their individual fiefdoms at the whim of personal opinions. It is imperative that the integrity of the judicial system be protected. The only way the common citizen may hope to combat the abuse of judicial process that is occurring so prevalently in our courtrooms is to speak up and expose the abhorrent corrosion of our legal principles on a case by case basis. 

The escapades of legal malfeasance of attorney Daniel Warner and his firm Kelly/Warner Law has been well chronicled by respected UCLA law Professor Eugene Volokh who writes the legal blog forThe Washington Post, The Volokh Conspiracy (here and here). Also, the extensive research of the online news outlet USA Herald would uncover additional improprieties involving “forged” official notary seals in court filings used to validate the signatures of “fake” defendants and plaintiffs in civil litigation cases (hereherehere and here). The issue of interest is does the judicial system actually hold a member of its closed fraternal like club to the same standard of accountability based on the “rule of law”? Regrettably there are far too many examples of a double standard existing in the adjudication of complaints directed to “officers of the court” such as attorneys.

KELLY/WARNER LAW ATTACKS PREVIOUS CLIENT ONLINE TO DISCREDIT REVELATIONS SHARED

The shady legal practices of Warner and Kelly/Warner Law extended beyond court filings involving “fake” litigants, it also includes specific attacks against Charles Rodrick who had publically exposed Warner and Kelly/Warner Law as grossly incompetent and engaging in fraudulent billing practices. The response for such critical reviews appearing on the Internet was the Kelly/Warner Law website to post a defamatory article claiming Rodrick had been “arrested” for operating “extortion” and “revenge porn” websites and was a serial “con man” who had engaged in the largest “Alaska Ponzi Scheme” and “frequent flyer scams.” It is important to detail just how reprehensible this unfettered attack piece represents.  First and foremost, the accusations were categorically untrue; but an attorney with “privileged” information could reasonably be assumed to have knowledge of the facts to make such outrageous accusations which a reader would believe to be true. However, they were complete fabrication and lies knowingly disseminated online to discredit Rodrick who had exposed the Warner and Kelly/Warner Law misdeeds. Second, further efforts to restrict the disclosure of negative exposure of the business practices of Warner and Kelly/Warner Law from Internet dissemination were implemented with a lawsuit filed in Baltimore, Maryland. The lawsuit identified the information posted on the website RipOffReport.com by Rodrick as “Defamation” demanding removal via Court Ordered Permanent Injunction (Maryland Circuit Court Baltimore City, R. Derek Ruddie v. Jake Kirschner, Case No. 24-C-15-005620). This case is a perfect example of a fraudulent lawsuit as the Plaintiff Ruddie is a business associate of Warner NOT mentioned at all in the post cited as “defamatory” and the Defendant Kirschner is “fake” as it was Rodrick’s post. Kirschner does NOT exist at all is a clear “fake” Defendant. Plus, there is no legal jurisdiction in the State of Maryland for the case to adjudicate. It was filed in this jurisdiction solely for the purpose to obscure its existence so as to NOT be discovered and challenged in the court. With no opposition, an Order rubber stamping the Injunction would be obtained illegally. Third, the attack piece post against Rodrick was uploaded on the Kelly/Warner Law website twenty (20) months AFTER the legal representation had been terminated. Even if all the accusations levied on the website were factually based, which were irrefutably false, it would still undeniably be a gross disregard of the ethical code of professional conduct violating the attorney client privilege doctrines that are fundamental to the legal profession. 

COMPLAINT IS FILED WITH THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA

Although Rodrick had good cause to challenge Warner and Kelly/Warner Law, he had NOT filed a complaint with the State Bar of Arizona concerning his dealings with the law firm. However, the posting of scurrilous false accusations on the law firm’s website was such a deplorable personal assault and an egregious violation of the fundamental attorney code of professional ethics, a complaint was filed with the state bar.  

