As a Partner of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP (BHFS), Eric D Walther has engaged in the coordinated efforts to suppress my constitutional rights through unlawful acts.

Walther, a licensed Nevada attorney affiliated with BHFS—a national law firm ranked 141st on The American Lawyer's Am Law 200 with 270 attorneys and over $289 million in annual revenue (source: Law.com)—engaged in conduct that raises serious ethical and legal concerns.

Walther collaborated with co-counsel Morgan E. Pietz to suppress multiple protest websites I had created in lawful exercise of my First Amendment rights, including:

Walther then submitted a fabricated declaration under penalty of perjury denying any involvement in the takedown of these sites. His sworn statement was filed in support of a meritless and retaliatory anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion filed in the Nevada case on May 8, 2025—a motion transparently intended to chill my right to petition the courts and retaliate against my constitutionally protected protest speech.

In his declaration, Walther falsely claims: “My understanding is that the online registrar that hosted Plaintiff’s websites flagged them as abusive due to Plaintiff’s SPAM email campaign, after which Plaintiff chose to de-publish all four sites flagged by the registrar.”

• Name.com does not host my websites; it is merely the registrar through which I purchased domain names. My websites are hosted elsewhere, and the registrar has no content oversight or authority to enforce email-related terms.

• Name.com would have no independent knowledge of my emails to BHFS employees unless someone, such as Pietz or Walther or his firm, reported them.

• The emails Walther refers to were sent to individuals directly involved in the litigation and cannot be characterized as “spam” under any legal definition. They were non-commercial communications related to pending legal matters between parties to a case and thus fully protected speech. See Federal Trade Commission's CAN-SPAM ACT which provides:

Despite its name, the CAN-SPAM Act doesn’t apply just to bulk email. It covers all commercial messages, which the law defines as “any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service,” including email that promotes content on commercial websites. The law makes no exception for business-to-business email. That means all email – for example, a message to former customers announcing a new product line – must comply with the law.

Walther’s mischaracterization of my communications as “spam” both in his declaration and in Shein’s anti-SLAPP motion, appears to be part of a coordinated strategy to fabricate grounds for dismissal and discredit me in the eyes of the court.

This email from name.com regarding the take-down of diinele.com completely contradicts Walther's false allegations: "After further review, we find that this complaint is valid."

Moreover, both Walther and Pietz submitted pleadings containing irrelevant and inflammatory personal allegations unrelated to the merits of the litigation. These filings seem calculated to prejudice the judiciary and distract from the legitimate claims I have raised.

Their coordinated actions—especially in light of evidence showing improper and retaliatory takedowns, misrepresentations to third parties, and misuse of judicial process—warrant criminal investigation by appropriate authorities.

Despite being on notice that his claims were disputed, Walther refused to correct the record, refused to provide documentation justifying the site's takedown, and allowed the court to rely on a materially false statement to prejudice me, a self-represented transgender litigant. Even after I contacted the registrar (Name.com), and offered to drop my case against them if they disproved Walther’s declaration or clarified who initiated the takedown, the registrar neither confirmed Walther’s claims nor disavowed them — suggesting a knowing coordination.

Walther’s conduct reflects more than routine litigation—it reflects abuse of judicial process, obstruction of due process, and active participation in an enterprise to silence my legal advocacy and protest speech. Rather than litigate the facts, Walther and his co-counsel resorted to deception, retaliation, and procedural sabotage, including the misuse of anti-SLAPP to shield unlawful commercial acts and strip me of my ability to proceed. His acts were carried out not only in court filings, but also through behind-the-scenes interference with domain services, suppression of evidence, and direct harm to my livelihood.