BACKGROUND

Click on Links to View or Download Content

Small Claims Action

My dilemma began on Decemebr 28, 204 when three packages purchased from Shein were stolen by a delivery driver contracted by SpeedX, a Shein logistics partner with a history of negligence. When I attempted to hold Shein accountable and warn others, my customer account was suspended and my ability to post public reviews was blocked. Despite indisputable evidence, Shein refused to reimburse me or acknowledge wrongdoing.

In response, I first pursued relief in small claims court, only to be stonewalled by a biased commissioner who unjustifiably delayed the hearing, effectively blocking the enforcement of my subpoena against Shein. That subpoena sought answers regarding the unlawful suspension of my customer account and the contact information for SpeedX—a shadowy logistics provider that operates without any accessible contact information for consumers. The delay not only denied me due process but silenced a legitimate, speech-based grievance.

Personal Injury

Coincidentally, on Christmas Eve 2024, I was physically assaulted in Las Vegas by a MAGA-aligned individual who threw a rock at my face in an apparent hate crime and then fled. I was left with a fractured nose and internal nasal trauma, including calcification, impaired breathing, and long-term inflammation. In the days that followed, I was forced to visit an emergency medical center as my breathing became severely restricted rendering me unable to fucntion normally. I was not able to sleep more than three hours during the night as I would wake up suffocating.

I was diagnosed with fractured nose and severe calcification.

Calcification is the abnormal accumulation of calcium salts in body tissues where calcium does not normally build up. While calcification can occur naturally in bones and teeth, it becomes a problem when it develops in soft tissues, such as the sinuses, nasal passages, lungs, arteries, or skin. In the context of injury or prolonged inflammation—such as from exposure to toxic substances or physical trauma—calcification may develop as the body tries to "wall off" or stabilize damaged tissue.

Left untreated, calcification in such areas can lead to compromised respiratory function, infection risk, and permanent tissue damage.

In my case, nasal calcification was identified following the facial injury. It was developed due to long-term exposure to harmful particles in Shein’s product, which led to chronic irritation and inflammation in my nasal passages. The condition arose as the phsycal trauma and the resulting bleeding exacerbated the calcification build-up.

This calcified buildup has resulted in airway obstruction, breathing difficulties, pressure pain, and a need for surgical intervention. I sought care through my provider at APLA Health & Wellness who later referred me to Los Angeles ENT Medical Center after an unnecessary delay due to the physician's negligence.

Unlimited Civil Complaint

In light of the commissioner’s improper actions in small claims court—where it became clear I would not receive a fair hearing and had no meaningful right to appeal, and the escalating seriousness of my injuries, which was confirmed to be caused by prolonged exposure to toxic materials in Shein’s products, and given the limitations of small claims court an dmy inabolity to appeal, I filed a formal civil action in California to fully address the scope of harm and misconduct involved.

Due to my travel conditions because of frequent trips between my dual residences, Torrance and Las Vegas, I filed a mirror complaint in Las Vegas.

Believing they could easily crush a self-represented litigant, Shein responded by deploying its powerful law firm Brownstein BHFS, which then brought in Morgan Pietz, an outside attorney acting as a “fixer,” whose job appeared to be not to litigate, but to manipulate the courts behind the scenes.

BHFS underestimated both the strength of the case and the resolve behind it. Confident in their influence and institutional power, they relied on Pietz to shut the cases down through the fastest route possible. But Pietz’s tactics were so aggressive, overreaching, and legally reckless that they not only failed to neutralize the matter — they escalated it.

Pitz's conduct has exposed the extent of the collusion, inflamed judicial misconduct, and ultimately turned what BHFS hoped would be a quiet dismissal into a case now spiraling into regulatory, criminal, and federal oversight territory.

Judges in both states began ruling against me within minutes of filings made by Pietz—often while ignoring my motions entirely. My email tracking system and dates and times on court stamped documents confirm that multiple judges made adverse rulings immediately after off-the-record communications from Shein’s counsel.

Countering this act, I launched several protest websites to publicly expose this abuse: (1) shein.pictures, (2) bhfs.online, (3) emmacastro.online, (4) ericdwalther.com, (5) madysonbathke.com, (6) morganpietz.com.

Protest Websites Take-Downs

Shein’s attorneys colluded with domain registrar Name.com to take down not only the protest domains but also my personal business site, diinele.com, which was entirely unrelated.

Name.com acted without any court order, legal notice, or procedural review—effectively erasing my income source and silencing my public speech.