The State Bar of Arizona requires a licensed attorney to provide a response within 20 days of receipt of the complaint. Warner would have his “ethics attorney” on retainer (note: an odd precaution, not a usual practice, unless…) prepare and submit the required response. What was the rationalization for the obvious defamatory content posted on his firm’s website in violation of the professional code of conduct? Of course, HE didn’t do it. It was acknowledge to have occurred. It was admitted to have been posted on the Kelly/Warner Law website. The post did contain content directed against Rodrick and it was acknowledged it was “unsubstantiated and derogatory.” All these clear facts were impossible to deny even for an unscrupulous miscreant lawyer like Warner. The digital footprint created by posting on the Internet is NOT erasable. There is no “putting the Genie back in the bottle” with the Internet. According to Warner’s response he did not authorize, author or post the content in question. Supposedly a “contract employee” named “Barri Grossman” had completely independently taken the initiative to create the post and performed the upload without his or the firm’s permission. This is an absolutely implausible scenario for a “contract employee” in charge of “marketing,” a full 20 months AFTER the legal representation had ceased, to author and post defamatory content about a person they did not know and post on a “professional” website. The premise of this fallacy being that there was nothing unusual to this story, everyone knows online marketing 101 is to brutally attack your old clients to obtain new clients despite obvious potential harmful legal consequences to the business.

Although the Bar informed Rodrick additional information was “not necessary” for them to conclude their investigation, the preposterous claims of Warner demanded a reply.  First, presumably an “employee” allegedly posting the defamatory content does NOT relinquish Warner’s or the law firm’s responsibility for what appears on the company website. Second, blaming an “employee” does not excuse the scandalous violation of the attorney client privilege which is the most basic of professional ethics. Third, the premise of the excuse was utterly farfetched that a “contract employee” would “independently” post defamatory content of a previous client whom they did not know on the company website. Fourth, the only evidence to support such a dubious scenario of events was an “agreement” prepared six (6) days AFTER the online posting with “Barri Grossman” both confessing and taking full responsibility for the creation and authoring of the defamatory content. Sixth and most damaging, although the three (3) page “agreement” names “Barri Grossman” twenty-six (26) times and three (3) specific entries were required to be initialed, the signature of the “agreement” and the initials are visibly NOT that of a “Barri Grossman” or “BG.” The initials are clearly “BW” and the signature appears to be “B Willis” or “B Williams.” 

Despite the obvious issues and contractions detailed by Rodrick’s reply to Warner’s response, the Bar rendered a decision in favor of Warner. Inexplicitly it was determined it “ONLY” happened once and the “responsible” party was “warned not to do it again” cryptically qualified as reasonable reparation for clear violations of the Professional Code of Ethics for an Arizona attorney and/or law firm. The fact of the matter is disheartening, dealing with a state’s bar believing a grievance is dealt with in a fair and unbiased manner to determine the TRUTH to invoke JUSTICE is a naïve assumption based on principles of yester-year. General Public Alert: the promise of a state bar protecting the public from attorney malfeasance is a scam designed only to give the appearance of oversight and potential consequences.

Making such bold criticism of the State Bar of Arizona is NOT hyperbole, it is reinforced from experience. Rodrick had filed a completely different complaint against another attorney for completely separate circumstances two years prior to the Warner filing. This compliant resulted in a so-called “victory” as the Bar ruled against the attorney and rendered its “punishment.” Short back story, in a civil litigation the Judge presiding over the case found the conduct of the Defendant attorney (the attorney had been sued personally) so egregious to warrant sanctions requiring a $5,000 penalty plus an additional $1000 weekly if not paid and offending conduct rectified by the attorney. A complaint for this misconduct being determined by a sitting Superior Court Judge ruling was filed with the State Bar of Arizona. After conducting their investigation for OVER a year, the Bar rendered their ruling against the attorney. The penalty realized by the offending attorney, they were required to watch a 30 MINUTE video. Really, that was it. Ironically, Warner wasn’t even deemed to be required the inconvenience of a 30 minutes video.

Bar complaints are shams as the sole purpose of a state bar is to protect the licensed attorneys who fund the entire operation of the Bar with membership fees completely independent of any other sources of income to pay the salaries of the staff. The staff being the same individuals charged with “investigating” complaints and providing their evaluation and recommendations. A process obviously riddled with a corrupt foundation at its core.

LAWSUIT IS FILED WITH COURT FOR DEFAMATION

After attempting in good faith to find the appropriate recognition and retribution for the defamatory content posted on the Kelly/Warner Law website through the State Bar of Arizona only to receive insult over injury, Rodrick would resort to seeking justice via the judicial system. This was not the desired course of action. A lawsuit was filed against “Barri Grossman” for Defamation, False Light and Intentional Infliction of Duress. Basing the lawsuit on the findings of the Bar that “Barri Grossman” was the responsible party with Warner nor Kelly/Warner being liable for what their “employee” posted on the law firm’s website seemed to be a straight forward proposition. This would NOT be the case.

