{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"Jordan_Santo_email_10-4-2026","alternateName":"Jordan_Santo_email_10-4-2026.pdf","caption":"","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/61/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-06T02:31:06+00:00","description":"","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"61","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/61/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/61/index.md"},"name":"Jordan_Santo_email_10-4-2026","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nRequest for Comment: Cornell Seven Representation, eCourtRecords.org, and\nAlleged Identity Exposure\n\nFrom Richard A Luthmann \nTo JordanS@kollerlawfirm.com\n\ncc Dick LaFontaine , Rick LaRivi\u00e9re ,\nModern Thomas Nast ,\nFrankie Pressman , Sully ,\nFrank Parlato , Michael Volpe ,\nCara Castronuova , jt@liquidlunchtv.com,\nGreg Maresca \n\nDate Sunday, October 4th, 2026 at 10:07 AM\n\nDear Mr. Santo:\n\nI\u2019m Richard Luthmann, an investigative journalist leading a group of independent journalists examining the\nCornell Seven case, the government\u2019s response, and the online publication of information purporting to identify\nLucy Craig as the Jane Doe accuser.\n\nI\u2019m asking whether you represent, advise, or otherwise work for the plaintiff or any of the seven named civil\ndefendants: Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris, and\nScott Kretzschmar. This inquiry also concerns anyone retaining you to advance their interests, whether through\nlitigation, crisis management, reputation defense, or media strategy.\n\nOur investigation includes Jane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc., et al., New York County Supreme Court, Index\nNo. 161704/2026, and the provenance of material published through eCourtRecords.org. The complaint\u2019s filing\nstamp is September 16, 2026. The domain\u2019s current registration record begins September 17. Its October 2\narchived homepage lists Cornell alongside Lindsay Clancy\u2019s civil case and a Braden Peters case. The timing and\nnarrow selection warrant questions about the publisher\u2019s purpose, funding, and sources. They do not establish its\noperator.\n\nWe are examining two theories that could operate separately or simultaneously.\n\nPolitical Psy-Op: I believe the political handling of the controversy warrants scrutiny as a possible coordinated\npersuasion campaign: disputed allegations becoming an electoral narrative benefiting Gov. Kathy Hochul,\nAttorney General Letitia James, and the Democratic Party. We are testing whether apparent alignment reflects\nactual coordination, ordinary political opportunism, or independent responses to a major news story.\n\nReputation defense: A separate possibility is a crisis-management engagement serving the plaintiff or one or\nmore defendants, Cornell, or another interested party. Such an engagement could involve document distribution,\npress strategy, online publishing, or efforts to influence how the evidence and the accuser are perceived. We are\ninvestigating whether the reported identity exposure formed any part of such work, and who authorized it.\n\nThose are investigative theories. We have not established a campaign, a client, or your involvement. Nor have we\nestablished who supplied the identifying information for Lucy Craig as the Jane Doe accuser.\n\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nYour name arose through a Colorado business-directory listing identifying \u201cJordan Santo\u201d as an agent for\nBevetta LLC, linked to a website where Lucy Craig was unmasked as the Cornell Seven Jane Doe accuser. Your\n\nfirm biography describes substantial Army prosecution and defense experience, while your claimed lawyer-\ndirectory profile specifically describes sexual-assault litigation. That background makes a question about\nrelevant legal advisory work reasonable. It does not establish a reputation-management or any other engagement.\n\nPlease address the following on the record:\n\n1.\n\nRepresentation: Have you or Koller Law represented, advised, consulted for, or been retained by the\nplaintiff or any of the seven men in connection with this matter? Please identify any relationship you can\npublicly confirm, its dates, and whether it remains active.\n\n. Related interests: Have you performed Cornell-related work for a relative, employer, insurer, university,\n\nfraternity, consultant, or other person or entity seeking to advance the defendants interests? Have you\nworked for the plaintiff\u2019s side or another interested party? Please identify the client or capacity to the\nextent you may disclose it.\n\n. Bevetta: Are you the Jordan Santo identified in the Bevetta LLC listing? If so, what is your role? Does\n\nBevetta have any connection to the Cornell litigation, online case publishing, reputation management, or\neCourtRecords.org?