*Evans is a CILEx Chartered Legal Executive, not a solicitor, barrister or lawyer anywhere else in the world. He has limited practice rights in his own country of England and does not have a practice certificate to actually represent clients in things like criminal law, real estate, or even family law. Yep. Which is why him being able to call himself a lawyer is an absolute farce and miscarriage of justice.
DISCLOSURE: DUNSMOOR LAW IS CLOSED AS OF NOVEMBER 2, 2023. SEE DUNSMOOR.IO THIS INFORMATION IS TO PROTECT THE INVESTING PUBLIC. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE IS LEGAL, FINANCIAL OR INVESTMENT ADVICE.
TL;DR: Analyzed Cal Evans’ attempt to silence criticism through a cease-and-desist letter to my web host. Found 153 violations of CILEx’s Code of Conduct in just one letter (averaging 2.5 violations per paragraph). Highlights include:
- Claims to be suing Twitter/X and Microsoft (he’s not)
- Falsely claims to be UK-based (he lives in Wisconsin)
- Makes claims of racial discrimination despite us both being white and provides zero evidence to support these baseless allegations
- Can’t even spell “judgment” while threatening legal action
- Demands my host ignore fair use and remove content
- Tries to weaponize Terms of Service he can’t enforce
Best part? He’s not even authorized to send legal threat letters as a CILEx member. Total documented investor losses from his schemes now approach $180.4M USD. Bonus: Letter gets compared to the famous Cleveland Browns “Some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters” response from 1974.
Preface: The Pièce de Résistance! The Famous Asshole Letter
I have been given the opportunity by the Universe/God/Simulation to recreate one of the most hilarious letters in the professional world, commonly known as the Asshole Letter from the Cleveland Browns’ former general counsel James Bailey, which occurred literally 50 years to the day from my opportunity to respond to Evans with the same zealous advocacy that Mr. Bailey did. The fact that the timing lined up like this is utterly incredible. (Though admittedly, it was 50 years and 1 day before I sent the letter because I didn’t think about the Asshole Letter until the next day.) Anyway, it is below in all its glory, in my humble opinion. I’m sure somewhere Mr. Bailey is smiling at the sheer absurdity of Evans’ letter, as he was at Mr. Cox’s.
On November 18, 1974, a season ticket-holding lawyer, Mr. Cox, decided to send a letter to the Cleveland Browns to complain about fans making paper airplanes. This was the legendary response by Mr. Bailey that “Some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.”


(Source: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/03/cleveland-browns-lawyer-letter-is-apparently-real.html and https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cleveland-browns-letters)
And after reading Evans’ monstrosity, as detailed below, I responded to him with my own version, exactly 50 years and 1 day after Bailey’s legendary response. Since I couldn’t tell if he signed it or not (he has a habit of not signing letters or putting names on them), I made a slight change.