Name.com is not the host of my websites; it is merely the domain name registrar, and as such, it had no jurisdiction or authority to suspend or interfere with the content or function of my sites.

Even if it did claim such authority, the justification offered by Shein’s attorney Walther—that the domains were suspended due to “spam” emails allegedly sent to Shein employees—is not a valid basis for domain takedown.Name.com is not an email service provider, nor does it have the legal or contractual right to police or restrict my communications with opposing parties in an active lawsuit.

To this day, Name.com has refused to comply with subpoenas justifying its act, correct known falsehoods, or participate in discovery.

Frivolous anti-SLAPP Action

In light of this egregeous act, I amended my lawsuits to reflect this suppression of speech and the apparent collusion.

In response, Shein's attorneys filed two meritless anti-SLAPP motions, falsely claiming my causes of action arose from their protected legal activity—even though the pleadings contain no such claims. Walther submitted a perjured declaration, asserting I voluntarily removed the websites, despite knowing they were disabled without my consent. Name.com, despite knowing this to be false, has refused to provide records or denounce the fabrication.

Shein attempted to shield its retaliatory conduct under the guise of “constitutional rights,” asserting its freedom to silence my protest and whistleblower content.

In reality, neither Shein nor Name.com has any legal authority to suppress my protected speech. Their actions are not only unlawful and hypocritical, but represent a dangerous abuse of private power aimed at circumventing the First Amendment and retaliating against a litigant for exercising her rights.

Collusion with Judges

I have filed three ex parte applications before three different judges seeking the reinstatement of my personal business website—my primary source of income—yet each of those judges unlawfully denied my request, while also refusing to accept my timely statements of disqualification, allowing them to continue violating my rights unchecked. Not a single action taken by any of these judges has complied with applicable law, and in doing so, they have exposed themselves to potential federal and state prosecution, as well as oversight by judicial disciplinary bodies.

Los Angeles

Judge Michael Small, the presiding judge of the lead California case, has been particularly egregious. Not only has he issued fraudulent rulings against me, but he has manipulated court records to conceal his misconduct, including deliberately withholding a court reporter to eliminate an official transcript, and later issuing a false minute order that misrepresented what occurred in court. This was done to justify his baseless denial of my motion for a preliminary injunction—despite the fact that the website in question had no connection to the litigation at hand.

Faced with the judge's egregeous act, I attampted to disqualify him but he refused and struck my statment of disqualification.

When Recognizing that the judge was preparing to dismiss my case without just cause, I then moved to voluntarily dismiss it myself. In response, he engaged in a malicious and unauthorized maneuver to block my dismissal, further demonstrating an intent to retaliate and obstruct justice.

In a desperate attempt to escape these manipulated courtrooms, I attempted to dismiss the California action—only to have the presiding judge Michael Small intervene to block my dismissal, thereby allowing the fabricated anti-SLAPP motion to proceed. Judge Small had already denied my injunction without record, refused to recuse himself, and unlawfully denied my appellate fee waiver, falsely asserting I needed to file with the appellate court—contrary to California law. The anti-SLAPP motion was then filed early, intentionally cutting off my ability to withdraw or amend.

Los Angeles Writs and Receivers

In a separate instance of judicial misconduct, Judge Mitchell Goorvitch of the Writs Department dismissed my ex parte application without a hearing and on fabricated procedural grounds, just one day before the scheduled hearing.

His denial came minutes after opposing counsel Pietz initiated what appears to have been an unauthorized ex parte communication with the court—another example of behind-the-scenes influence being used to suppress my filings. The judge offered no valid basis for his rejection, nor did he permit oral argument or any opportunity for clarification.

The timing and content of the ruling strongly suggest that Judge Goorvitch’s decision was not independent, impartial, or procedurally sound, and instead reflected the same pattern of judicial cooperation with Shein’s attorneys that has plagued my cases in both California and Nevada.

All of these events are documented here with court filings, emails, server logs, billing records, and public records. What I have faced is not just a medical injury or a civil dispute—it is a multi-layered campaign of suppression, enabled by corporate power, regulatory apathy, and judicial abuse.

Given the complexity and scope of the case, a dedicated page has been created for each party involved, outlining their specific role and detailing the civil and criminal violations they are alleged to have committed.

I have extended multiple opportunities for the defendants to clarify or disprove any factual claim made on this site. They have not denied or corrected a single allegation. Their silence, and the procedural misconduct surrounding it, speaks volumes. Although I suspect they will resort to their modus operandi and preferred tactic of deflection—using baseless attacks and character smears to distract from and justify their unlawful actions.

