PART II: The Comedy of Evans — How the Pennsylvania Bar was Scammed & Exposed Its Unconstitutional Attorney Discipline System

Pennsylvania fell for his scam. Don’t be like Pennsylvania.

TL;DR: Cal Evans of Gresham International, a notorious scammer involved in the Giza, Ardana, and Aubit/Freeway scams, filed a baseless bar complaint against me in Pennsylvania. He claimed that my use of “Pennsylvania pro hac vice, 2013” under Admissions on my former law firm’s website was false and misleading. The Pennsylvania Bar, without conducting due diligence or holding a hearing, chose to pursue disciplinary action against me and convict me without constitutionally required notification. I am now suing the Pennsylvania Bar in federal court to remedy this injustice, protect the rights of attorneys, and expose the Bar’s failure to protect the public from scammers like Cal Evans, who falsely claims to be licensed under the American Bar Association (a voluntary professional organization, not a regulatory body). (The Comedy of Errors is a William Shakespeare play)

( (Ukraine has denied he is license there and the others are voluntary organizations)

Preface: If you missed Part I: Cal Evans of Gresham International is a Scammer it is here:

I. Introduction

We have all been scammed at this point and I hate how systemic and numb to it we have become as society.

While there is conflicting data, scams have become a pervasive issue in today’s world, with the blockchain industry being particularly vulnerable. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 880,418 complaints were registered as scams, with potential losses exceeding $12.5 billion. (FBI, 2023) This is a nearly 10% increase in complaints received, and it represents a 22% increase in losses suffered compared to 2022. (FBI, 2023) According to a report by Chainalysis, scams involving cryptocurrency alone resulted in losses of over $24 billion in 2023 including infamous cases like FTX and others. (Chainalysis, 2024) While blockchain enables fast-moving transactions and asset verification, it has also attracted unscrupulous individuals seeking to exploit the system for personal gain (Gerard, 2024). One such individual is Cal Evans of Gresham International, whose involvement in various scams, including Giza (2019), Ardana (2022), and Aubit/Freeway (2022) scam, has left a trail of devastation in his wake. (Losses from investment scams became the most common internet crime in 2023, accounting for over a third of the total $12.5 billion, according to the report. Per FBI, 2023). Ironically, it was Evans’ baseless complaint that exposed the glaring flaws and contradictions within the Pennsylvania Bar’s disciplinary system, highlighting the urgent need for reform and accountability.

Cal Evans and Gresham International as discussed in Part I, Cal Evans, a self-proclaimed “’Most Outstanding Crypto Lawyer’ or (sic) 2023”, “ICO Lawyer” and a “Chartered Legal Professional” (not a solicitor or barrister) from the United Kingdom. (Dunsmoor, J. C., PART I) He has a history of making dubious claims and engaging in unethical and unlawful practices. He’s lied about having a Masters of Law degree, working for Facebook’s Libra project, working for “top 10 law firms in California”, lied about his Law School Admission Exam (claims he got a 19/21 on his LinkedIn profile when it’s out of 180), and has falsely represented at one point or another that he is licensed in Wisconsin, Wyoming, Ukraine, Hong Kong, Belize and the Cook Islands. (Belize and the Cook Islands have not responded to multiple inquiries and their websites do not show what attorneys are licensed to practice law there). (Id.)

Pennsylvania should have disposed of the complaint there but they took the bait from someone with one of the most unscrupulous backgrounds I have ever seen instead of investigating him and potentially saving Pennsylvanians from adding to those FBI statistics. Until Evans updated his website six days ago, he had the “U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission” as a client. Yep. That SEC. Unironically, blockchain-based systems can readily track all licensed professionals in the United States and globally but that is a story for another time.

(As of May 2024 he has removed this section. but we have receipts:

(Part III of this story is going to even more ridiculous)

Despite his abhorrent background, Evans had the audacity to file a bar complaint against me in Pennsylvania, alleging that my website was deceptive. This complaint was based on the fact that I accurately stated on my website that I had been admitted pro hac vice in Pennsylvania in 2013.

II. The Pennsylvania Bar’s Failure

Astonishingly, the Pennsylvania Bar fell for Cal Evans’ complaint, demonstrating a shocking lack of due diligence and fact-checking. Rather than recognizing the complaint as baseless, the Bar chose to investigate and ultimately charge me without conducting a proper inquiry into Evans’ background or verifying the accuracy of his claims. This failure to thoroughly vet the complaint highlights the glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bar’s disciplinary rules and procedures.

