He tried to weaponize Law Enforcement to silence me

Over the course of the last several weeks and months various social media profiles and accounts over a variety of platforms have featured the allegations that Anthony R. Friedman attorney at law tried to weaponize law enforcement to silence my citizen journalism investigation and expose into his professional conduct doing business as The Friedman Law Firm LLC in St. Louis and St. Charles Missouri and now I will publish for public viewing the evidence that supports the allegation.

Below is an email string beginning with a cease and desist order that I, Albert Pepper received from the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department citing Anthony Friedman as complainant and Albert Pepper as respondent. Thereafter, Friedman chose to escalate the matter and made another complaint to the St. Charles County Police Department.

The names and identifying information of the detectives who investigated the complaint have been redacted to preserve their identity whereas they were acting in due diligence to investigate the complaint(s) in good faith and I hold them and their profession in high esteem. It is only fitting and appropriate to do so. 

 Mr. Albert Pepper,
This email is a notification for you to stop communicating with Anthony Friedman, his law firm, employees, staff, contractors, and any persons associated with him or his law firm.  This shall include communication via another party or through a proxy. This is now the second time you have been notified about harassing postings and communications relative to your court case. That being said, it is also a notice that no other parties to the case should be contacted. 
While it is understood that you have a grievance regarding your court case, you should make all correspondence through the proper channels of legal process in the court. This shall only be done through the court using the appropriate mechanisms afforded to you. 
Any communication outside of the proper legal process will be considered for criminal charges. These communications are harassing and cause affected parties to fear for their safety.   
If you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to email me with a telephone number where I can contact you. 

Respectfully,

Detective XXXX, DSN XXXX

St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

1915 Olive Street, St. Louis, MO 63103

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or may otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please get in touch with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments to it.

 Dear Detective XXXX,

Thank you for the notice and advisory that I did indeed receive via email. I consider the request to cease and desist and the warning to have substantial credibility. Though I do not make any admissions to the allegations, you may be quite assured that as of the date of this email forward, I will be found in compliance with what you suggest. I would at this time however, make a few statements to clarify for the record and to preserve my right to gather testimony and prima facie evidence in support of my grievance.

In your first email notice that you had sent me dated August 5, 2024, the language was specific in that it stated: "This email is a notification for you to stop communicating with The Simon Law Firm, P.C., its employees, staff, contractors, and any persons associated with the law firm. This shall include communication via another party or through a proxy." I trust that since my receipt of that notice and to date, I have been found in compliance with your admonishment. However, the matter of The Friedman Law Firm is a separate and independent issue, whereas Anthony R. Friedman dba The Friedman Law Firm LLC is not an associate of The Simon Law Firm, P.C., and therefore, up until the receipt of this email naming Anthony R. Friedman dba The Friedman Law Firm LLC, I was at liberty to communicate therewith. You may be quite assured as well, that as of the date of this second email forward, I will be found in compliance with what you suggest.

With regard to the language contained in this second email. With all due respect, (whereas I hold law enforcement in the highest esteem and view your profession with great admiration,) the restriction(s) upon communication are overly broad. Specifically: "it is also a notice that no other parties to the case should be contacted." Detective XXXX, the first part of your demand is reasonable, and you have my full cooperation. However, this latter part that I have cited may prohibit me from gathering evidence and testimony in support of a forthcoming O.C.D.C. complaint and tort complaint. Examples would be third parties who have knowledge and testimony with regard to the grievance, i.e., former professional associates, expert witnesses, and third-party mediators that were a part of the case. Therefore, I wish to assert my right in so doing. If you wish to add any other names or parties to your advisory to narrow the scope, I am more than happy to receive it.

With regard to proper channels of communication, I acknowledge that any communication directed toward the named parties, either primarily or through third parties or proxies, is prohibited. However, though it is not specifically addressed, I wish to preserve and assert my right to publish any criticisms or grievances in a public forum, e.g., website establishment and maintenance, social media posts, or third-party organizations or individuals that may have an interest in this matter. Examples may be web hosting services, online invitations for consumer comments,  social media profiles, news outlets, and other forms of mass communication. In consideration thereof, I cannot be held liable if the parties mentioned inadvertently become aware of such information and as a result may cite it as a source of distress, whereas such venues are protected under a First Amendment right.

Det. XXXX, I would like to treat and give rebuttal to certain elements of the purported offenses contained within this notice and that of which may be most alarming and would certainly warrant an investigation. Specifically, the following line: "These communications are harassing and cause affected parties to fear for their safety.” Now, with regard to “harassing”. Perhaps, it may be plausible, though I do not make any admissions, that Friedman may have some distress, from exactly what source however, and to the degree is yet unknown. With regard to “parties to fear for their safety.” Det. XXXX, if this is a bona fide concern of that the complainant expressed, the claim is absolutely outrageous and entirely implausible. Allow me to put this allegation in its proper context. I, the respondent, am a sixty-three year old male who is crippled with a spinal cord injury and ambulates with a cane. The last seven years of my life I have resided in a residential care facility and the total sum of my monthly income of $950 is deposited directly into the account of the host facility. I have no assets, no mode of  transportation, no capacity to come in contact with anyone who may have expressed such concerns nor do I have the financial resources to engage in such activity. And Friedman knows this. I would suggest that this allegation is an attempt on the part of the complainant to incite law enforcement to react to an erroneous and implausible threat of bodily harm.

