Charles Rodrick

34522 N. Scottsdale Road, #120-467

Scottsdale, AZ 85266
Legalresponsecontact@gmail.com
(480) 250-3838

Arizona Attorney Generals Office: Consumer Complaint - Mark Brnovich

(https://www.azag.gov/complaints/consumer )

Consumer Protection - Section Mission:

To protect the public from consumer fraud, antitrust and anti-competitive conduct.

Consumer fraud, as defined by Arizona law, is any deception, unfair act or practice, false statement,
false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation made by a seller or advertiser of merchandise.

Charles Rodrick (Rodrick), an Arizona resident, has been the recipient of a multitude of violations of
the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. 44-1521 et seq.). The perpetrators of the fraudulence are
attorney Daniel R. Warner (Warner) and his firm Kelly/Warner Law. Warner is a licensed Arizona
attorney and Kelly/Warner Law is an Arizona Registered business (see, Exhibit A). Both Warner and the
firm engaged in conduct that constituted deception, unfair act, false statement and false
pretense that establish deliberate and irrefutable chicanery designed to damage Rodrick on both a
personal and/or business level.

Rodrick had employed Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law firm to handle his legal affairs from January
2012 until October of 2013. The working relationship did not end amicably for a number of reasons
associated with competence and billing practices questioned by Rodrick. Although Rodrick was very
dissatisfied with the services rendered by Warner, it was not felt it would be productive to pursue the
grievances with the filing of an official complaint with the State Bar of Arizona. What Rodrick did do in
the summer of 2014 was author and share his experience working with Warner and the law firm by
posting the details on the Arizona based website RipOffReport.com (ROR) which is owned and
operated by registered with the state company Xcentric Ventures, LLC (see, Exhibit B). Warner was not
pleased with the prospect of Rodricks review expressing his opinions would be found by Internet users
making a simple Google search. Warner would take the matter into his own hands to insure the Rodrick
post would not be returned as a Google search result no matter the degree of deception and amount
of false statements necessary to alleviate this possibility.

Rodrick is entitled to express his opinions as the freedom of speech is perhaps the most important of
ALL rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. There is no question an attorney such as Warner is well
aware of this fact. If the post authored by Rodrick and uploaded to ROR was NOT factually based,
Warner certainly was very capable of filing a civil lawsuit in Arizona claiming Defamation. In fact,
Internet Law with the clear focus on online defamation issues is purported to be the expertise of both
Warner and his law firm in general. This did not occur.
What did occur was downright diabolical in its scope, implementation and implications. Warner had
challenged the posting directly with the website only to be rebuffed. Warner was going to do anything
necessary in order to get the factual depiction by Rodricks dealings with him and his law firm censored
from being made available for online review. He unilaterally decided he would and could censor
Rodricks expression of free speech even if it involved the illegal abuse of process of the judicial system.
As an Internet Law attorney a scheme right in Warners wheel house of legal expertise was pursued to
get the negative review removed from the ROR website.

Working with confirmed business associate Richart Derek Ruddie, a lawsuit was filed in Maryland Circuit
Court Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-15-005620 (see, Exhibit C). The lawsuit would be R. Derek Ruddie vs.
Jake Kirschner claiming defamation associated with the ROR post authored by Rodrick listing the URL
specifically: http:www.ripoffreport.com/r/DANIEL-WARNER-KELLY-WARNER-LAW//DANIEL-WARNER-
KELLY-WARNER-LAW-Daniel-R-Warner-Daniel-Warner-Lawyer-FROM-Kelly-Warner-Law-1231611. There
are a plethora of issues concerning this fraudulent lawsuit. First, a business associate with many
dealings with Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law firm named Richart Ruddie (lawsuits list his name as R.
Derek Ruddie using the middle name believing this would obscure his identity somehow) is named as
the Defendant. The ROR posting at issue does NOT involve Ruddie in any way as it does not mention his
name in any manner what-so-ever. In fact, Rodrick did NOT know of Ruddie as he had never had any
dealings with him or even heard his name prior to learning of the Maryland lawsuit. Second, the
Defendant would be identified as Jake Kirschner of New York City. Warner/Ruddie were well aware
Rodrick authored the post and if there was any cause to make a claim for Defamation, he would have to
be named the defendant. Second, even more nefarious for the purposes of detailing the specific
fraudulence involved in this lawsuit is Kirschner is a fake defendant as he does NOT exist. He is a
completely made up person and a fake signature would be involved in the court filings. Third, the
lawsuit was filed in Maryland which of course would have no jurisdiction concerning Rodricks authoring
of the post who is an Arizona resident and the subjects of the post being an Arizona resident and
business. Also, the post was uploaded to a website based in Arizona. Fourth, the lawsuit was filed in
Maryland with the obvious intent that it would NOT be discovered by Rodrick as he would certainly have
challenged the claim of defamation with any number of appropriate legal defenses (i.e. jurisdiction,
statute of limitations, Anti-SLAPP, etc.). Fifth, as Warner/Ruddie would submit a court filing of an
admission signed by the fake Defendant Kirschner, the Court would grant an Order to a Permanent
Injunction requiring the removal of Rodrick free speech post on ROR requiring its removal and/or
censorship (see, Exhibit C). Sixth, the Warner scam utilizing his legal expertise of Internet Law garnered a
Court Order that he would then use to compel ROR to censor the Rodrick post. ROR would completely
redact all the content that had been posted by Rodrick (see, Exhibit D).

