When Advocacy Becomes Characterization: Why I Asked Wisconsin’s Attorney General to Look at the Record

Outpost 422 | Jaded Patriot Brief | JEDVIDENCE™

I am not asking the public to decide whether two Wisconsin lawyers violated professional-conduct rules.

I am asking something more basic.

Read what was written about me. Then read what the contemporaneous records say.

That distinction is at the center of my Journalism eDiscovery—or JEDVIDENCE™—review of employment-discrimination matters involving Frank Productions LLC and Camp Createability LLC. Both employers have been represented in administrative proceedings by attorneys from Boardman & Clark LLP.

My concern is not that lawyers defended their clients vigorously. That is their job.

My concern is what happens when an employment-discrimination case shifts away from dates, documents, accommodation communications and workplace events and toward increasingly negative characterizations of the employee reporting discrimination.

I have now brought my broader concerns to the attention of the Wisconsin Attorney General. What follows is not a finding of attorney misconduct, nor do I claim the Attorney General has adopted my allegations. It is my documented argument for why the underlying chronology deserves scrutiny.

Start With the Words

In Frank Productions’ January 30, 2026 response, attorney Robert Gregg didn’t merely argue that my allegations failed legally.

The memorandum characterized my complaint as a “rambling paragraph of seemingly disjointed elements.” Initial Response w_ attachments…

Later, the rhetoric escalated. The filing says I “blew the issue out of all proportion” and describes my complaint as an “extreme and irrational overreaction.” Initial Response w_ attachments…

Still later, my description of one workplace occurrence is called “a misrepresentation, a fabrication.” The memorandum then attributes to me a broader “tendency to overreact, distort small or routine matters, and greatly magnify them into major crises.” Initial Response w_ attachments…

That is more than a denial.

It constructs a theory about the reliability of the person making the discrimination complaint.

Gregg’s filing goes further still, telling the investigator that my account demonstrates a supposed tendency to “dwell on perceived wrongdoings,” recharacterize events, invent details and “demonize” others. Initial Response w_ attachments…

Frank Productions is entitled to dispute my allegations. Its witnesses are entitled to dispute my recollection. Its attorneys are entitled to advocate forcefully.

But those characterizations can also be tested.

Then Camp Createability

A separate Boardman & Clark attorney, Storm Larson, submitted Camp Createability’s position statement on May 19, 2026.

Again, the employer denies discrimination and retaliation. That denial itself is unremarkable. Camp is entitled to defend itself.

What interests me is the construction of the factual narrative.

Camp’s submission says that “from almost the start” of my employment, I exhibited performance problems. It describes a later interaction as “disrespectfully hostile,” says I “lambast[ed]” a coworker, “stormed into” another employee’s room, became “visibly agitated and highly emotional,” and frightened a child. Position Statement of Camp Crea…

The narrative then expands into fear and safety. According to Camp’s position statement, an employee was afraid to return to work, a parent reported that a staff member felt unsafe around me, and another parent reportedly would not send a child back while I remained employed. Position Statement of Camp Crea…

Those are serious allegations.

They are also testable factual propositions.

And that is where chronology matters.

The Record Before the Litigation Narrative

My JEDVIDENCE method does not begin by declaring either attorney dishonest.

It asks when each proposition entered the record.

That matters enormously in the Camp case because the contemporaneous DVR chronology provides an independent checkpoint before the termination dispute developed.

The question becomes remarkably simple:

If performance problems existed “from almost the start,” what did the contemporaneous employment record look like while those problems supposedly were occurring?

Where are the contemporaneous warnings?

Where are the disciplinary meetings?

When was the website-video problem first documented as a performance deficiency?

Who knew about it?

What was communicated to me?

What was communicated to DVR?

And what changed between successful employment and termination?

Those questions do not require anyone to accept my interpretation.

They require documents.

The 48-Hour Window

Camp’s filing admits that I was terminated on June 7, 2025. It disputes my contention that the termination followed protected activity because Armstrong allegedly did not know about my allegations when she made the decision. Position Statement of Camp Crea…

That gives investigators an unusually concrete proposition to examine.

