You are on page 1of 29

Charles Rodrick

34522 N. Scottsdale Rd., #120-467


Scottsdale, AZ 85266
(480) 250-3838

Bradley Perry, Bar Counsel


State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016

RE: Formal Ethics Complaint Against:


Daniel R. Warner – SBN #026503
8283 N. Hayden Rd., Suite 229
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
(480) 331-9397

Dear Mr. Perry,

The factual basis for this complaint arises from Daniel R. Warner (hereafter, “Warner”) and his
law firm Kelly Warner Law (hereafter, “Firm”) continued misconduct associated with previous
client Charles Rodrick (hereafter, “Rodrick”). These contacts have extended through a period
exceeding four (4) and half years. This complaint is solely focused on the recently revealed
information concerning the dealings of Warner and the Firm with their business associate
Richart Ruddie (hereafter, “Ruddie”). It has been reported that an investigation has been
initiated by the State Bar of Arizona (hereafter, “SBA”) concerning this business relationship. My
complaint is specifically focused on a “fake” lawsuit that directly affected my constitutionally
protected rights that were violated by Warner working in collaboration with Ruddie. This
involved the knowing fraudulent filing in Maryland Circuit Court City of Baltimore, Ruddie v.
Kirschner, case no. 24-C-15-005620 (See, Exhibit A). Although the court filings involve a case in
Maryland, it is a “fake” lawsuit and the relevance is based on Warner’s ethical obligations that
are governed by the SBA. Also, Rodrick is a resident of Arizona and the case in question
involved an illegal censoring scheme of content posted by Rodrick on the Arizona based website
RipOffReport.com (hereafter, “ROR”).

Warner has violated his ethical duties and obligations as an attorney as defined by the Arizona
Duties and Obligations as pursuant to Rule 41(a), 41(b), 41(c), 41(d), 41(e), 41(g) and 41(h), Ariz.
R. Sup. Ct.. Also, Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct contained within Rule 42, Ariz. R. Sup.
Ct., by engaging in repeated instances in violation of ER 3.1, ER 3.2, ER 3.4, ER 4.1, ER 4.4, ER
7.1, ER 8.3 and ER 8.4.

Rule 41. Duties and Obligations of Members. Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona:

(a) Those prescribed by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct adopted as Rule 42 of
these rules.

1
(b) To support the constitution and the laws of the United States and the State of Arizona.
(c) To maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.
(d) To counsel or maintain no other action, proceeding or defense than those which appear
to him legal and just, excepting the defense of a person charged with a public offense.
(e) To be honest in dealings with others and not make false or misleading statements of
fact or law.
(g) To avoid engaging in unprofessional conduct and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or a witness unless required by the duties to a client or the
tribunal.
(h) To support the fair administration of justice, professionalism among lawyers, and legal
representation for those unable to afford counsel.

Rule 42. Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona:

ER 3.1 – Meritorious Claims and Contentions. “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a
proceeding, or assert or convert an issue therein, unless there is a good faith basis in law
and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which may include a good faith and
nonfrivolous argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”

ER 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal. “(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false
statement of fact or law to the tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact
or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (3) offer evidence that the lawyer
knows to be false.”

ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. “A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully
obstruct party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or
other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist
another person to do any such act; (b) falsity evidence, counsel or assist a witness to
testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law….”

ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others. “(a) make a false statement of material


fact or law to a third person….”

ER 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct. “(a) A lawyer who knows that another
lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a
substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority, except as otherwise
provided in these Rules or by law.”

ER 8.4 – Misconduct. “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt
to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so,
or do so through the acts of another; (commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in

2
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice….”

The seriousness and scope of the misconduct perpetrated by Warner over an extended period
of time calls for an extensive review of the entire circumstances outlined below. It is requested
that the Review Department order that Warner be disbarred from the practice of law in this
State and his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

The allegations herein regarding Warner and the Firm’s misconduct are summarized as follows:

1) Warner’s has knowingly engage in unethical and likely illegal conduct that violated the
dictates of the SBA and the U.S. Constitution to circumvent the legal expression of
factual information that is derogatory to his and the Firm’s legal practices.