The purpose of this article has been to provide a clear factual based rendition of a series of events that demonstrates the shocking deterioration of our judicial process that no longer is being governed by the “rule of law.” It has become all too prevalent that special interest, bias, connections, clear favoritism and political and/or personal agenda dictate the process and outcome within the judicial system. As demonstrated, the Bar process to mitigate disputes with a licensed attorney is a dog and pony show that only serves to protect lawyers. The litigation process before the courts are not much better when a case involves an attorney and/or law firm that may be exposed to have engaged in nefarious activities, if not criminally illegal business practices.

ARIZONA COURT PROTECTS WARNER AND KELLY/WARNER LAW FROM PROVIDING BASIC “DISCOVERY” – MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DEMANDS THE “RULE OF LAW” BE APPLIED

Detailing the circumstances preceding the engagement of the judicial system to resolve an existing dispute is to set the stage in understanding the absolute miscarriage of justice that has occurred by way of court rulings protecting Warner that clearly defy the “rule of law.”It had become a consistent pattern that Warner being an attorney was provided the use of a completely different set of “Rules” that are not made available to the general public. Such “arbitrary” decision making by a court goes against the very set foundation of the Judicial Branch and is subversive to the principles of the “rule of law.”

The lawsuit was based on the information provided by Warner to the State Bar of Arizona via sworn verification which established the due diligence foundation for the factual basis to make the claims and allegations. In Warner’s Bar complaint response he alleged a “contract employee” named “Barri Grossman” was the system administrator of the Kelly/Warner Law website and was responsible for authoring and posting the defamatory content about Rodrick. Further, according to the Bar response the objectionable post was allegedly uploaded to the website without the knowledge or authority of Warner or the law firm. The only piece of evidence provided by Warner to the Bar was an “agreement” allegedly prepared six (6) days AFTER the post between “Barri Grossman” and Kelly/Warner Law that confesses and accepts full responsibility in authoring and posting the defamatory content on the firm’s website. However, the “agreement” is NOT signed by a “Barri Grossman.” When the complaint was attempted to be served upon “Barri Grossman” at the Kelly/Warner Law offices by two different licensed “officers of the court” they were both told such a person did not currently or previously work for the company. This information was provided to the Court by sworn affidavits. Utilizing four separate licensed professionals to locate “Barri Grossman,” no such person could be found to reside in Arizona.

It became abundantly apparent there was going to be issues with the case when the Court repeatedly denied the Plaintiff Rodrick the right to obtain basic Discovery per the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 26). Based on the Warner narrative of events surrounding the objectionable post that constituted irrefutable defamation, confirming the veracity of this version of self-serving and convenient scapegoat patsy “Barri Grossman” who was not findable is relevant discovery to establish the foundation of the lawsuit. It was Warner’s unverified story told to the State Bar of Arizona. However, when Rodrick requested permission to conduct discovery depositions of Kelly/Warner Law personnel to verify the facts of “Barri Grossman” employment, the Court denied the request citing “no good cause.” When Rodrick resubmitted the request limiting it to ONLY Warner who made up the story to begin with, the Court denied the request citing “no good cause.” Rodrick attempted to obtain what is BASIC discovery for any lawsuit by having a subpoena validated by the Clerk of the Court and legally served upon the Custodian of Records of Kelly/Warner Law for the employment records of “Barri Grossman.” The firm would ignore the subpoena and the required follow up communications by Rodrick. The law firm did NOT file an Objection to the subpoena for the requested employment records as required by the “Rules.”As attorneys, they would obviously be well aware of such a requirement needed to be filed with the Court. Rodrick would file a Motion to Compel the Kelly/Warner Law firm to abide by the legally served subpoena as clearly required per the “Rules.”The Court would deny the Motion as having “no good cause.” The Court offered no explanation why the law firm was exempt from filing an Objection to the subpoena as required by the “Rules” (Rule 45). This situation was the evident continuation of clear abuse of the judicial process. The Court had once again ruled arbitrarily, ignoring the “rule of law.” 

There is no legal justification to deny a pro per litigant such as Rodrick the right to obtain BASIC discovery allowed by the “Rules.” Just because the party being requested to provide discovery associated with the case is an attorney does NOT garner preferential consideration. That such disclosure of legally requested discovery may create concerns of self-incrimination of illegal criminal conduct is NOT justification for a court to circumvent the “rule of law,” and arguably actively obstruct by not demanded that an Objection be filed with the Court per Rule 45. It is the “rule of law” that is established by state legislatures in enacting statutes that constitute the “law” to be administered by judges. The judge is the arbiter of the “law,” but does not have the authority to ignore when compelled by individual personal opinions or agenda. The “Rules” of discovery are a fundamental aspect to any and all civil litigation. Just because Rodrick is a pro per litigant and Warner is an Arizona licensed attorney does not create a set of different criteria that do not abide and/or governed by the “rule of law.”