The Pennsylvania Bar’s own rules and website are rife with references to pro hac vice as a form of admission. Rule 301 “Admission Pro Hac Vice” uses “admitted” and “admission” in the context of pro hac vice 12 times in 517 words, and the motion rules under 231 Pa. Code § 1012.1 use these terms 21 times, respectively. (Pa. Bar Admission Rule 301, n.d.; 231 Pa. Code § 1012.1, n.d.). Furthermore, Pa. Code § 217, which governs “Formerly admitted attorneys,” uses the terms “admitted” and “admission” an astonishing 72 times (204 Pa. Code § 217, n.d.). The rule consistently refers to attorneys who have been disbarred, suspended, administratively suspended, or transferred to inactive status as “formerly admitted attorneys.” This language clearly indicates that pro hac vice is a form of admission, albeit a limited one as was stated on the website by including the words, pro hac vice.

The Pennsylvania Bar’s assertion that my characterization of the 2013 pro hac vice admission on my website is false and misleading is an outrageous contradiction of their own terminology. By claiming that identifying my use of Pennsylvania pro hac vice admission as an “admission” is inaccurate, the Bar directly conflicts with the language they repeatedly use in their own rules and code (Pa. Bar Admission Rule 301, n.d.; 231 Pa. Code § 1012.1, n.d.; 204 Pa. Code § 217, n.d.). It further goes against common sense. It’s like asking what type of milk almond milk is? (ITS IN THE NAME) This inconsistency highlights the glaring contradictions and lack of clarity in the Pennsylvania Bar’s disciplinary system but it doesn’t stop there.

Remarkably, the Pennsylvania Bar just updated its disciplinary rules on May 3, 2024, yet failed to clarify this flagrant incongruity (Pa. Disciplinary Board, 2024). Instead of taking the opportunity to modernize their rules and align them with their seemingly held belief or maintain a database with this information, they have chosen to perpetuate the confusion and inconsistency that plague their disciplinary system.

III. Background

First, let me explain how I got the now infamous “Pennsylvania, pro hac vice 2013” admission.

After graduating from law school, completing my Master of Laws with honors, and passing the New York Bar on the first attempt, my first position was as an unpaid legal fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (“ACLU of PA”) during the Great Recession. This truly prestigious and fulfilling position allowed me to work every day out of the Philadelphia branch office, a mere 200 yards from Independence Hall, where the founding of the United States occurred and where the Declaration of Independence was signed and the Bill of Rights was created. I walked by it every single day on my way to work.

At the ACLU of PA, we did and they still do a lot of great work, which I had the privilege of managing, including collaborating with four major law schools in the area (Penn, Temple, Drexel, and Widener) to monitor the Philadelphia Police Department’s (“PPD”) compliance with the settlement in Bailey, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al., more commonly called the “Philadelphia Stop-and-Frisk case.” (Craft, 2013) (Based on our review of police reports, the PPD never properly taught officers the concepts of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. But more on that another time.) I also had the honor of correcting a school system’s content filter that did not allow for support of LGBTQ+ individuals and an “intolerance” filter that blocked political advocacy websites, both violations of the First Amendment. (ACLU of PA,2013)

It was under that same umbrella that another student drug testing case came through and was finally ready for trial in late 2013. I was offered the extraordinary opportunity to protect the rights of school children against having to urinate in a cup to participate in any extracurricular activity (including sewing, art, and music, not just sports). I came back to fight because it’s not only the right thing to do but also because I believe extracurricular activities unite people, especially sports and this policy prohibited that. As a result, I was admitted pro hac vice to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the fight. A pro hac vice admission, by definition, is a temporary authorization for an out-of-state attorney to appear in a specific case. (Pro hac vice is a Latin phrase meaning “for this occasion” or “for this turn”.) It does not confer general admission to practice in that jurisdiction. Yet the “Commonwealth” of Pennsylvania has seen fit to charge and publicly reprimand me, without a hearing, for accurately stating on my website that I was admitted pro hac vice in Pennsylvania in 2013. I never held myself out to be a lawyer in PA, that’s literally what pro hac vice means; You’ve been a lawyer there temporarily.