It has been well documented that Rodrick adamantly believes Warner and his Firm
actively engage in business practices that violate many of the ethical Code of
Professional Conduct that are overseen by the SBA for a licensed attorney in the State of
Arizona. These opinions of Rodrick were documented in his SBA complaint filed in 2015,
file no. 15-2075. Although Rodrick believes the findings of the SBA in regard to the
complaint of 2015 were completely illogical, non-responsive to the number of issues
raised, ignored the stated function of the SBA and focused on only the single issue of
“Barri Grossman.” The irony of the SBA ruling that “Barri Grossman” was solely
responsible for the defamatory content posted on the Firm’s website concerning
previous client Rodrick, which could not and was not denied by Warner. It is certainly
evident and telling the lack of due diligence and serious review of the FACTS submitted
in the complaint to the SBA as the recent discovery of a pattern of “fake” parties such as
Defendants and Plaintiffs that would be falsely verified with “forged” documentation of
notarization stamps and Notaries in filings submitted to many courts by Warner and the
Firm. That is truly the definition of ironic. But I digress – the current complaint is
COMPLETELY independent of those issues ignored by the SBA, to the general public and
judiciary process detriment in 2015.

Although the SBA inexplicitly gave Warner and the Firm a “free pass” for their
extensively documented unethical business practices, Rodrick was entitled to exercise
his First Amendment right to express and share his experiences however and with
whomever he choose to do so. He elected to utilize the Arizona based website ROR with
a posting on May 25, 2015, Report: #1231611 (See, exhibit B). It is not surprising that
such a posting exposing over the Internet the TRUTH to the business practices of
Warner in regard to the experience realized by Rodrick was NOT well received in the
offices of the Firm. Such displeasure by Warner and the Firm does not invalidate the
truthfulness and/or the constitutionally protected right of Rodrick to express his
opinions. In fact, it is worthy of note that IF Rodrick’s post had included false and
fabricated claims that would have constituted defamation (or even defamation per se),
Warner and the Firm claim as their particular expertise in their law practice to be

3
Internet Law. It is only reasonable conjecture that a defamation lawsuit could have and
would have been filed by a practicing Arizona law firm (Kelly/Warner), against an
Arizona resident (Rodrick), for online content posted about an Arizona resident
(Warner), on an Arizona based business website (ROR), if there was any basis for such
legal action. This is NOT what occurred.

What did occur was Warner colluding with business associate Ruddie to file the
fraudulent lawsuit in Maryland (See, Exhibit A) on November 10, 2015. The fraudulent
lawsuit was filed by Ruddie as the Plaintiff, even though his name did not appear
anywhere, in the ROR posting of Rodrick (who had no idea of Ruddie as a person or
business associate of Warner) and it named a “fake” Defendant Jake Kirschner who
obviously had nothing to do with the authoring and posting in dispute. As Rodrick was
not aware of the filing, as the scheme is designed for this very purpose, and the
Defendant is “fake” and somehow agrees to a stipulation for an injunction to restrict the
posting of and/or “indexing” by Google of the ROR derogatory post about Warner. The
unsuspecting Maryland court naturally/understandably “rubber stamped” the
Injunction. The fraudulent legal scheme was successful as the Rodrick post on ROR
would have the content “redacted” to restrict any review of the FACTS of Warner’s
business practices (See, Exhibit C). Simply put – this is fraud. This is an assault upon the
integrity of the judicial system. This is a violation of a plethora of the Arizona Supreme
Court rules dictated for attorneys to respect and practice the Arizona Rules of
Professional Conduct and Duties and Obligation. This is an attack upon the foundation of
the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment afforded to Rodrick no matter Warner’s
animosity toward Rodrick.

The events and circumstances detailed above represent clear ethical violations of the
following: Rule 41 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (H). Rule 42: ER 3.1 – Meritorious Claims
and Contentions, ER 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal, ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing
Party and Counsel, ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others, ER 8.3 – Reporting
Professional Misconduct and ER 8.4 – Misconduct.

2) The fraudulent legal scheme of the “fake” lawsuit in Maryland was intentionally
designed to hide its existence from Rodrick.

It is important to detail the full scope of the diabolical intent (criminal?) in regard to the
manner in which Warner and the Firm devised the implementation of the fraudulent
legal scheme. With a thorough understanding of how the judicial process operates in
the “real” world, the “fake” lawsuits are intentionally designed and implemented in a
manner that discovery of the fraud by the “real” victims, such as Rodrick, would be
highly unlikely. The “victims” would never know of the existence, let alone the outcome,
of a legal action that had been adjudicated in some unknown jurisdiction to their
detriment.