Because I have respect for you Det. XXXX, your profession and your credentials I am willing to comply with your demand as a show of deference and to mitigate any purported offense and my word is a good surety. I do however, take into consideration that unless you are working in cooperation with law enforcement in St. Charles County, I would suggest that charges and prosecution of such a case are without the jurisdiction of the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Dept. The purported offense is upon Anthony R. Friedman who resides and whose business address is in St. Charles County. I, the respondent, live neither in St. Charles County nor in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. If I am in error of my assessment as to jurisdiction please advise. Friedman knows that the original notice dealing with The Simon Law Firm P.C. has substantial, enforceable credibility whereas they are indeed located in the City of St. Louis. However, I would suggest that Friedman is attempting to “piggyback” on the original notice and complaint to enhance the egregiousness of the purported offense. The connection is tangential at best. Friedman knows this.

Furthermore, as a result of this new complaint being addressed by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept., you doing the investigation specifically and other elements contained therein from the previous issue, that it is evident that Anthony R. Friedman and The Simon Law Firm P.C. have colluded and have shared the contents of the privileged information and correspondences between the Simon Law Firm P.C., The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept. and myself, in violation of the confidentiality notice at the bottom of each of your correspondences with me. Anthony R. Friedman Left The Simon Law Firm on June 30,2023 fourteen months before your first notice to me dated Aug. 5, 2024 and was not a part nor party to that notice and therefore would have had no knowledge of the complaint, nor the contents, nor the resolution had it not been shared.

I suppose it is incumbent upon you to advise Friedman as to the status of his complaint and allegations. I would suggest  that it may be prudent to advise him that I have reserved to myself a few elements of a factual nature that should Friedman decide to escalate the matter I will present them at a most propitious time that may effectively neutralize the threat. In fact, Friedman may himself be found caught up in the snare which he has laid.

In conclusion: You have my full cooperation with regard to any direct or indirect communication with the complainant. With regard to any threat to bodily harm, it is not even within the realm of possibility though, as a statement with regard to commitment, I pledge not to engage in  any act(s) that may be construed as doing so. Neither will I even conceive of such.   

Respectfully,

Albert Pepper - respondent

"Nothing but truth and verity shall ever proceed forth from my lips whereas,

my presentation shall remain impeccable and my testimony unimpeachable

as I bear every disparaging lash of the examiners scourge." ~ Albert Pepper

 Mr. Albert Pepper,

A police report has been filed with the St. Charles County Police Department by Mr. Anthony Friedman in regards to Harassment by you.     I am sending you this email as a notification for you to stop communicating with Anthony Friedman, his law firm, employees, staff and any persons associated with him or his law firm.  This shall include communication via another party or through a proxy.  You have been previously notified about harassing postings and communications relative to your court case. That being said, it is also a notice that no other parties to the case should be contacted. 

While it is understood that you have a grievance regarding your court case, you should make all correspondence through the proper channels of legal process in the court. This shall only be done through the court using the appropriate mechanisms afforded to you. 

Any communication outside of the proper legal process will be considered for criminal charges. These communications are harassing and cause affected parties to fear for their safety.   

 Please cease and desist any further communication with Anthony Friedman. 

Respectfully,

XXXX XXXX

Detective

St. Charles County Police Department

101 Sheriff Dierker Court, O'Fallon, MO 63366

O 636-949-7900 ext. 4465 | F 949-3009 | 

A CALEA® Accredited Agency

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy the message and notify the sending party immediately. Any unauthorized disclosure or distribution is prohibited.

Dear Det. XXXX,

I am in receipt of your advisory and warning as of the time and date of this reply email and you may be quite assured that I will be found in full compliance with your demand. 

Furthermore, Det. XXXX your advisory and warning is the second one that I have received with regard to Friedman and as of the date of the first one that I have received I have been in compliance from that date forward. The first complaint by Friedman was filed with the Metropolitan St. Louis Police Department of which I had received on Monday April 28, 2025. I have copied, pasted the original advisory, warning from the STLMPD and my response for your review under the postscript and extended to you the same assurances with regard to compliance. I will at this time forgo commentary as to Friedmans motive and/or modus operandi.

If there is anything further you would wish to add to your advisory and warning for my attention I am more than happy to receive it.

Sincerely,

Albert Pepper

In conclusion ladies and gentle, the last correspondence I received from law enforcement and my response was in May of 2025 and now further warnings or citations for harassment or fear of bodily harm to the complainant has been forthcoming nor any charges therefore.

However, There is no expiration to this warning and I am well aware and as I have made commitment to, that should I violate the cease and desist demand that the investigation may resume and as a consequence criminal charges may be forthcoming. 

I have every intention of abiding by the commitment and assurances I have given to law enforcement. 

The Law of Unintended Consequences

If you review the second to last paragraph of my response to the Detective with the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department I gave an advisory that reads as follows: "..... that I have reserved to myself a few elements of a factual nature that should Friedman decide to escalate the matter I will present them at a most propitious time that may effectively neutralize the threat. In fact, Friedman may himself be found caught up in the snare which he has laid. "

Well ladies and gentlemen, Friedman escalated and I escalated in response. The elements of a factual nature that I had reserved to myself? I employed them. 

Anthony R. Friedman was operating his law firm out of his home illegally in violation of the Planning and Zoning ordinances of St. Charles County while advertising his business address at 6209 Mid Rivers Mall Dr. in St. Charles which is a p.o. bmp box at a UPS Store and I reported him.

The report and the supporting evidence, and the result of the investigation will be soon forthcoming in another post as I continue my consumer advocacy - citizen journalism modality.

Thank you for your review.

Albert Pepper.