Charles Rodrick

34522 N. Scottsdale Road, #120-467

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

Arizona Attorney Generals Office: Civil Rights Violation Complaint - Mark Brnovich

(https://www.azag.gov/civil-rights )

Civil Rights

The mission of the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Attorney Generals Office is to enforce civil rights
laws, increase public awareness of civil rights, provide dispute resolution services, and offer community
services throughout the State.

Charles Rodrick (Rodrick), an Arizona resident, has experienced violations of his constitutionally
protected rights which were knowingly attacked and robbed. This injustice occurred by a willful act of
malfeasance perpetrated by an Arizona resident on behalf of himself and/or also his Arizona business.
Specifically what has occurred is Daniel R. Warner (Warner), an Arizona attorney, was not happy about
Rodrick exercising his right to freedom of speech in authoring a scathing review of his business dealings
with attorney Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law firm which he posted for Internet dissemination on the
Arizona based website RipOffReport.com (see, Exhibit A).

Rodrick is entitled to express his opinions and 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
challenge 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 B). 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 B). 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 C).

It is important to note that upon receiving the Courts Order and redacting the published (factually
accurate) content, ROR would add reader notice in bold red print capital letter 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.

Protecting civil rights is an essential part of the democratic values of the United States and in Arizona
falls under the auspices of Arizona Attorney Generals Office. The mission of the Civil Rights Division of
the Arizona Attorney Generals Office is to enforce civil rights laws. The law differentiates between
civil rights and civil liberties. Traditionally, the concept of civil rights has revolves around basic right to be
free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics like race, while civil liberties are
more broad-based rights and freedoms that are guaranteed at the federal level by the Constitution and
other federal law such as fundamental rights such as free speech. In the case of Warner fraudulently
obtaining a Court Order in a scheme specifically perpetrated to obstruct Rodricks right to free speech is
an assault upon his civil liberties. The issue Rodrick is bringing forward with this complaint is as an
Arizona resident his fundamental right of free speech was maliciously attacked by an Arizona resident
who is licensed to practice law in the stat. The attacked upon Rodricks right to free speech also involved
Warners law firm Kelly/Warner Law, PLLC, a registered business in Arizona (see, Exhibit D), involving the
censorship of content posted on a website which is an Arizona registered business (see, Exhibit E).
Rodrick is seeking the involvement of the Arizona Attorney Generals Office to investigate render
appropriate retribution for the illegal conduct of Warner. The particulars to this sordid scenario are
certainly unusual, it is clear a well planned and implemented assault occurred that involved a party with
legal expertise to perpetuate unique approach requiring the assistance of an official government entity
with the resources and authority to provide proper retribution for the offense detailed in this complaint.

There has to be a means by which Rodrick can have this horrendous abuse of justice 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 F). 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 a crime has been committed
from a number of different perspectives in regard to Warners vindictive 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, 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 abuse of his civil liberties. 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 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 reading the work of Professor
Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School who writes and administer 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

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
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.

It has been irrefutably established attorney Daniel Warner and the Kelly/Warner Law firm has engaged
in a number of nefarious business practices that are clear examples of malfeasance. In engaging in such
endeavors Warner specifically and willfully violated the civil liberties of Rodrick by fraudulently obtaining
a Court Order that censored his right to free speech. Such abuse of the judicial system and
infringements upon civil liberties cannot go ignored. There is no better authority to address such
transgressions then the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Attorney Generals Office.

Thank you for your consideration,

Charles Rodrick

3
E.g. Arizona Attorney Daniel Warner Under Investigation for Alleged Legal Fraud:
http://usaherald.com/arizona-attorney-daniel-warner-investigation-alleged-legal-fraud/