4
In the case of the “fake” lawsuit filed in Maryland to remove factually derogatory online
content about Warner and the Firm, Rodrick to this day would have no idea of its
existence and that his content had been illegally censored without articles appearing
online exposing the fraud that occurred. It was the work of highly respected legal
scholar of First Amendment issues, Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School,
which would result in Rodrick being alerted to the situation. Professor Volokh posted an
article on his legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy published on the WashingtonPost.com,
on March 30, 2017 entitled “Libel takedown injunctions and fake notarizations.” 1 In the
article Professor Volokh would document the business relationship between Warner
and the Firm to Ruddie’s business for “Online Reputation Services.” He would detail a
number of fraudulent “libel” lawsuits intended to remove content and/or have Google
“deindexed” from the search algorithms which would effectively make such content
NOT findable online. These fraudulent lawsuits would involve “fake” Defendants,
Plaintiffs and even notarizations (forged legal documents). The discovery of the
Professor’s post was actually not discovered until late April of 2017 when Rodrick
learned of an article posted online by the USA Herald. On April 20, 2017 the USA Herald
posted the article entitled “Arizona Attorney Daniel Warner Under Investigation for
Alleged Legal Fraud.”2 In this article Rodrick, unbeknownst to him, had been directly
identified and his association to the fraudulent lawsuit filed in Maryland by Warner’s
business associate Ruddie. He learned that the fraudulent lawsuit had named a “fake”
Defendant Kirschner as the author of the Warner content posted with ROR in order to
have the factual rendition of Rodrick’s dealings with Warner and the Firm removed
and/or at least censored from public review. It is worth noting for the SBA that in
researching for information about a “Jake Kirschner,” due to the unusual spelling, the
only likely candidate was a teenager from Wisconsin who had died from cancer a year
earlier. The strategy being that there would not be a “real” living person to dispute the
lawsuit. Such conduct is reprehensible, exploiting the name of a teenager who had
tragically died of leukemia a year earlier.3

It is worth noting that it was through Professor Volokh that Rodrick had become aware
of an investigation being conducted by the SBA. It was only due to the many direct
communications with the Professor, discussing the fraudulent lawsuit scheme and using
“fake” litigants, such as what occurred in the Maryland lawsuit involving Rodrick’s online
posted content with ROR, he learned of the fraud that had occurred. It was within these
conversations that the Professor disclosed his filing an official complaint with the SBA
concerning these matters. Rodrick recognized not only the appropriateness, but the
necessity, for him to officially memorialize the facts associated with his dealings with
Warner and the Firm by filing this complaint with the SBA. The importance is such
unethical and likely criminal conduct being perpetrated by Warner and the Firm must be
1
E.g. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/30/libel-takedown-injunctions-
and-fake-notarizations/?utm_term=.094ad96af170
2
E.g. - http://usaherald.com/arizona-attorney-daniel-warner-investigation-alleged-legal-fraud/
3
E.g. - http://www.sheboyganpress.com/story/news/local/2014/11/17/south-students-remember-classmate-died-
leukemia/19196089/

5
exposed and properly addressed by the appropriate authorities, whether that is the SBA
or Federal Law Enforcement Agencies such as the FBI, in order to protect the integrity
and public trust in our institutions, such as the Judicial Branch, for the protection of our
democracy. If there are no check and balances to enforce the veracity associated with
the judicial process, there is no meaning to the concept of the “Rule of Law.” The
alternative is an unavoidable outcome resulting in utter chaos for our society.

The events and circumstances detailed above represent clear ethical violations of the
following: Rule 41 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (H). Rule 42: ER 3.1 – Meritorious Claims
and Contentions, ER 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal, ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing
Party and Counsel, ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others and ER 8.4 –
Misconduct.

3) The implications of the Warner fraudulence have been recognized by ethical legal
practices advocates, courts and law enforcement.

There are a number of additional respected authorities who have taken notice of the
fraudulent business practices of Warner and the Firm in filing “fake” lawsuits involving
non-existent Defendants, Plaintiffs and Notaries. The SBA may have become aware of
the situation due to the work of Professor Volokh, just as Rodrick did, but other parties
in the legal profession have also taken notice. Another source of information in
uncovering the extent and scope of this legal scheme is attorney Paul Levy of the Public
Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C. Mr. Levy has been thoroughly investigating
the outbreak of this new legal scheme utilizing “fake” lawsuits to obtain court orders to
remove derogatory content found on the Internet. He was instrumental in discovery the
involvement of Ruddie in the implementation of this illegal scheme due to his
involvement with a case that had been adjudicated in U.S. District Court of Rhode Island.
In that case, that involved a “fake” defendant, it would be proven with substantial
evidence that the lawsuit had been filed by Ruddie for a “real” Plaintiff, although not
informed of the lawsuit or having obtained his signature which had been forged on the
legal filings, and the Defendant was non-existent. What is relevant to this case to
Warner is as part of the settlement which would include a full admission of
responsibility by Ruddie; he was also was required to identify additional cases he had
perpetrated in other jurisdiction, such as Maryland and Florida, and the names of
attorneys he had worked with in those efforts. Both Warner and the Firm were
identified by Ruddie as having been involved in the filing of “fake” lawsuits associated
with his Internet “Reputation Services” business. Mr. Levy has documented, with online
posts, the details associated with his investigations and legal arguments before the
courts concerning this situation identifying Ruddie, Warner and the firm.4 A very helpful
online resource that has tracked this fraudulent legal scheme story is provided by