Furthermore, if there was a question about what it means a reasonable person would Google it and my version compared to the PA Rule 301 “Admission Pro Hac Vice” is infinitely clearer:

Rule 301

Admission Pro Hac Vice

(a) General Rule. The provisions of Subchapter B of these rules (relating to admission to the bar generally) do not apply to motions for admission pro hac vice. An attorney, barrister or advocate who is qualified to practice in the courts of another state or of a foreign jurisdiction may be specially admitted to the bar of this Commonwealth for purposes limited to a particular case. An attorney, barrister or advocate admitted pro hac vice in a case shall not thereby be authorized to act as attorney of record in the case.


IV. Constitutional Violations

The Pennsylvania Bar’s actions constitute a blatant violation of my First Amendment right to free speech. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech is often overused, however, in this case my lawful right to use the terms “Pennsylvania, pro hac vice 2013” on my former law firm’s website is protected speech because its coming from a government and its not false. This type of behavior must meet the highest standard of care of strict scrutiny, meaning there must be (1) a compelling interest and it must be (2) narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive in its implementation. By charging me for accurately describing my pro hac vice admission on my website, the Bar directly contradicts the language they repeatedly use in their own rules and code. This inconsistent stance on pro hac vice admission terminology undermines the very foundation of freedom of speech, fails both the compelling interest argument and narrowly tailored requirement, and makes a mockery of the disciplinary process while raising serious questions about the Bar’s commitment to upholding constitutional principles.

Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Bar’s actions amount to an unreasonable seizure by the government, violating my Fourth Amendment rights. Throughout the disciplinary process, the Bar has denied me access to the original complaint filed by Cal Evans, failed to have any sort of hearing on the matter other than a public reprimand and now believes I will pay a fine of $500 United States Dollars. This unlawful seizure without due process is a clear abuse of power and a violation of my constitutional rights. If they do these types of things to attorneys, I cannot imagine what type of chaos is in the court system there.

Additionally, by refusing to hold a hearing on the facts, allow for cross-examination or even examination of the evidence including the original complaint against me and failing to conduct proper fact-checking of the complaining witness, the Pennsylvania Bar has also violated my Fifth Amendment right to due process. A formal hearing is essential to address grievances and ensure a fair disciplinary process. It is the bedrock of our justice system. The Bar’s disregard for these fundamental principles undermines the integrity of the legal system and erodes public trust in the profession and their failures here with lawyers who must know their rights are being violated against a citizenry who may have no idea is nothing short of terrifying.

Finally, but not limited to other rights omitted for brevity, the Pennsylvania Bar’s actions have denied me the right to confront my accuser, Cal Evans, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Cross-examination is a crucial component of a fair justice process, as it allows the accused to challenge the credibility and motives of the complainant. By denying me this opportunity, and subsequently claiming it is the complainant, the Bar has effectively stripped me of my constitutional right to a fair proceeding.

The Pennsylvania Bar’s failure to promptly address misconduct and its own blatant constitutional violations severely erode public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system as a whole. The Commonwealth has been plagued by scandals and corrupt practices, such as the infamous “Kids for Cash” scandal, in which two Pennsylvania judges were charged for their roles in a scheme that sent juveniles to for-profit detention centers in exchange for kickbacks. (Wikipedia, n.d.; Guggenheim & Hertz, 2016). Despite the severity of the charges and the clear abuse of their judicial positions, it took the Pennsylvania Bar over three years to disbar these judges. (Judicial Conduct Board of Pa., 2011a, 2011b).

The lengthy delay in taking disciplinary action against these corrupt judges raises serious questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the attorney disciplinary process in Pennsylvania and underscores the need for significant reform within the state’s deeply troubled justice system.

V. Incompetence and Lack of Due Diligence

The Pennsylvania Bar’s incompetence extends to their inability to communicate effectively with me throughout the disciplinary process. They repeatedly sent correspondence to an outdated mailing address and an incorrect email, ignoring the current contact information prominently displayed on the very website they claim is misleading. It was only on April 29, 2024 (158 days or more than five months), that they finally communicated with me via my professional email address, which they had previously used successfully.

But their demeanor remained thoroughly professional…

As an attorney admitted in New York since 2011, I find it astounding that the Pennsylvania Bar apparently lacks the competence to verify my credentials through the New York State Unified Court System’s publicly accessible attorney directory (NY Courts, n.d.). This is especially concerning since every state is required by law to have such a directory. One would think Pennsylvania would know how to operate it, given that it shares the longest border with one of the most powerful states in the country and has done so for over 200 years.

