Cesar Ornelas II

A summary of what happened?

Cesar Ornelas II is a San Antonio-based attorney licensed in Texas since November 2016. He is the son of Cesar Ornelas Sr., owner of Angel Lucy’s Funeral Homes in Texas. Ornelas II has faced serious allegations of engaging in illegal solicitation practices, known as barratry, involving funeral homes.

Key Allegations:

1. Illegal Solicitation (Barratry): Ornelas II is accused of paying funeral directors secret commissions to refer wrongful death cases to his law firm. This practice is illegal in both Texas and New Mexico.
   GVI Law
2. Use of Case Runners: He allegedly employed individuals to make unsolicited contact with accident victims and their families to secure legal representation, a practice prohibited by law.
   GVI Law
3. Referral of Cases: After obtaining cases through these means, Ornelas II reportedly referred them to other attorneys, receiving up to 50% of the fees, despite not actively working on the cases.
   GVI Law

Implications for Clients:

Clients who engaged Ornelas II under these circumstances may have grounds to terminate their contracts and seek refunds of attorney’s fees. The unethical nature of these practices has led to investigations and legal actions against him.

These allegations highlight significant ethical and legal concerns regarding Ornelas II’s professional conduct.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Cesar Ornelas II trying to hide?

Cesar Ornelas II‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Cesar Ornelas II in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Cesar Ornelas II may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: Allegations and Controversies Surrounding Cesar Ornelas II

Introduction

Cesar Ornelas II, a San Antonio-based attorney licensed in Texas since 2016, has cultivated a practice centered on personal injury and wrongful death cases. As the son of Cesar Ornelas Sr., owner of Angel Lucy’s Funeral Homes, he operates within a familial network that has drawn both praise and criticism. While his career has achieved visibility within the legal community, it is now overshadowed by serious allegations of barratry—illegal client solicitation—and other unethical practices. This report investigates these allegations, examining the impact on clients, legal ethics, and the broader legal system.

Background of Barratry Allegations

Barratry, often referred to as “ambulance chasing,” involves the unethical solicitation of legal clients through direct, unauthorized contact or the use of intermediaries such as case runners. In Texas and New Mexico, barratry is explicitly illegal, carrying civil and criminal penalties. Cesar Ornelas II stands accused of engaging in this practice through connections with funeral homes and other intermediaries.

1. Illegal Solicitation Through Funeral Homes

• Nature of Allegations:
  • Ornelas II has been accused of paying secret commissions to funeral directors at Angel Lucy’s Funeral Homes to refer grieving families to his law firm for wrongful death legal representation.
  • These actions exploit families at their most vulnerable moments, raising ethical and moral concerns.
• Legal Violation:
  • Such arrangements constitute barratry under Texas law. Attorneys are prohibited from directly or indirectly soliciting clients through monetary incentives or referrals.
• Impact on Families:
  • Grieving families, already in distress from the loss of a loved one, may feel coerced into signing legal agreements without fully understanding their rights or options.

2. Use of Case Runners for Solicitation

• Accusations:
  • Ornelas II allegedly employed case runners—individuals hired to contact victims of accidents or their families and persuade them to sign legal contracts with his firm.
  • This practice circumvents traditional legal advertising and ethical client engagement standards, targeting individuals during traumatic periods.
• Prohibited Practice:
  • Case running is strictly outlawed in Texas, as it undermines the integrity of the legal profession by prioritizing financial gain over client welfare.
• Reported Methods:
  • Victims and families reported receiving unsolicited calls, visits, or messages from individuals claiming to represent Ornelas II’s firm. These approaches were described as aggressive and intrusive, pressuring individuals to sign contracts quickly.

3. Fee-Sharing and Case Referral Schemes

• Allegations of Profit-Driven Referrals:
  • After securing clients through questionable means, Ornelas II is accused of referring these cases to other attorneys. In return, he reportedly received up to 50% of the legal fees generated, despite not actively working on the cases.
  • Fee-sharing arrangements of this nature are unethical unless explicitly disclosed to clients and involve substantive contributions by the referring attorney.
• Implications for Clients:
  • Clients may unknowingly enter agreements where their cases are handled by less experienced attorneys while Ornelas II profits from referral fees.