4
E.g. - http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2017/03/richart-ruddie-settles-anti-slapp-claims-makes-restitution-but-
the-guilty-companies-remain-unpunishe.html

6
Mathew Valor at the website Defiantly.net which has organized the media coverage
available.5

What also came from the exposure of the legal scheme that was being perpetrated
upon the courts, that should be of extreme interest to the SBA, was the recognition that
there are criminal conduct implications involved by the parties participating in such
filings. It was in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (Providence) that
the Honorable Chief Judge William E. Smith addressed the “embarrassment” he felt for
having been so duped by this legal scheme. He would go on to not only question the
legality of such conduct, but also entertain the likelihood that it constituted criminal
conduct. The Judge would call upon the U.S. Attorney General of Rhode Island to look
into the matter immediately (See, Exhibit D). This in fact did occur as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney is overseeing the investigation being conducted by the FBI. This investigation
has reached into Arizona to review Warner and the Firm’s involvement, and is ongoing.
This is a FACT.

The events and circumstances detailed above represent clear ethical violations of the
following: Rule 41 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (H). Rule 42: ER 3.1 – Meritorious Claims
and Contentions, ER 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal, ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing
Party and Counsel, ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others, ER 8.3 – Reporting
Professional Misconduct and ER 8.4 – Misconduct.

4) The conduct of Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law firm should be an Red Alert wake
up call to the duties and responsibilities of the SBA to not only protect the public from
legal malfeasance, but the credibility of the overall relevance of the judicial process.

If licensed SBA attorneys can file “fake” lawsuit in order to obtain Court Orders to be
used to illegally cause actions of others against their will and best interest, which is
validated with actual court authority for enforcement; what stops an unlicensed pro se
litigant from employing the same strategy without the restraints of the ethical rules of
the SBA to achieve the same outcome? This is potential chaos. This would potentially be
the fundamental destruction of the validity of our all important institution that governs
our overall society – the Judicial Branch of Government. It is not a time for the SBA to
sugar coat the unethical, illegal and very damaging misconduct of “one of their own”
(Warner). The actions of Warner and the Firm are serious violation of the principles
purported to be governed by the SBA. Just a simple review of the SBA website confirms
the stated doctrine and purpose of the oversight authority.6 Does the SBA abide by its
own standards of “Mission, Vision and Core Values,” or is it only rhetoric to misdirect
the public and avert oversight by government authority? It is time for the SBA “to put up
or shut up.”

5
E.g. - http://defiantly.net/media-press-coverage-of-profile-defenders-shady-lawsuit-removal-scheme/
6
E.g. - http://www.azbar.org/aboutus/mission-vision-andcorevalues/

7
What matters for the general public is that the SBA does in fact enforce its stated duty
to protect and serve the dictates as enacted by the Arizona Supreme Court: Rule 41:
Duties and Obligations of Members and Rule 42: Arizona Rules of Professional
Conduct.

CONCLUSION

The SBA is charged with the responsibility for protecting the public from problematic attorneys.
As part of this duty, the SBA should ensure that the public has ready access to information
about attorney misconduct, so it can make informed decisions about who to retain when
seeking counsel.

For these reasons, the SBA should conduct an In-depth investigation into the allegations
outlined in detail in this complaint in regards to attorney Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law
firm. The damages realized by Rodrick due to the extensive misconduct of Warner and the
Kelly/Warner Law firm are significant and must be thoroughly reviewed to determine the
amount of culpability that can be associated with their malpractice. I submit this complaint and
ask that the SBA take action against Warner in the form of disbarment, and also make public
the various acts of misconduct described herein.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and anticipated cooperation.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 2nd day of June 2017,

Charles Rodrick

8
04 22 2017 Search this site...   