To be absolutely clear, this is the dumbest and most lie-filled letter I’ve ever seen both personally and professionally, and I’ve received some dumb ones especially from Evans. But seriously, ever. Ever. E-V-E-R.
Cal Evans’ Letter to Dunsmoor Law’s Web Hosting Provider
I. Introduction to the Crypto Con Lawyer’s Newest Ridiculousness
Before we dive into Evans’ latest masterpiece of misinformation, let’s set the stage for what you’re about to read.
Wow, I mean wow. I have used my sabbatical from the practice of law to clean up the crypto, investment, and “data privacy” industry (more on the latter in another article) by single-handedly exposing Cal Evans of Gresham International for the fraud, scammer, and con man he is. Keep in mind the “con” in “con man” means confidence but boy, does this little scammer let the confidence fly in his newest attempt to have this content removed. So much so that at the time of this writing, another CILEx complaint bearing his name is ready for submission. Unlike my 2021 complaint that CILEx sat on until 2023, this one should compel immediate action. The sheer volume of “Core Principles” violations he’s racked up means CILEx must act swiftly if they want to maintain any semblance of authority or legitimacy.
So here we go! As with the last four documents I have received from him or he’s published publicly on Gresham International’s website, I will go line by line destroying his argument. And, shocking absolutely no one who’s followed these articles, I’ll demolish his “facts” as thoroughly as the rest. He lies about things that are laughably easy to disprove – this from the same genius who claimed a 19/21 LSAT score (impossible since it’s scored 120-180), then tried to backpedal by saying it was an LNAT score (and still got that wrong too). For those wanting to revisit previous takedowns of his nonsense:
PART III: A Glorified Paralegal Cannot Scare Real Lawyers with a Laughable Cease-and-Desist, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/05/28/part-iii-glorified-paralegals-cannot-scare-real-lawyers-with-a-laughable-cease-and-desist/
PART V: Responding to Cal Evans – The Fraudulent “Lawyer” Threatening the Crypto Industry, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/06/14/part-v-responding-to-cal-evans-the-fraudulent-lawyer-threatening-the-crypto-industry/
PART VIII: Cal Evans’ Disgraceful Attempt to Use the DMCA to Remove Content on this Website & His New Signature Line, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/09/09/part-viii-cal-evans-disgraceful-attempt-to-use-the-dmca-to-remove-content-on-this-website-his-new-signature-line/
PART IX: The Unraveling False Claims of Cal Evans — Further Exposing the Fraudulent Schemes of Gresham International’s Crypto Con “Lawyer”*, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/11/04/part-ix-the-unraveling-false-claims-of-cal-evans-further-exposing-the-fraudulent-schemes-of-gresham-internationals-crypto-con-lawyer/
Or here for a synopsis of each Part and the saga: PART ZERO: Cal Evans of Gresham International is the Crypto Con Lawyer* – A Comprehensive Overview of the Articles & Evidence Presented, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/11/05/part-0-cal-evans-of-gresham-international-is-the-crypto-con-lawyer-a-comprehensive-overview-of-evidence-presented/
Now before we begin, let me make two things clear:
- I didn’t redact this letter, my web host’s lawyers did because it’s their client’s policy.
- I am not licensed in England or Wales. Technically I’m still suspended in New York as well though my suspension period has ended and I’m free to submit for readmission when I so desire. I do not desire yet so I haven’t but this is making me miss the law and seeking justice against bad actors. Anyway, and as such, my interpretation of the violation of these principles of CILEx is from a reasonable person standard and not that of a trained, licensed practitioner in the United Kingdom (“UK”). However, given Evans’ limited practice rights and his gross incompetency as you will see here, I’m willing to take bets that my professional training and reasonable person standard are far superior to his buffoonery and that my analysis is spot on if not wholly correct. (If you are a solicitor and wish to sue Evans in the UK based on his absurdity, please feel free to reach out. I’d love to have a chat.)
As with the previous Parts above, I will go line by line as best I can to destroy this monstrosity and cite the rule I think this garbage violates per CILEx Principles. His original words from the redacted letter are underlined. Yes, they are his original words because his digital fingerprints are all over this bastardization of the English language.
If you’d like to follow along here are the “Core Principles” of CILEx Code of Conduct:
- Uphold the rule of law and the impartial administration of justice.
- Maintain high standards of professional and personal conduct and justify public trust in you, your profession and the provision of legal services.
- Behave with honesty and integrity.
- Comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen openly, promptly and co-operatively.
- Act competently in the best interests of your client and respect client confidentiality.
- Treat everyone fairly and without prejudice.
- Ensure your independence is not compromised.
- Act effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles.
- Protect client money and assets.
(Source: https://www.cilex.org.uk/about_cilex/the_code_of_conduct/code-of-conduct/; it subdivided into specific “codes” but this is the gist. For my OCD folks, yes it messes with me too that they couldn’t get to ten.)
Last but definitely not least, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT PLAY A DRINKING GAME of “How many violations of Evans have?” I will not be responsible for your liver failure.
Here we go! Buckle up!
II. This Unlawful Absurdity of a “Pre Action Before Litigation Letter”
- “Dear Sirs”
Ooof. Off to a great start! I specifically called him out on this exact issue on May 28 in response to his laughable cease-and-desist letter:
P.S.–It is inappropriate and outdated to address a letter with merely “Sirs,” as it fails to acknowledge that women are also attorneys. In fact, Reid and Wise has some great attorneys who happen to be women. I do not have the time to correct all the other problems with your monstrosity of a letter.
(Source: PART III: A Glorified Paralegal Cannot Scare Real Lawyers with a Laughable Cease-and-Desist, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/05/28/part-iii-glorified-paralegals-cannot-scare-real-lawyers-with-a-laughable-cease-and-desist/)
The irony here is rich – he “brags” about International Women’s Day while apparently not believing women can be attorneys… DESPITE THE FACT THE SOLO PRACTITIONER OF THIS LAW FIRM HE’S WRITING TO IS A WOMAN.