The Pennsylvania Bar’s lack of due diligence and disregard for procedural fairness raises serious doubts about the integrity of its disciplinary process. This is particularly alarming for citizens and businesses in the state, who may have an even greater disadvantage due to their limited understanding of the law.

VI. Broader Implications and the Need for Reform

The Pennsylvania Bar’s actions in my case and others demonstrate a disturbing pattern of misconduct, abuse of power, and disregard for constitutional rights. These issues not only harm individual attorneys but also undermine the very principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability that are essential to maintaining the integrity of the legal system. The public’s trust in the justice system is eroded when disciplinary bodies, such as the Pennsylvania Bar, fail to uphold these principles and instead engage in actions that violate the rights of those they are meant to regulate.

To restore public trust and ensure the fair administration of justice, the Pennsylvania Bar must:

  1. Conduct an independent comprehensive review of its disciplinary rules and procedures to ensure they comport with both the Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights;
  2. Not waste taxpayer funds on fruitless cases that do not have due process of law;
  3. Establish and maintain a list of pro hac vice admissions (which it currently does not have); and
  4. Ensure that all attorneys must be afforded due process throughout the disciplinary process, including before and after charges are filed.

The disciplinary process must include a formal hearing to address grievances, rather than merely issuing a public reprimand and requiring the respondent to “demand as of right that a formal proceeding be instituted” within twenty (20) days. That’s not justice. That’s a farce especially when the notice of the public reprimand has already been published online and they are using the wrong contact information despite it being on the very website they are complaining about.

These reforms are essential to prevent further abuses of power and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.

Without these fundamental changes enumerated above, Pennsylvanians and those who work or conduct business in the state will be denied justice. If the Pennsylvania Bar treats its attorneys, whether fully admitted or admitted pro hac vice, in this manner, one can only imagine the potential mistreatment of the general public and businesses operating within the state.

VII. Demand Change

I urge readers to support my efforts to expose the Pennsylvania Bar’s misconduct and hold Cal Evans accountable for his scams. By standing together and presenting a united front, we can effect meaningful change and address the systemic issues plaguing the legal system. Readers can take action by contacting their elected representatives, sharing their own experiences with the Pennsylvania Bar or similar organizations, and advocating for greater transparency and accountability in the disciplinary process.

If you have experienced mistreatment by the Pennsylvania Bar or have knowledge of other issues within the state’s legal system, please share your story by contacting me at Jonathan (at) I know it must be hard for the Pennsylvania Bar to admit they were scammed by Cal Evans and it’s hard for you to come forward too but by shining a light on these issues and working together, we can create a legal system that truly serves the interests of justice and the people of Pennsylvania. If you wish to remain anonymous that is perfectly fine too. I know going up against Bars can be daunting and terrible for one’s health. (No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: How to (Almost) Get Disbarred, Dunsmoor, J. C. [2024])

The federal lawsuit is coming and it will name the Pennsylvania Bar and Evans. We must get to the bottom of this and I’m not one to back down from a legal fight. Plus, I’ll finally get my hands on that complaint Evans sent in and get him under examination. I’m sure it’s going to be glorious.

In the end, I know a federal court will see the egregious U.S. Constitutional errors here and, hopefully, firmly establish within the case law the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, protection of unlawful seizures by a government under the Fourth Amendment, full due process before judgment is rendered under the Fifth Amendment, rather than the current model of “appeal 20 days after your public reprimand notice,” and the underappreciated and often overlooked right of the Sixth Amendment to cross examine the complainant against you.

VIII. Conclusion

As attorneys and members of the legal profession, we have a duty to stand up against bullies like the Pennsylvania Bar and scammers like Cal Evans. Their actions not only harm individual attorneys but also erode public trust in the legal system as a whole. If they are willing to take away the rights of someone who has been literally trained to fight against constitutional injustice of all forms, what will they do against people who have not been trained? By fighting for justice and demanding reform, we can create a system that truly serves the people of Pennsylvania and upholds the principles of fairness, integrity, and the rule of law. Together, we can expose the truth, hold wrongdoers accountable, and pave the way for a brighter future in the legal profession and hopefully a reduction in bullies and/or scammers.