CATEGORIES

HOME  USA HERALD  ARIZONA ATTORNEY DANIEL WARNER UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR
ALLEGED LEGAL FRAUD

Arizona Attorney Daniel Warner


Under Investigation for Alleged Legal
Fraud
April 2 0, 2 01 7 | by usaherald.com |  5

According to Rick DeBruhl, Chief Communications Officer of the State Bar of


Arizona, Attorney Daniel Warner is currently under investigation by the
Arizona Bar. The Arizona Bar is also considering whether to launch an
investigation on Warner’s partner, Attorney Aaron Kelly, in which we will
cover in a follow-up story.

This investigation may have been prompted by a formal complaint filed by


Eugene Volokh, a frequent contributor to the Washington Post.

In an article published recently in the Washington Post, Volokh describes


how Attorney Daniel Warner and his partner Aaron Kelly have engaged in
litigation that seems to be fraudulent. The purpose of the lawsuits? To
“trick” Google into removing negative articles and comments from their
search results about people accused of very serious crimes and other
misdeeds.

Eugene Volokh wrote an article last year describing how certain lawyers and
their clients are using less-than-legal methods to remove damaging
information from Google’s search results. As a result of his discoveries, he
began investigating Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly’s connections to alleged
court fraudster Richart Ruddie, publishing his findings here.

We are going to break down the details of the alleged fraud that has taken
place here, and will dig a little deeper into a few connections that were not
fully made in the Washington Post article.

Let’s start with Aaron Kelly and Daniel Warner. These two, through their firm
Kelly/Warner Internet Law, specialize in “internet defamation law and
reputation management.”

On their website, KellyWarnerLaw.com, they state:

“As one of the first firms to concentrate on Internet reputation legalities, Kelly /
Warner has assisted hundreds of businesses and individuals with various
online defamation challenges. We represent businesses, professionals, and
persons who’ve been unfairly disparaged online.”

On their website, they also mention that the truthfulness of the


“defamation” is not always important. “You’ve heard the saying: ‘it’s not
defamation if it is true.’ And yes, for the vast majority of slander and libel
lawsuits, this adage holds true – but not always.”
It would be hard to dispute that both Warner and Kelly advertise
themselves as experts at internet defamation. They imply as much and
claim to know exactly what processes to take when removing content from
Google.

“We know how to get disparaging, negative comments


removed from the Web – quickly.” – Daniel Warner & Aaron
Kelly

The rapid way that information is shared, re-shared, and spun across the
internet has resulted in the rise of attorneys that specialize in “removals” of
internet defamation from Google. The services provided by these law firms
has become more important than ever to large corporations and public
figures.

We published an article earlier this year discussing Yelp’s fight to protect


themselves and consumers from being muscled around by these firms.
Indeed, it has become much more difficult to get negative content removed
from the internet. These days, internet defamation attorneys have to take a
different approach to remove this content. How do they do this?

According to InternetLiveStats.com:

“Google now processes over 40,000 search queries every second on


average, which translates to over 3.5 billion searches per day and 1.2 trillion
searches per year worldwide.”

Billions of users each day begin their search for information on Google, so
many attorneys have begun focusing on removing content from Google
rather than taking down the original source, reducing the majority of
negative exposure to damaging content.

Law firms do this by filing an injunction on the creator of the content for
libel or defamation. If the court files an injunction order, Google will, in most
cases, de-index the content from being found on their search engines.

According to Volokh’s article, “…one danger with this practice, as we’ve seen,
is that it leads to an incentive for unscrupulous people — whether plaintiffs,
their lawyers or reputation-management companies hired by the plaintiffs
(and potentially working out the details without the plaintiffs or the lawyers’
knowledge) — to file lawsuits against fake defendants.”

Volokh, a UCLA Law Professor, in his research, found multiple lawsuits that
were filed by Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly that appear to have fake, non-
existent defendants & have fake notarizations. Let’s take a look at these
suits:

Lawsuit 1 – Chinnock v. Ivanski

Joseph Chinnock, AKA Joel Cassaway, hired Attorney Warner to deindex


(remove) 39 website listings from Google that cast him as a scam artist that
harmed multiple people over a span of several years.

Attorney Warner then filed a lawsuit against a person located in Turkey


named “Krista Ivanski.” The lawsuit claimed that Krista Ivanski was
responsible for publishing all 39 of the different “defamatory website
listings” across websites like RipOffReport, Scam Exposure, USA Complaints,
and more.

