FOLLOW US

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).”