It is important to note that upon receiving the Courts Order and redacting the published (factually
accurate) content, ROR would add a notice for readers in bold red print in capital letters the following
message: NAME(S) REDACTED DUE TO PERCEIVED HARRASSMENT / CYBERSTALKING / CYBERBULLYING
/ REVENGE POST. Not only would the civil liberties of Rodricks right to freedom of speech be
censored by Warners chicanery, but as the author of the post he is now being categorized as being the
perpetrator of the wrongdoing labeled as having engaged in harassment, cyberstalking and
cyberbullying. This inexorably made a bad situation worse and constitutes insult over injury. It is
irrefutable Warners brazen disregard of the law, abuse of the judicial system, contempt of the
Professional Code of Conduct and fanatical pursuit of vengeance directed toward Rodrick constitute
violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. 44-1521 et seq.).

The additional foundation to the complaints of Rodrick is they are not exclusively unique to him. It has
been well documented by a several other parties in both the legal community and media that have
researched the business practices of Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law firm. In fact, it was an online
post that alerted Rodrick that there had been a lawsuit in Maryland and an Order for a Permanent
Injunction had been issued. He had no idea this had occurred prior to June of 2017 until reading the
work of Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School who writes and administers the legal blog for The
Washington Post, the Volokh Conspiracy.1 There has also been extensive research performed and
posted by attorney Paul Alan Levy of the Citizen Litigation Group.2 Finally, online news outlet USA Herald
has been doing a whole series of articles following the business practices of Warner and the
Kelly/Warner Law firm, including the original discovery of the use of forged notary seals used in court
filings.3 It is important to note that for each of these reported fraudulent lawsuits involving fake
defendants there is a corresponding unidentified citizen having their civil liberties violated by Warner
and/or Kelly/Warner Law. The fact that an Arizona businessman and his Arizona registered business is
conducting scams so prevalent to be garnering national attention should be of interest to the Arizona
Attorney Generals Office. Not only for the welfare of the Arizona publics protection, but also the
reputation of doing business with an Arizona based business when dealing with parties outside the
state.

There has to be a means by which Rodrick can have this horrendous fraud based on deception, unfair
acts, false statements and false pretense be properly examined and investigated. Rodrick did contact the
State Bar of Arizona and dealt directly with Staff Bar Counsel Bradley Perry wherein he was informed a
complaint against Warner was not necessary as the Bar was already investigating him and the law firm
(see, Exhibit E). An attempt was made to fully document all the facts with support evidence only to be
told it was possible that Rodrick MAY be contact as a witness if necessary. That response is just not
good enough when being directly subjected to the fraud of Warner. The activities of graft perpetrated
by Warner were committed to initiate reprisals against Rodrick. Although the SBA inquiry may result in
Warner realizing some form of accountability for the manner in which he has operated his law practice,

1
E.g. Libel Takedown Injunctions and Fake Notarizations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/03/30/libel-takedown-injunctions-and-fake-notarizations/?utm_term=.f52024b7fb06 and
e.g. Fake-Defendants Libel Lawsuits https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/05/17/more-apparently-fake-defendant-libel-lawsuits-aimed-at-vanishing-material-from-
google/?utm_term=.5e6b6f0c616d
2
E.g. Hoping to Wake Up Maryland Courts to Numerous Fraudulent Libel Lawsuits:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170513/16075837358/paul-levy-hoping-to-wake-up-maryland-courts-to-
numerous-fraudulent-libel-lawsuits-filed-there.shtml and e.g. Cheerleader Fraudulently Obtains Court Order to
Scrub Web: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170624/10492737655/cheerleader-fraudulently-obtains-court-
order-to-scrub-web-her-boyfriend-beating-past.shtml
3
E.g. Arizona Attorney Daniel Warner Under Investigation for Alleged Legal Fraud:
http://usaherald.com/arizona-attorney-daniel-warner-investigation-alleged-legal-fraud/
it may be deemed by the Bar that they are not going to pursue the many concerns identified. It is not
fair Rodricks very legitimate grievance does not receive the proper attention in regard to the frauds
committed by Warner and/or Kelly/Warner Law firm. It is especially of concern because Warner is an
officer of the court and used his expertise and knowledge of the judicial system to magnify some
loopholes that could be exploited to Rodricks detriment. Such misconduct should be of concern for an
organization such as the Arizona Attorney Generals Office.

The manner in which Warner attacked his ex-client Rodrick were absolutely violations of the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. 44-1521 et seq.). Rodrick is requesting that this manner be thoroughly
investigative to determine the appropriate retribution to deter Warner from committed the same of
similar offenses from unsuspecting Arizona citizens. The proper disposition of could serve as a deterrent
to other parties engaging in such fraudulence and believing they could execute the same sham utilizing
the judicial system as the catalyst for a nefarious agenda. It is a fact one would not need to be an
attorney to file fraudulent lawsuits using fake defendants to be granted a Court Order removing
derogatory content being disseminated over the Internet.

Thank you for your assistance,

Charles Rodrick