(Source: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mrcalevans_internationalwomensday-activity-6509856167685165056-mvQi. And yes, he didn’t even capitalize “International Women’s Day” correctly. That’s a theme in this.)
Violations:
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that could undermine or affect adversely the confidence and trust placed in you and your profession. Evans continues to use outdated, sexist language even after being explicitly corrected, demonstrating contempt for women in the legal profession.
- Possibly Principle 6.1 – Ensure your business practices adequately assist all clients and provide equal opportunity irrespective of their vulnerability or susceptibility to discrimination. Evans’ use of “Sirs” while writing to a woman attorney shows a flagrant disregard for gender equality in the legal profession, particularly egregious given his performative support of International Women’s Day.
- “Letter Before Action Civil Procedure Rules (England and Wales) Pre-Action Protocol Defamation/Media and Breach”
Evans is a CILEx Chartered Legal Executive with no practice certificates in England or Wales. He lacks authority to litigate without a practice certificate – something that requires about a year of shadowing actual solicitors and barristers. Despite being licensed by CILEx only since April 26, 2019, he was practicing law well before then.

(Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/BYeCtw3Do-8/; Note the August 31, 2017 post where he claims the title “Chief Legal Advisor.” Unlicensed. Practice. Of. Law.)
Violations:
- Principle 5.6 – Not act in a matter where you do not have the right or are not authorized to act. As a CILEx Chartered Legal Executive without a practice certificate, Evans lacks authority to issue pre-action protocol letters. This would require him to become a CILEx Practitioner in Civil Litigation, which demands “Qualifying employment is a regulatory requirement, and you must show that you have undertaken ‘work that contributes to the provision of legal services’ for at least 2,300 hours and have served at least one year in the CILEX member Advanced Paralegal (MCILEX) grade of membership.” (See https://www.cilex.org.uk/study/legal_practice_areas/civil_litigation_-_contract_law/)
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Evans knows he lacks litigation rights yet sends pre-action protocol letters.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with the law and regulation applicable to you. Evans is attempting to exercise rights he knows he doesn’t have.
This is precisely why I continue to stress he is a glorified paralegal under both the English and American legal systems.
- “We write on behalf of this firm acting on its own behalf.”
Once again, it’s tough to act on your own firm’s behalf when you can’t threaten litigation without a practice certificate – which Evans won’t be eligible to obtain for at least a year. This sounds like fraud to any reasonable person. Sure, he might claim his “Senior Team Member” Rizwan Mughal can sue on Gresham International’s behalf, but Mughal isn’t even registered with Gresham. While Mughal is a real solicitor registered with SRA, he’s listed under an unknown Dubai company. What’s more, Mughal is either not registered or no longer registered to practice law in Dubai. It’s a hornet’s nest of confusion that SRA and/or CILEx will need to untangle. Bottom line: it’s laughable for Gresham International to claim it’s representing itself when its “Managing Associate” lacks the authority to do so and won’t have it for at least a year.
Violations:
- Principle 3.5 – Not hold yourself out as having a qualification or professional status that you do not possess. Evans cannot both represent and be the firm, and he lacks the authority to do either.
- Principle 4.3 – Not place others in breach of any regulatory requirement or rule of professional conduct. Evans is potentially compromising Mughal’s professional standing by implying authorization that doesn’t exist.
- Principle 7.1 – Not act where there is a conflict of interest. Evans can’t simultaneously be the firm and represent it while lacking authority for either role.
DEAR READER, THIS IS JUST THE FIRST THREE LINES OF THIS RIDICULOUS LETTER!
- “During the 2023/2024 period, this firm has been harassed by a suspended and reprimanded former lawyer based in New York State, USA (the ‘Individual’).”
First and foremost, I submitted my complaint to CILEx in 2021 because I knew he was a scammer then. They sat on it for nearly two years before not only buying Evans’ lies but refusing to independently verify his “evidence.” Here’s a lesson for everyone: when someone claims another person is lying and you don’t know who to trust, independently verify the information. Yes, it takes longer, but by God it’s worth it. As we’ll see here!
Now, back to his claims: I haven’t harassed anyone – I’ve been informing the public. Before Evans initiated his laughable Wisconsin litigation, I’d communicated with him exactly six times via email over three years. Yep. Six. And never by phone. The “reprimand” he references is based on the bullshit he fed to the “State of the State of Pennsilvania.”

And before you try to defend him, it was definitely him:

(Source: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mrcalevans_dubai-uae-digitalassets-activity-7195798142888415232-2h01)
As I stated, the boy hates English.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Falsely characterizing legitimate documentation of fraud as harassment is misleading.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence and trust in the profession. Making false harassment claims to suppress legitimate criticism damages public trust.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with the law and regulation applicable to you. Evans demonstrates either willful ignorance or intentional misrepresentation of what constitutes harassment versus legitimate reporting.
- “This harassment extends to our team members, clients, and managing associate… (redacted)”
Ha. False. Exposing fraud isn’t harassment, and despite Evans’ numerous complaints to the Muskego Police, my efforts haven’t risen to criminal harassment – otherwise, they’d have acted. They know his claims are as baseless as his other words. His “team members” are actually people being investigated for fraud, including unlawful fee splitting and unauthorized practice of law – particularly Joseph Kent Johnson.