This is a highly improbable scenerio that someone named “Krisa Ivanski”


from Turkey wrote all 39 of the different complaints across many unique
websites over a 5+ year period…rather the links appear to have clearly been
written by different people over that 5+ year time frame that were all
harmed by Chinnock from a multitude of different experiences, some of
which resulted in real litigation.

In addition to the fact that the alleged defendant is from Turkey, left no
address of record, and appeared pro se. Ivanski was also willing to admit to
the liability just shortly after the lawsuit was served.

Kristin Ivanski appears to be a non-existent person that was contrived for


the sole purpose of removing the negative information online about Joseph
Chinnock.

Just as alarming, it appears as if the notary for Attorney Warner’s lawsuit is


fake as well. There is no “Samantha Pierce” registered as a notary public in
the State of Colorado and the Notary ID used is 20121234567. No such seal
or notary exists in Colorado.

In fact, the Notary ID 20121234567 with the expiration date of August 8,


2016 was likely pulled from the Colorado Secretary of State website where it
is used as an explanation to notaries as to how they should format their
seals.
Digging deeper, we noticed that Krista Ivanski and Samantha Pierce have
signatures that are strikingly similar, one significant similarity being the very
distinguishable way that the “i” is dotted.

On a motion filed earlier in the case by Attorney Warner, the Notary is


“Amanda Sparks of Fulton County,” but, once again, there is no Amanda
Sparks in Fulton County. Volokh notes in his article that there is an Amanda
Sparks in a different county with a different expiration date. So, it appears
that the real Amanda Sparks may be a victim of identity theft.

In the image below, it appears that the handwriting for the “Amanda
Sparks” notarization was also the same as that used for “Krista Ivanski” &
“Samantha Pierce.”

In summation, this lawsuit, filed by Attorney Daniel Warner, appears to


have the following characteristics:
Fake signatures

Fake notaries

Fake defendant, representing herself pro se

Purpose was to remove negative material from Google

Lawsuit 2 – Lynd v. Hood

Adam David Lynd of Lynd Company, Inc. hired Daniel Warner & Aaron Kelly
to deindex multiple RipOffReport listings that portrayed Lynd as a scam
“artist.”

One of the RipOffReports was written by someone named John Duran,


http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/david-lynd/san-antonio-texas/david-
lynd-lynd-company-lynd-world-lynd-ripoff-report-warns-of-perceived-
questionable-co-1151560, a real person. In fact, in the rebuttal on the
RipOffReport, Adam David Lynd responded to John Duran acknowledging
that he and Lynd were “engaged” in business together, which is key: If the
actual author of the RipOffReport post, John Duran, was known to Lynd,
Attorney Warner and Attorney Kelly should have known better than to
name someone else as the defendant in the lawsuit:

The lawsuit Attorney Warner and Attorney Kelly filed didn’t name John
Duran as the defendant in light of the evidence that was available to them
at the time, rather it named “Connie Hood” & “Jesse Wood” as the
defendants: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/03/LyndvHoodOrder.pdf.
On further investigation, it appears that neither Connie Hood nor Jesse
Wood exist, strikingly similar to the defendants in the first lawsuit we
discussed.

The notary listed on this lawsuit, Jose Garcia from Harris County, Texas, is,
predictably, non-existent as well. There are two Jose Garcias from Harris
County listed on the Texas notary website, but neither had an expiration
date of March 2, 2016, which leads us to wonder who truly “notarized” this
document.
Upon comparing the signatures and dates on these documents by the
notary to the other documents, there are, again, notable similarities:

This lawsuit filed by Attorney Daniel Warner & Attorney Aaron Kelly appears
to have the following characteristics:

Fake signatures

Fake notaries

Fake defendants representing themselves pro se

Purpose was to remove negative material from Google

Similar handwriting to other lawsuits filed by Attorney Warner


Lawsuit 3 – Gottuso v. Marks

In this lawsuit, the same pattern is followed as the first 2 except it was filed
by Aaron Kelly, Daniel Warner’s law partner:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-
content/uploads/sites/14/2017/03/GottusovMarksOrder.pdf

Fake defendant representing himself pro se

Purpose was to remove negative material from Google

RipOffReport.com is deindexed
Lawsuit 4 – Ruddie v. Kirschner

This is, if fraudulent, the most egregious lawsuit of the bunch. Here,
Attorney Daniel Warner appears to have orchestrated a fraudulent legal
scheme to have a RipOffReport published about him removed from Google.
This RipOffReport written about Attorney Warner is likely written by his
aggrieved former client, Charles Rodrick. Though the website has heavily
redacted the report, you can find the previous version here.