\n\n. Website involvement: Have you participated in registering, financing, developing, operating, editing,\n\npromoting, or supplying material to eCourtRecords.org, directly or through another person? Have you had\n\nany role in changing its case pages or making material unavailable?\n\n. Reported unmasking: Did you request, authorize, approve, assist with, or distribute material purporting\n\nto identify Lucy Craig as the Jane Doe accuser? When did you first learn of that publication, and do you\n\nknow its source? Please address any role in creating or circulating an identifying case URL.\n\n. Reputation-defense work: Have you coordinated with a public-relations firm, crisis consultant,\n\ninvestigator, publisher, or online contractor concerning this case? What work was commissioned, by\n\nwhom, and who paid for it? Please provide any nonprivileged records you are willing to share.\n\n. Political coordination: Have you participated in communications or planning concerning this case\u2019s\n\npublic presentation with Hochul\u2019s office, James\u2019s office, political organizations, plaintiff\u2019s counsel Thomas\n\nGiuffra, or media intermediaries? If so, please explain the nature and purpose of that contact.\n\n. Confirmation or denial: Do you deny any role in a coordinated reputation-defense campaign, the\n\noperation of eCourtRecords.org, or the reported identity exposure? Please identify any premise you believe\n\nis wrong and provide corrections or supporting records.\n\nI\u2019m seeking facts and attribution. If confidentiality or privilege prevents an answer, please identify that limitation\nand answer the remaining questions as fully as you can.\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nPlease respond as soon as possible, as we intend to go to press shortly. Your answers may be quoted in full or in\npart. If you decline to respond, the article will state that we provided you with these questions and you did not\nanswer them. If we receive your responses after press time, we will incorporate them into a follow-up.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter!\n\nRegards,\n\nRichard Luthmann\n\nWriter, Journalist, and Commentator\nTips or Story Ideas:\n\n(239) 631-5957\n\nrichard. luthmann@protonmail.com\nLINKTREE\n\nMuck Rack Profile\n\nSubstack: This is For Real.\nEditor-In-Chief: FLGulf.news\n\nIn-Chi wsPress.com\nEditor-In-Chief: TheFamilyCourtCircus.com\nContributor: Frank Report\n\nContributor: Sun Bay Paper\nFollow Me on Facebook X Instagram LinkedIn TRUTH Rumble SPOTIFY YouTube\n\nSent with Proton Mail secure email.\n","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nRequest for Comment: Cornell Seven Representation, eCourtRecords.org, and\nAlleged Identity Exposure\n\nFrom Richard A Luthmann \nTo JordanS@kollerlawfirm.com\n\ncc Dick LaFontaine , Rick LaRivi\u00e9re ,\nModern Thomas Nast ,\nFrankie Pressman , Sully ,\nFrank Parlato , Michael Volpe ,\nCara Castronuova , jt@liquidlunchtv.com,\nGreg Maresca \n\nDate Sunday, October 4th, 2026 at 10:07 AM\n\nDear Mr. Santo:\n\nI\u2019m Richard Luthmann, an investigative journalist leading a group of independent journalists examining the\nCornell Seven case, the government\u2019s response, and the online publication of information purporting to identify\nLucy Craig as the Jane Doe accuser.\n\nI\u2019m asking whether you represent, advise, or otherwise work for the plaintiff or any of the seven named civil\ndefendants: Matthew Ingalls, Johnathan Newell, Winston Lee, Gillio Lopes, Diego Sarabia, Scott Norris, and\nScott Kretzschmar. This inquiry also concerns anyone retaining you to advance their interests, whether through\nlitigation, crisis management, reputation defense, or media strategy.\n\nOur investigation includes Jane Doe v. Cornell University, Inc., et al., New York County Supreme Court, Index\nNo. 161704/2026, and the provenance of material published through eCourtRecords.org. The complaint\u2019s filing\nstamp is September 16, 2026. The domain\u2019s current registration record begins September 17. Its October 2\narchived homepage lists Cornell alongside Lindsay Clancy\u2019s civil case and a Braden Peters case. The timing and\nnarrow selection warrant questions about the publisher\u2019s purpose, funding, and sources. They do not establish its\noperator.\n\nWe are examining two theories that could operate separately or simultaneously.\n\nPolitical Psy-Op: I believe the political handling of the controversy warrants scrutiny as a possible coordinated\npersuasion campaign: disputed allegations becoming an electoral narrative benefiting Gov. Kathy Hochul,\nAttorney General Letitia James, and the Democratic Party. We are testing whether apparent alignment reflects\nactual coordination, ordinary political opportunism, or independent responses to a major news story.