The seriousness of this legal principle being adhered to is of the utmost importance to the credibility of the judicial system. To address the matter, Rodrick has filed a Motion for Reconsideration in regard to the Motion to Compel the Kelly/Warner Law firm to abide by the legally obtained and served subpoena for the employment records of “Barri Grossman.” If this motion is denied, as it likely will be, an immediate appeal will be submitted to the appellant court to correct this abuse of judicial process. Such attacks upon the fundamental principles of a civilized society cannot be allowed to proliferate any further during these trying times of uncertainty and unrest associated with our judicial system.

THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS RIGGED AND IS NO LONGER BASED ON THE “RULE OF LAW”

The definition of the “rule of law” is the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. When judges and “officers of the court” such as attorneys brazenly no longer subject themselves to the principles of the “established laws” that govern the “rule of law,’ it is only a matter of time before there will be the collapse of jurisprudence and civilized society.

Just because Warner is a licensed attorney does NOT circumvent accountability to the “rule of law.” Courts cannot choose to arbitrarily incorporate a different set of rules to accommodate those groups they have deemed belong to a preferential class. The courts are not meant to give way to the precepts of George Orwell’s Animal Farm where “All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.”There is no justification for the Arizona Superior Court to grant Warner leave to ignore a legally obtained and served subpoena for employment records or excuse him from providing sworn testimony to substantiate his own claims concerning the employment of a “Barri Grossman.” That this is actually what occurred under the auspices of there is “no good cause” to justify a deposition and/or providing appropriate Discovery documentation is an absolute abuse of judicial process. This is reprehensible to the values of a free and fair democracy where the scales of justice are presumably blind.  Perhaps this miscarriage of “justice” can/will be rectified with a favorable ruling in regard to the Motion for Reconsideration, although this is unlikely. When situations involve rogue judges, it almost always requires getting the legal basis of the litigation to the higher level appellant courts in order to address such arbitrary and biased disregard for the “rule of law.” Protecting bad actors such as Warner destroys the fabric of trust in our institutions and creates the perception the “system is rigged” to benefit the few deemed worthy of “special “consideration. In the end, it is the judges who must be held accountable to vehemently protect and always be cognizant of upholding the judicial system’s commitment to the “rule of law.”

 

Other Related Articles Below.


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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../apparently-fake-defendant-libel-lawsuit-watch-richa...

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.

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=richart+ruddie

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 ...

pubcit.typepad.com/.../richart-ruddie-settles-anti-slapp-claims-makes-restitution-but-th...

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 ...

structuredsettlements.typepad.com/.../richart-ruddie-lawyer-under-investigation-by-ari...

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 ...

usaherald.com/arizona-attorney-daniel-warner-investigation-alleged-legal-fraud/

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 ...

https://www.pissedconsumer.com › ... › 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

www.forbes.com/.../the-dark-side-of-reputation-management-how-it-affects-your-bus...

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 ...

defiantly.net/media-press-coverage-of-profile-defenders-shady-lawsuit-removal-sche...

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_Defenders

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

[PDF]UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ... - Public Citizen

www.citizen.org/documents/MyvestaOppositiontoWillsMotion.pdf

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 ...

boingboing.net/2016/10/11/when-reputation-management.html

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 ...

businesspartnernyc.com/filing-bogus-lawsuits-as-part-of-a-reputation-management-str...

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

https://assets.documentcloud.org/.../DN-9-Supplemental-Affidavit-of-Paul-Alan-Levy....

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 ...

www.dispatch.com/.../growing-industry-tries-to-repair-businesses-online-reputations.h...

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

digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=2&article...1

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

blogs.findlaw.com/.../2016/10/real-online-reviews-real-lawsuits-fake-defendants.html

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 ...

RESPECTED UCLA LAW PROFESSOR UNCOVERS FAKE ARIZONA ...

www.barcomplaint.com › Lawyers In The Media

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.softpedia.com › 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 ...

legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-reputation-management-company-called.html

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 ...

Apparently-fake-defendant libel lawsuit watch: Richart Ruddie ... - Tech2

www.tech2.org › Home › Social › SEO

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 KellyWarnerLaw.com – 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...