The Arizona Republic covered Rodrick’s grievances in depth.

“Daniel Warner, who has been called as a witness in the federal case and
testified Wednesday, said Rodrick filed a complaint with the State Bar of Arizona
alleging misconduct after Warner withdrew from the case.

Rodrick accused Warner of violating several professional rules, including


fraudulent billing, conflict of interest and revealing privileged attorney-client
information through an article on the firm’s blog last year with the headline,
“Two men, one extortion racket website?”

Rodrick even went so far as to file a bar complaint.


Considering the likelihood that Charles Roderick wrote the RipOffReport,
Attorney Warner’s subsequent actions are puzzling, at best.

Attorney Daniel Warner’s friend and colleague, Richart Ruddie, whom


Warner has a relationship with and has worked with on multiple occasions,
appears to have filed a fake lawsuit to deindex the RipOffReport. NOTE:
Kelly Warner represented Richart Ruddie in the Walters v. Coopers Picks LLC
case where Richart Ruddie was sued for Conspiracy and Deceptive Trade
Practices.

In what appears as an attempt to hide Richart Ruddie’s identity, Ruddie filed


a lawsuit listing his name as “R. Derek Ruddie” against another seemingly
fake defendant named “Jake Kirschner” that chose to represent himself pro
se.

“R. Derek Ruddie” AKA “Richart Derek Ruddie” claims that “Defendant
Kirschner (Defendant) posted false and defamatory statements about
Plaintiff Ruddie (Plaintiff) here.

Interestingly, R. Derek Ruddie (Richart Ruddie) is not mentioned one single


time in the RipOffReport listing about Daniel Warner. Yet, Ruddie claims in
his lawsuit that he was “harmed” by the RipOffReport about Daniel Warner.

Considering the history that Daniel Warner and Richart Ruddie have
together, and Warner’s history of similar lawsuits that appear to have
fraudulent elements, it would seem that Attorney Warner, the true
beneficiary of this filing, may have played a role in this suit as well.

This lawsuit filed by Richart Ruddie with the ultimate beneficiary being
Daniel Warner appears to have the following characteristics:

Fake defendant representing herself pro se

False assertions

Purpose was to remove negative material from Google.

This is not Daniel Warner’s first time attempting to de-index the listing.
In fact, on June 23, 2015, less than 5 months before Richart Ruddie filed the
lawsuit, it appears that Attorney Warner attempted to take down the
RipOffReport listing by claiming that the picture listed on the report
violated his copyright because it was taken from LinkedIn.

Eugene Volokh points out in his Washington Post article:

“The private investigator who has been helping me (Giles Miller of Lynx
Insights & Investigations) couldn’t find the ostensible Lynd v. Hood
defendants, Connie Hood and Jesse Wood, at the addresses given for them;
nor could he find any evidence of the existence of Krista Ivanski, of
Chinnock v. Ivanski; nor could he find Jake Kirschner, the ostensible
defendant in Ruddie v. Kirschner, the case aimed at deindexing a
RipOffReport post about Daniel Warner; nor Howard Marks, the defendant
in Gottuso v. Marks, another Kelly/Warner case (though one without a
notarization).”

Indeed, true to their word, Attorney Daniel Warner and Attorney Aaron
Kelly “know how to get disparaging, negative comments removed from the Web
– quickly.”

We have attempted to contact Kelly/Warner Law for comment, but our calls
have gone unanswered, and (strangely) the line does not have a voicemail
box.

A special thanks to Eugene Volokh on his research volokh@law.ucla.edu 310-


206-3926

This is the first article of a series of articles on this story. We expect


Attorney Warner to have action taken against him soon and likely Attorney
Aaron Kelly to follow. If you have a tip please email us at
Admin@USAHerald.com and contact the investigator assigned to Daniel
Warner’s case:
Bradley Perry, Bar Counsel

4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100 | Phoenix, AZ 85016-6266

T : 602.340.7247 F : 602.416.7473

EMAIL: Bradley.Perry@staff.azbar.org

www.azbar.org

Filed in: USA Herald

SHARE THIS POST

 TWITTER  FACEBOOK  GOOGLE+

 LINKEDIN  PINTEREST  EMAIL

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Trump administration approves Florida Justices Uphold Ban On


Keystone XL pipeline Open Carry

Prosecutor Threatens Death


Scott keeps pressure on house
Sentence for an Innocent Man
Scott keeps pressure on house
Sentence for an Innocent Man
members

Join the conversation on Facebook. Click Here to Leave a Comment

Comments From Facebook


David Ramos: Omg! No way!
Posted ON : 04/20/2017

Phillip Dykes: Wow!