\n\nReputation defense: A separate possibility is a crisis-management engagement serving the plaintiff or one or\nmore defendants, Cornell, or another interested party. Such an engagement could involve document distribution,\npress strategy, online publishing, or efforts to influence how the evidence and the accuser are perceived. We are\ninvestigating whether the reported identity exposure formed any part of such work, and who authorized it.\n\nThose are investigative theories. We have not established a campaign, a client, or your involvement. Nor have we\nestablished who supplied the identifying information for Lucy Craig as the Jane Doe accuser.\n\n\n--- Page 2 ---\nYour name arose through a Colorado business-directory listing identifying \u201cJordan Santo\u201d as an agent for\nBevetta LLC, linked to a website where Lucy Craig was unmasked as the Cornell Seven Jane Doe accuser. Your\n\nfirm biography describes substantial Army prosecution and defense experience, while your claimed lawyer-\ndirectory profile specifically describes sexual-assault litigation. That background makes a question about\nrelevant legal advisory work reasonable. It does not establish a reputation-management or any other engagement.\n\nPlease address the following on the record:\n\n1.\n\nRepresentation: Have you or Koller Law represented, advised, consulted for, or been retained by the\nplaintiff or any of the seven men in connection with this matter? Please identify any relationship you can\npublicly confirm, its dates, and whether it remains active.\n\n. Related interests: Have you performed Cornell-related work for a relative, employer, insurer, university,\n\nfraternity, consultant, or other person or entity seeking to advance the defendants interests? Have you\nworked for the plaintiff\u2019s side or another interested party? Please identify the client or capacity to the\nextent you may disclose it.\n\n. Bevetta: Are you the Jordan Santo identified in the Bevetta LLC listing? If so, what is your role? Does\n\nBevetta have any connection to the Cornell litigation, online case publishing, reputation management, or\neCourtRecords.org?\n\n. Website involvement: Have you participated in registering, financing, developing, operating, editing,\n\npromoting, or supplying material to eCourtRecords.org, directly or through another person? Have you had\n\nany role in changing its case pages or making material unavailable?\n\n. Reported unmasking: Did you request, authorize, approve, assist with, or distribute material purporting\n\nto identify Lucy Craig as the Jane Doe accuser? When did you first learn of that publication, and do you\n\nknow its source? Please address any role in creating or circulating an identifying case URL.\n\n. Reputation-defense work: Have you coordinated with a public-relations firm, crisis consultant,\n\ninvestigator, publisher, or online contractor concerning this case? What work was commissioned, by\n\nwhom, and who paid for it? Please provide any nonprivileged records you are willing to share.\n\n. Political coordination: Have you participated in communications or planning concerning this case\u2019s\n\npublic presentation with Hochul\u2019s office, James\u2019s office, political organizations, plaintiff\u2019s counsel Thomas\n\nGiuffra, or media intermediaries? If so, please explain the nature and purpose of that contact.\n\n. Confirmation or denial: Do you deny any role in a coordinated reputation-defense campaign, the\n\noperation of eCourtRecords.org, or the reported identity exposure? Please identify any premise you believe\n\nis wrong and provide corrections or supporting records.\n\nI\u2019m seeking facts and attribution. If confidentiality or privilege prevents an answer, please identify that limitation\nand answer the remaining questions as fully as you can.\n\n\n--- Page 3 ---\nPlease respond as soon as possible, as we intend to go to press shortly. Your answers may be quoted in full or in\npart. If you decline to respond, the article will state that we provided you with these questions and you did not\nanswer them. If we receive your responses after press time, we will incorporate them into a follow-up.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter!\n\nRegards,\n\nRichard Luthmann\n\nWriter, Journalist, and Commentator\nTips or Story Ideas:\n\n(239) 631-5957\n\nrichard. luthmann@protonmail.com\nLINKTREE\n\nMuck Rack Profile\n\nSubstack: This is For Real.\nEditor-In-Chief: FLGulf.news\n\nIn-Chi wsPress.com\nEditor-In-Chief: TheFamilyCourtCircus.com\nContributor: Frank Report\n\nContributor: Sun Bay Paper\nFollow Me on Facebook X Instagram LinkedIn TRUTH Rumble SPOTIFY YouTube\n\nSent with Proton Mail secure email.\n","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/61/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/61"}