A PornNewsToday exclusive by Monica Foster (please do not reprint without linking back to the source – thank you bloggers and mainstream media)
Attorney Keith M. Davidson – is he Samantha Saint or Richard Nanula’s legal representation? It’s hard to tell…
When Miller initially began covering the Richard Nanula sex scandal, he contacted me for comment being that I was one of only 2 known websites (the other being GenesisOnline) to have re-posted the alleged photos (which appear to be stills from a Trinity St. Clair video). I disclosed to Miller that I’d also been contacted by an attorney who had inquired as to “what it would take” for me to remove the article and photos I’d reposted on June 13, 2013 from TheDirty. I told Miller that my response to the attorney (who I assumed to be Nanula’s representation, being he only mentioned the entry on my site which was re-posted from TheDirty), was that I felt if Nanula was incorrectly identified in the photos, he should put out a press release or video testimonial stating so.
Miller immediately inquired as to what the attorney’s response was to my suggestion. I disclosed that the attorney didn’t seem to have a response. He asked if he could call me back on the number I’d called him from (the attorney initially emailed me to contact him via phone), and I said yes. The attorney stated that he was glad to have an “open communication” in regards to the issue and said that he would call me back (of which he never has).
Miller then asked who the attorney was that contacted me – I was hesitant to give the name, but I did tell Miller the lawfirm name: Davidson & Associates (www.KmdLaw.com). Miller seemed to know instantly who contacted me & who I spoke to, but I did not confirm the name with Miller until July 8, 2013 (of which he thanked me for).
Keith M. Davidson represented Capri Anderson – a young woman who alleged Charlie Sheen physically assaulted her.
Miller’s final inquiry with me on July 8th (the day prior to his posting the closing Nanula article on the LAtimes) in regards to the confirmation of the name of the attorney who initially contacted me, is what has prompted me to research further into exactly who Keith M. Davidson is. The attorney angle seemed to be a paramount detail in Miller’s LAtimes article – and I now believe I know exactly why.
In addition to Davidson’s involvement with “celebrity” sex scandals, Davidson has also briefly represented a woman by the name of Dawn Holland who made allegations against Lindsay Lohan (Holland fired Davidson shortly after her allegations were made public though, and hired a different attorney).
Holland (who at the time was an employee at the Betty Ford clinic where Lohan was getting treatment) alleged that Lohan physically assaulted her. Holland has stated in interviews that she was under the impression that she would receive a settlement from Lohan (Keith Davidson was Holland’s legal representation at the time) – a $25,000 settlement which never manifested according to reports.
Sara Leal (Ashton Kutcher’s alleged mistress) was Keith M. Davidson’s client.
Holland wound up being fired from the Betty Ford clinic due to “breach of confidentiality” in regards to a patient (Lohan). Holland stated in aRadarOnline.com interview:
But as it stands I don’t want to make any comments on Lindsay Lohan or that situation or about Keith because we split on good terms,” she told RadarOnline.com. “I’m not trying to dog him out or speak badly of him. He just wasn’t doing what I needed to be done at the time and that’s why I switched attorneys and the feeling is mutual.
Richard Nanula and Samantha Saint – which one did Keith M. Davidson contact me on behalf of?
From what I can assess of Davidson, his goal with the clients he represents who make allegations against celebrities (and the wealthy), appears to be to settle the dispute out of court –which leads me to wonder where Davidson’s interests REALLY reside… Is his goal to truly find legal justice and resolution for his clients (and our society as a whole) OR is he simply controlled opposition of the wealthy defendants his clients make allegations against?
Many of Davidson’s clients seem to be sex workers (who are typically looked down upon in society) and the economically disadvantaged. Is Davidson strategically targeting his clients with the pre-meditated agenda of settling out of court – which likely results in an easy payday (for him at least) and favor amongst Hollywood’s wealthy and elite?
It’s impossible for me to tell at this stage exactly who Keith M. Davidson contacted me on behalf of, but I’m certain in time the truth will come out – just as I’m certain that the identity of the anonymous source (known as Jizzum Tizzum) who initially tipped me off in regards to Richard Nanula (and various individuals who appear to be attached to organized crime run illegal escort rings ) will one day be known.
click to enlarge: In this communication from “Jizzum Tizzum”, he takes credit for TheDirty.com posting being removed and he references TMZ. Ironically many of Keith M. Davidson’s clients have been featured on TMZ (most notably Dawn Holland, who claimed to have been paid $10,000 by TMZ through Davidson).
Considering that I own PornNewsToday (PNT), TMZ is not a big deal being that I’m quite similar to them.
KEITH M. DAVIDSON [#212216], 39, of Beverly Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Aug. 21, 2010.
Davidson stipulated to four counts of misconduct in three matters. He admitted he failed to pursue a medical malpractice case by not appearing at a case management conference and a later hearing, and he took three months to file a motion to set aside a dismissal.
While analyzing a possible medical malpractice case, Davidson failed to inform his potential client about significant developments. He did not make clear that he was only considering the case, that the individual’s medical records were being evaluated by a nurse rather than a doctor, and although he told the man he would not accept his case, the individual continued to call Davidson without getting a response.
The man paid Davidson $750 to evaluate his medical records, but Davidson deposited the money in his general account rather than a client trust account. However, Davidson refunded the money.
In the third matter, he wrote a check against insufficient funds in his client trust account.
In mitigation, Davidson had no prior discipline record, cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he presented evidence of his good character.
Follow Gene Ross at twitter@GeneRoss3; Follow AdultFYI at twitter@Adultfyi1