Posted ON : 04/20/2017

USA Herald: Persuant to Rule 61 of the Arizona Bar


https://govt.westlaw.com/azrules/Document/N45867C80371511E
48679D9ED0D31901A?
viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transition
Type=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default), it appears as-if
an Interim Suspension is appropriate here for the following
reason: “As defined in Rule 54(g), or is engaging in conduct
that has caused or is likely to cause immediate and substantial
harm to clients, the public, or the administration of justice. 1. The
Public: There is very serious harm to the public with Warner
clearly removing information from Google that warns the public
of their clients alleged criminal activities, including the litany of
allegations of scams that are perpetuated on the general public
that the general public needs to be made aware of. i.e. Joseph
Chinnock is accused of scamming multiple consumers out of
money and has been sued on several occasions for this. It is
indisputable that having 39 import complaints that were logged
online about Chinnock is a major concern for the general public,
as the very existence of these complaints online were to warn
other consumers of the fraud the Chinnock has been sued over
and alleged to have committed on multiple occasions. With the
information removed from the internet, Chinnock would have
been enabled to scam people in a much easier fashion as when
unsuspecting victims Googled his name the complaints logged
online that were in Google were fraudulently removed. That
alone has “caused or is likely to cause immediate and
substantial harm to the public.â€​ 2. The Administration of Justice:
The fact that Daniel Warner is still practicing law is “likely to
cause immediate and substantial harm to the administration of
justice.â€​ It is indisputable that Warner has been involved in a
number of fraudulent court filings that completely undermine
the Judicial Branch of government. Filing lawsuits with fake
defendants, forged signatures, and fake notarizations on multiple
occasions is a serious criminal act that completely undermines
due process. Considering the aforementioned, it would seem
appropriate to suspend Warner now to protect the public and
justice from potential further harm. More updates coming soon,
along with announcements related to Warner's law partner
Attorney Aaron Kelly.
Posted ON : 04/21/2017

David Ramos: We're doomed!


Posted ON : 04/21/2017

Brett Denton: The attorney field takes another hit no oath


strong enough anymore
Posted ON : 04/21/2017

A DVERTI SEMENT

SEA RCH FO LLO W US

Search this site...


  

RECENT PO STS A DVERTI SEMENT


Florida Senator Resigns Amid
Uproar Over Tirade
April 2 1 , 2 01 7

Arizona Attorney Daniel Warner


Under Investigation for Alleged
Legal Fraud
April 2 0, 2 01 7

Artiles Apologizes But Remains


Under Fire
April 2 0, 2 01 7

Supreme Court Monitoring


Moves Forward in Florida, Thanks
to Senator Flores
April 1 9 , 2 01 7

Florida Senate Budget Chief Raps


House
April 1 8, 2 01 7

RECENT PO STS MO ST VI EW S PO STS

Florida Senator Resigns Wrongfully Imprisoned


Amid Uproar Over Tirade for 29 Years: The Leo
Schofield Story
Arizona Attorney Daniel “You’re Fired” – Phil Larue
Warner Under Fake Trump Protest, Gets
Investigation for Alleged Caught
Legal Fraud

Prosecutor Threatens
Artiles Apologizes But Death Sentence for an
Remains Under Fire Innocent Man

Groceries, Rats, and


Supreme Court Campaign Contributions
Monitoring Moves – Adam Putnam Under
Forward in Florida, Scrutiny
Thanks to Senator Flores

The Dark Side of Adam


Florida Senate Budget Putnam’s Fundraising
Chief Raps House Success

PO PULA R PO STS RA NDO M PO STS

The Company that is Prosecutor’s Stance Roils


Making Marijuana Great Death Penalty Debate
Again – Kalytera

Getting Up To Speed On Senate to Tackle Big


Regulation Is Key To Issues in Opening Week
Fulfilling FinTech
Potential

Adam Putnam’s greedy


The Florida War on Zika selective environmental
concerns?

Artiles Apologizes But


Bitcoin ‘creator’ races to Remains Under Fire
patent technology with
gambling tycoon

U.S. authorities raid


Prosecutor’s Stance Roils Caterpillar’s Illinois
Death Penalty Debate facilities
U.S. News Business Investigates Public Corruption

State Coverage Opinion And More

© 2017 USA Herald. All rights reserved.


Privacy Policy Terms Of Service Anonymous Tips