Las Vegas

In my Nevada case, Judge Gloria Sturman demonstrated clear and sustained bias, repeatedly ruling in favor of the defendants while ignoring multiple ex parte motions I filed in good faith. Despite receiving timely filings supported by evidence, she refused to address any of my motions, while consistently granting those filed by opposing counsel—without explanation or legal justification.

I attempted to file a statement of disqualification, but Judge Sturman refused to recuse herself. She then kept the case in a state of indefinite suspension, making it impossible for me to advance my claims. Without notifying me, she set a hearing for dismissal at 3:00 AM on June 16, a time that not only violates standard procedural norms but effectively denied me any opportunity to prepare or appear. I only learned of this hearing by chance, and after I exposed the irregularity, Judge Sturman abruptly reset the hearing for four days later—still giving me minimal time to prepare.

When I filed another attempt to disqualify her before the rescheduled hearing, she recused herself on the eve of the dismissal date, and referred the matter to the Chief Judge, making clear that her intention all along had been to orchestrate the dismissal of my case while shielding herself from accountability. Her conduct throughout this process has been procedurally and ethically indefensible and raises serious concerns of judicial bias and collusion with opposing counsel.

Coordinated Personal Website Take-Down Scheme

On or around April 22, 2025, Name.com Inc., issued takedown notices against my websites — including Diinele.com and three additional domains — without valid justification, without proper review, and without affording me any opportunity to respond or contest the takedown. These actions caused immediate and lasting financial loss, disrupted my ability to work and conduct business, and inflicted emotional distress and reputational harm.

Each takedown was issued from a separate Zendesk ticket and routed through low-level support personnel without any evident investigation, despite language in the notices falsely stating that “your request was reviewed.” To date, name.com has:

• Failed to provide any basis for the takedown of Diinele.com or the others;

• Refused to disclose who submitted the abuse complaints;

• Declined to disavow the knowingly false declaration submitted by attorney Matthew Walther, who alleged that the takedown was based on a spam campaign and that I voluntarily removed my sites — both of which are patently false;

• Ignored my offers to resolve this matter without any demand for money, in good faith, simply requesting the truth and basic assurances of future conduct.

Each takedown was processed through the Name.com/abuse form and resulted in four separate Zendesk support tickets, each handled by a different support tech employed by Zendesk.com that provides support services for Name.com Inc. as follows:

• Ticket no. 2803540 (diinele.com) — handled by 24MW59GJ009@zendesk.com on April 22, 2025 at 2:32 AM

• Ticket no. 2803541 (bhfs.online) — handled by P1PG2LM21LM@zendesk.com on April 22, 2025 at 2:32 AM

• Ticket no. 2803542 (ericdwalther.com) — handled by 7JNW26RK33X@zendesk.com on April 22, 2025 at 2:33 AM

• Ticket no. 2803543 (madysonbathke.com) — handled by ZN5GJZVN911@zendesk.com on April 22, 2025 at 2:33 AM

The sequential numbering and simultaneous timestamps clearly indicate that these tickets were part of a coordinated and premeditated effort, not independent abuse concerns. The fact that diinele.com — my personal and professional domain — was listed first, confirms it was a primary target.

This was not about policy compliance; it was about retaliation and silencing. By remaining silent and refusing to cooperate or correct the record, Name.com is aiding and abetting Shein in that objective.

Moreover, this Implies that if all 4 were issued at (or nearly at) the same time, and each had a different ticket ID or sender, it's highly unlikely they were:

• Investigated individually,

• Reviewed in context of my past communications or account,

• Considered through any actual human verification.

Rather, this seems to be a pattern consistent with mass automated ation and this suggests the takedowns were pre-coordinated or system-triggered by Shein submitting 4 abuse complaints at once, each of which opened a separate Zendesk support ticket — possibly routed to low-level agents without authority or discretion.

Instead of cooperating, Name.com’s legal counsel requested a 15-day extension under false pretenses, and appears to be stalling in the hope that Shein’s attempts to have my lawsuits dismissed will succeed — thereby allowing you to avoid accountability. This transparent delay tactic implicates Name.com in a broader civil and criminal conspiracy to suppress my rights, silence protected speech, and obstruct justice.

Even criminal defendants have the right to be told what they are being accused of—yet Name.com has not even provided me with a reason for the takedown of my personal business website, Diinele.com. Despite repeated requests, they have refused to explain what rule, law, or policy I supposedly violated. This lack of transparency is not only unjust—it is authoritarian. If a domain registrar can silently erase someone's livelihood without notice, explanation, or recourse, it sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the most basic principles of fairness and accountability.