4. Ethical Violations and Professional Consequences

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty:
  • Attorneys have a fiduciary duty to act in their clients’ best interests. By prioritizing profit over ethical client acquisition and case handling, Ornelas II is accused of breaching this duty.
• Potential Disciplinary Actions:
  • If found guilty of barratry or unethical conduct, Ornelas II could face severe penalties, including:
    • Suspension or revocation of his law license.
    • Financial fines.
    • Criminal charges under barratry statutes.
• Damage to Public Trust:
  • Allegations of barratry erode public confidence in the legal profession, creating a perception of attorneys as exploitative rather than advocates for justice.

Client Experiences and Negative Reviews

1. Manipulation of Vulnerable Clients

• Victims’ families have shared accounts of being approached shortly after their loss, often while arranging funeral services. They describe feeling pressured into signing agreements without full disclosure of terms or options.
• These approaches exploited their grief and urgency to seek legal assistance, leaving clients with feelings of regret and distrust.

2. Poor Case Management

• Clients who engaged with Ornelas II’s firm under these circumstances reported dissatisfaction with the handling of their cases. Complaints include:
  • Lack of communication from the firm after signing contracts.
  • Delays in case progress and resolution.
  • Cases being passed to unfamiliar attorneys without explanation.

3. Financial Losses

• Families reported receiving smaller settlements than expected, with substantial portions of payouts consumed by attorney fees—particularly troubling given allegations of undisclosed referral fee arrangements.

Legal and Professional Ramifications

1. Potential Civil Liability

• Victims of barratry have the right to file civil lawsuits against attorneys who engaged in illegal solicitation. These suits may result in:
  • Voidance of legal contracts.
  • Full refunds of attorney fees.
  • Additional damages for ethical violations.

2. Criminal and Regulatory Investigations

• The Texas Bar Association and local regulatory bodies are likely to investigate the allegations against Ornelas II. Findings could lead to disciplinary hearings, fines, or disbarment.

3. Broader Industry Impact

• Cases like this highlight systemic issues in personal injury law, prompting calls for stricter enforcement of barratry laws and greater transparency in attorney-client relationships.

Analysis of Ethical Implications

1. Exploitation of Grieving Families

The use of funeral homes as referral sources raises significant ethical concerns. Families in mourning are uniquely vulnerable, making them easy targets for undue influence.

2. Undermining Trust in the Legal System

Barratry and similar practices compromise the integrity of the legal profession. Attorneys should serve as advocates for justice, not opportunists seeking financial gain at the expense of ethical standards.

3. Need for Greater Oversight

This case underscores the importance of regulatory oversight to protect clients and maintain the professionalism of the legal industry.

Recommendations for Affected Clients

1. Seek Legal Advice:
   • Clients who suspect they were solicited unlawfully should consult independent attorneys to evaluate their options.
2. File Complaints:
   • Report suspected barratry to the Texas State Bar or other relevant regulatory bodies.
3. Consider Civil Action:
   • Affected clients may be entitled to recover attorney fees and pursue additional damages.

Conclusion

Cesar Ornelas II faces serious allegations of barratry, unethical client solicitation, and profit-driven practices that prioritize financial gain over client welfare. If substantiated, these actions not only violate legal and professional standards but also exploit individuals during their most vulnerable moments.

The case highlights broader issues within the personal injury law industry, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and stricter enforcement of ethical guidelines. For affected clients, these allegations offer a path toward justice and the potential to reclaim control over their legal representation.

While the final outcomes of these allegations remain to be seen, they serve as a reminder of the critical importance of ethical behavior in building trust and integrity within the legal profession.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Cesar Ornelas II (or actors working on behalf of Cesar Ornelas II), we will inform Cesar Ornelas II of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Cesar Ornelas II may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Cesar Ornelas II, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Cesar Ornelas II to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Cesar Ornelas II made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Cesar Ornelas II is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Cesar Ornelas II

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Cesar Ornelas II Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Cesar Ornelas II used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Cesar Ornelas II could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Cesar Ornelas II have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Cesar Ornelas II is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Cesar Ornelas II creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Cesar Ornelas II either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Cesar Ornelas II, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Cesar Ornelas II is in great company ….

What else is Cesar Ornelas II hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Cesar Ornelas II] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Cesar Ornelas II that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.