Camp says Armstrong lacked knowledge.

I contend information had been reported.

JEDVIDENCE does not settle that dispute by adjective.

It asks whether a documented transmission path existed before the termination decision.

Who spoke with whom? When? What did Williams know? What did Coughlin know? What did Armstrong receive? When was the termination decision actually made?

Those answers should determine how much weight either narrative receives.

The Wisconsin Professional Boundary

This is also why I believe Wisconsin’s Rules of Professional Conduct provide an appropriate public-interest framework for examining advocacy.

SCR 20:3.1 says that a Wisconsin lawyer may not knowingly advance a factual position unless there is a non-frivolous basis for doing so. Wisconsin expressly applies a subjective standard to an ethical violation under this rule. The commentary simultaneously recognizes an advocate’s obligation to use legal procedure for the client’s benefit and the obligation not to abuse that procedure. Wisconsin Court System

That distinction prevents me from jumping from “I found a contradiction” to “the lawyer committed misconduct.”

Those are not equivalent propositions.

A lawyer may rely upon a client’s account. Witnesses may disagree. Memories may conflict. Evidence can emerge later. An attorney can advance an argument that ultimately loses without violating an ethical rule.

But chronology still matters.

If a material factual assertion conflicts with contemporaneous evidence, the next question is what factual basis supported the assertion when counsel made it.

If subsequent evidence undermines that assertion, the next question becomes what counsel knew and when.

Those are legitimate questions. They are not findings of misconduct.

Other professional rules provide additional boundaries. SCR 20:3.4 addresses such matters as obstructing access to evidence, falsifying evidence and certain improper trial assertions. Nothing in the two position statements I reviewed, standing alone, proves conduct of that kind. Wisconsin Court System

Wisconsin maintains a formal lawyer-regulation system precisely because determining whether conduct crosses a professional boundary requires more than a disappointed opposing party’s accusation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Office of Lawyer Regulation screens and investigates grievances within its jurisdiction. Wisconsin Court System

My Argument: Stop Profiling the Reporter and Examine the Record

This is where I believe the public-interest issue emerges.

In one employment dispute, I am described as irrational, prone to distortion and fabrication, and someone who magnifies ordinary events.

In another, I am portrayed through a vocabulary of hostility, agitation, fear and danger.

I dispute those characterizations.

But my answer is not to substitute equally inflammatory descriptions of the lawyers.

My answer is discovery.

Take every material adjective out of these submissions.

Replace it with a date.

Replace “irrational” with the underlying communication.

Replace “hostile” with the actual message.

Replace “unsafe” with the original complaint.

Replace “performance problems from almost the start” with the contemporaneous performance record.

Replace “no knowledge” with the communication chain.

Then compare all of it with records created before anyone knew litigation would require a narrative.

That is Journalism eDiscovery.

The Silent Argument

I contend that the cumulative effect of these narratives resembles a smear campaign because the focus repeatedly shifts toward portraying the reporting employee as irrational, hostile, dangerous or unreliable.

But that is my characterization of the pattern—not an adjudicated fact.

The evidence must decide whether my characterization survives scrutiny just as surely as the employers’ characterizations must.

That is why Outpost 422 will not declare that Gregg, Larson, Boardman & Clark, Armstrong or either employer violated Wisconsin’s professional-conduct rules merely because their accounts conflict with mine.

Instead, I am publishing the test:

SOURCE → DATE → SPEAKER → FIRSTHAND OR HEARSAY → CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORD → LATER CHARACTERIZATION → CORROBORATION → CONTRADICTION → UNRESOLVED FACT

Wisconsin’s professional rules establish boundaries.

The administrative record supplies evidence.

The Attorney General and other appropriate authorities determine what falls within their respective jurisdictions.

And ultimately, the documents should speak louder than any lawyer—including the arguments I make for myself.

That is the point of JEDVIDENCE:

Chronology before characterization.
Contemporaneous evidence before advocacy.
Provenance before inference.

And when someone calls the reporter irrational, hostile or dangerous?

Show me the timestamp.