IX. Final Reflections

Being scammed sucks. Being bullied sucks. Dealing with the relentless onslaught of scammers and bullies, amidst wars, record inflation, and unprecedented levels of ignorance, despite having access to the world’s knowledge at our fingertips, is overwhelming. It’s tough out there. I want you to know, dear reader, that if you cannot muster the energy for this fight, that’s ok. I will and I hope you will join me next time because there will always be more bullies and scammers in the world and it is our responsibility and obligation to legally fight back or else they will win.

“Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God” was one of the first proposed seals of the United States of America. While I firmly believe in the separation of church and state, I understand the sentiment behind this powerful phrase. The Founding Fathers were conveying that fighting against tyranny and those who perpetuate it is one of the most noble pursuits an individual can undertake. Throughout history, tyrants have proven to be the most formidable adversaries, oppressing the rights and freedoms of those they govern. It is no different here.

As a lawyer who fundamentally believes in doing what’s right, I feel a deep sense of duty to stand up against injustice and oppose those who abuse their power. The legal profession has a unique responsibility to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of all citizens. When faced with tyrannical actions, whether from individuals or institutions, it is our obligation to resist and fight for what is right.

In my current battle against the Pennsylvania Bar and Cal Evans, I am reminded of the importance of this pursuit. By exposing their misconduct and holding them accountable, I aim to not only defend my own rights but also to protect the integrity of the legal system and the public’s trust in it. This fight transcends personal grievances; it is about ensuring that justice prevails and that those in positions of authority are held to the highest standards of ethics and accountability and those that are scammers are put behind bars.

While the path may be difficult and the opposition formidable, I am committed to this cause. As someone who has dedicated their life to the law and the defense of constitutional principles, I cannot stand idly by while tyrants, in any form, trample upon the rights of others. It is my sincere belief that by standing up to these forces, we not only fulfill our professional duties but also serve a higher purpose in defending the values upon which our nation was founded.

To the Pennsylvania Bar, I understand it’s hard being scammed and it may have made you all react poorly. I forgive you but, unfortunately, I do not believe you’re going to change without legal proceedings. If you wish to prove me wrong, reach out. I’m a reasonable man. You should have all my contact information or now know where to find it.

To the New York Bar, I’m sure Evans or someone has sent you this article, however, you know my arguments are more than sound. Furthermore, we have our rights protected and actual due process in New York. If you wish to prove me wrong, reach out. I’m a reasonable man, as you well know by now.


204 Pa. Code § 217. (n.d.). Formerly admitted attorneys. Retrieved from

231 Pa. Code § 1012.1. (n.d.). Admission pro hac vice. Motion. Content. Retrieved from

ACLU of PA. (2013, February 27). Governor Mifflin School District.

Aubit/Freeway Lawsuit. (2023). Complaint. Retrieved from

BeInCrypto. (2022, November 28). Cardano stablecoin ecosystem Ardana suddenly halts development. Retrieved from

Chainalysis. (February 2024). The 2024 Crypto Crime Report from

CNBC. (2018, March 9). Cryptocurrency scammers of Giza make off with $2 million after ICO. Retrieved from

Craft, P. (2013, April 2). Jonathan C. Dunsmoor aids in reforming Philadelphia’s “stop-and-frisk” policy. Elon University.

Crypto Crow. (2022, November 25). The Ardana exit scam, rug pull, and hack timeline with analysis. [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from

Dunsmoor, J. C. (2024). No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: How to (Almost) Get Disbarred. Dunsmoor.

Dunsmoor, J. C. (2024, April 9). PART I: Cal Evans of Gresham International is a Scammer. Dunsmoor.

Dunsmoor Law. (n.d.). Jonathan C. Dunsmoor, Esq. Retrieved from

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2023). 2023 Internet Crime Report. Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).

Gerard, D. (2024, April 3). Vortax: a fake scam AI company. Just like the old ICO days! Retrieved from

GitHub. (n.d.). Giza exit scam. Retrieved from

Guggenheim, M., & Hertz, R. (2016). Selling Kids Short: How “Rights for Kids” Turned into “Kids for Cash”. Temple Law Review, 88, 653. Retrieved from

Judicial Conduct Board of Pa. (2011a). Ciavarella, Mark A. – Board Complaint 7 JD 2011. Retrieved from

Judicial Conduct Board of Pa. (2011b). Conahan, Michael – Board Complaint 8 JD 2011 Time & Date Stamped 12-21-2011. Retrieved from

NY Courts. (n.d.). Attorney Search. Retrieved from

Leave a Reply


We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.