INVESTIGATION INTO ATTORNEY DANIEL WARNER SUSPICIOUS LAWSUIT FILINGS STIR UP PREVIOUS CLIENTS.
On a side note: Contact was made with the owner of the address listed where process server supposedly served the defendant Mathew Parker however the owner said Mather Parker rented a room there a long time ago but confirmed Mathew Parker did not live there when this lawsuit was filed. We will update you as the case is examined closer.
Source Rip off Report
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 12, 2017
Michael Dunn, the owner of the Rock Star Gallery located in Scottsdale, Arizona, posted here in April 2017 that he had “won in court” proving the allegations of fraud and selling a forgery in his memorabilia business were proved false. Only no such court ruling occurred. In fact, the complete opposite is what happened when the court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Dunn and the Rock Star Gallery.
Upon further research into the details, it was found that the attorney hired by Dunn was Daniel Warner of Kelly/Warner Law firm in Scottsdale, Arizona. It was recently exposed by Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School who authors the legal blog for the Washington Post, the Volokh Conspiracy, that Daniel Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law firm had engaged in a pattern of very suspicious legal practices ( https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/30/libel-takedown-injunctions-and-fake-notarizations/?utm_term=.20a35ce284b2 ). Specifically they had filed numerous fraudulent lawsuits involving “fake” defendants, plaintiffs and notaries. These activities were further exposed by the USA Herald with evidence that in these “fake” lawsuits had used “forged” notary seals as a means to validate the existence of the imaginary litigants (usaherald.com/arizona-attorney-daniel-warner-investigation-alleged-legal-fraud/ ) .
The seriousness of the allegations being made against Michael Dunn’s attorney is worth consideration, they are being investigated by the State Bar of Arizona after multiple complaints had been filed for the very shady business practices. If that fact of State Bar violations were not enough for concern, it is extremely disconcerting that such activities of filing “fake” lawsuits has now drawn the attention of Federal Law Enforcement after a Federal Court judge took umbrage with such legal shenanigans and called upon the U.S. Attorney General Office to look into possible criminal conduct implications. It can be reported that the involvement of Daniel Warner with his business associate Richart Ruddie has begun a Federal investigation by the FBI being overseen by an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Rhode Island.
The question for the reader to consider is the veracity of the Michael Dunn and Rock Star Gallery denials of any wrong doing in conducting their business of selling expensive memorabilia. Why would they call upon a lawyer such as Daniel Warner that engages in such shady legal filings? Why claim a “court win” when obviously no such court ruling occurred? Why does the alleged “retraction” letter have a signature that appears to be a photo shopped digital signature? If real, why was this letter not presented as evidence to the court in the lawsuit? Why did it such significant evidence take almost four years to appear on this ROR posting? How was the defendant served the lawsuit at the supposed location when he had moved from that residence years prior? The answers to such basic questions are unknown. It is clearly a matter of Buyer Beware when making the commitment to spend thousands of dollars for a personal passion such as purchasing collectible memorability.
The irony to this sordid story is Michael Dunn and the Rock Star Gallery called upon this law firm to defend their Internet reputation, the claim of a “court win” is a lie and the post you are reading is still being disseminated online and actually has now brought on more questions than answers to the truth of what might be the business practices of Rock Star Gallery.
Respond to this report!
#3 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Legal Sentry - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 12, 2017
It is interesting that Michael Dunn claims in his consumer comment #6 “this guy is obviously lying.” What makes such hypocrisy so telling is that in Michael Dunn’s rebuttal post #2, #3 and #4 that his business and personal reputation were vindicated due to “Rock Star gallery wins in court.” What makes such an assertion telling to the overall arch of the original post about “fraudulent/forged” product is there was NO court victory as Michael Dunn so adamantly declares on this post. The irony of this apparently ongoing continuation of a scam is how easy it was to prove Michael Dunn is OBVIOUSLY LYING.
In the Rebuttal post #2, a Report Attachment is provided as proof of some alleged court victory involving the defamation lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, Michael Dunn and Rock Star Gallery Music Collectibles v. Matthew Parker, case no. CV2013-009765. What is provided is a real document filed with the court for a Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction. Michael Dunn claims the defendant, very dissatisfied customer claiming fraud; agreed to the assertion of defamation and a court Ordered Injunction of this post with RipOffReport.com. However, when you take a look at the attachment provided for the rebuttal, you will see a page where the Judge was required to sign. There is NO signature. That is because the Judge did NOT sign the Injunction. The lawsuit was NOT won by Michael Dunn and the Rock Star Gallery. In fact, what Michael Dunn does NOT provide is the JUDGMENT of DISMISSAL issued on August 4, 2014. Fear not, the court’s dismissal has been attached to confirm the TRUTH. It is hard to imagine what could possibly been misunderstood by Michael Dunn when the document clearly states: “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, dismissing all unadjudicated of this case without prejudice for lack of prosecution.” Now that years have based, it is beyond the statute of limitation requirement for a defamation claim (1 year), so even if Michael Dunn’s version of this matter was in fact the truth, he no longer pursue any legal remedy.
It should be noted as a point of interest, if the Michael Dunn and Rock Star Gallery “won in court” as proclaimed, which ordered the removal of this ROR post – how are reading this right now. Just asking.
With such a discrepancy of FACTS exposed, it seemed prudent to explore the other claims put forth by Michael Dunn on this ROR posts. He also provided what he claimed was a “retraction letter” provided by Matthew Parker. There are a couple of problems with this so-called evidence. First, the signature of Matthew Parker is not an actual signature; it is a digital signature that appears to have been photo shopped onto a letter. It is worth note that this significant piece of evidence, if legitimate, was NOT ever filed with the court in Arizona. Why not? Also, although this alleged “retraction letter” is dated October 25, 2013, Michael Dunn did not come back to this ROR post and attach it to substantiate his rebuttals for 3 and half years (April 26, 2017). Does that make any sense at all? So continuing on the trail, the court documents provided the “proof of service” of the lawsuit upon Matthew Parker in Carlsbad, California. Upon research, it was determined the name of the owner of the residence this alleged service took place so confirmation could be established. However, although Ms. Frankel would acknowledge that Matthew Parker had lived at the house renting a room, that had been several years prior to the alleged service recorded as having occurred in 2013 (apparently he had moved out in 2011).
What does all this mean? BUYER BEWARE. Maybe everything claimed by Michael Dunn is correct and the guitar sold for $17,500 was perfectly legit. However, it would seem to be a little worrisome when the same party selling such expensive memorabilia based on trust of authenticity would post claims on this website using documentation of supposed evidence that does NOT actually have the Judge’s SIGNATURE, which anyone can see for themselves. Upon additional review, the actual official signed court document is literally the opposite outcome claimed. Thorough due diligence research would appear to be the common sense course of action when dealing with the claims of Michael Dunn. Just saying….
Other Related Articles
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 investigating fraud 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.