(Source: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/263499 – and note, he didn’t register Gresham International as his employer.)
The “team” is falling apart. Others have already “left” Gresham International:

(Source: https://gresham-international.com/)

(Source: Reach out to me. This was an “Ethics Consultant” and their leaving shouldn’t go unnoticed.)
On their active LinkedIn profiles, none except Johnson even mention Gresham International. Some “team”!

(Source: https://www.linkedin.com/company/gresham-international/people/ – Evans is missing because he’s blocked me. And yes, Johnson still claims to be an “Attorney” despite being indefinitely suspended. California is investigating.)
Even Rizwan Mughal, with his extensive LinkedIn work history, doesn’t list Gresham:

(Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rizwan-mughal-23221644/details/experience/)
Some “team,” eh? Maybe he meant another English word?
I’ve spoken with past clients – some have been quite helpful in exposing his fraud. (If you’re a former client or “team member,” please reach out. Several regulators would love to chat.)
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Falsely characterizing legitimate fraud exposure as harassment is misleading.
- Principle 8.5 – Adhere to effective management and oversight structures. The apparent exodus of team members and failure to maintain accurate employment records suggests serious management issues.
- Principle 3.1 – Be honest in all your dealings. Misrepresenting the nature and stability of his organization demonstrates a lack of honesty.
- “It has come to our attention that your service is being used to host the website www.dunsmoorlaw.com (the ‘Site’) This Site is being used in part of this campaign.”
Evans! It “came to your attention” because you already filed a bogus Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) Takedown Notice with them! That failed spectacularly last time! (See PART VIII: Cal Evans’ Disgraceful Attempt to Use the DMCA to Remove Content on this Website & His New Signature Line https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/09/09/part-viii-cal-evans-disgraceful-attempt-to-use-the-dmca-to-remove-content-on-this-website-his-new-signature-line/). Bizarre to lie about this when he contradicts himself later in this very letter. And by the way, exposing scammers isn’t illegal.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Attempting to frame legitimate investigation as a “campaign” is misleading.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation applicable to you. Filing false DMCA claims shows either incompetence or willful abuse of legal process.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Repeated attempts to abuse DMCA process damages public trust.
- “This website has been used for the sole purpose to engage in harassment and defamatory information, for clarity it features content which is:”
As we discussed, dear reader, truth is an absolute defense to defamation and nearly complete defense to harassment claims – so long as it doesn’t get physical. It hasn’t and it won’t. Every article I’ve written exposing his fraud and deception is protected by free speech and freedom of the press. I guess they don’t cover constitutional law on CILEx tests.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making false claims of harassment and defamation when faced with documented evidence of misconduct is misleading.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation applicable to you. Evans demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding or willful misrepresentation of defamation law.
- “– Defamatory (both directly and per se)”
The legal definition matters here. First, “directly defamatory” is not a recognized legal term in the standard defamation law lexicon. As for defamation per se (see Wisconsin law where Evans is attempting to sue me: https://www.minclaw.com/wisconsin-defamation-law-state-guide/), truth remains an absolute defense. I’ve publicly challenged Evans to dispute any of the 136 documented lies, misrepresentations, and falsities I’ve exposed about the Crypto Con Lawyer. His silence speaks volumes.

Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making false defamation claims when unable to dispute documented evidence.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Demonstrating fundamental misunderstanding or willful misrepresentation of defamation law.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making baseless legal threats damages public trust.
- “– Racist”
Callum Tony Evans and I are both white. His claim is utterly absurd – unless he’s confusing racism with “nationalist sentiments” in some misguided attempt to paint me as anti-British? Look, while I may question CILEx’s effectiveness, the only person in that entire country I take issue with is Evans – who, ironically, now lives in Wisconsin. The sheer audacity of this piece of shit to claim racism without a shred of evidence, especially when we’re both white, is utterly infuriating and he will (legally) pay for this.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Evans knows he is lying as we are both Caucasians.
- Principle 6.1 – Treat everyone fairly and without prejudice. Making false racism claims trivializes real racism and discrimination.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making inflammatory false accusations damages public trust.
- “– Degrading”
Fuck. That. This glorified UK paralegal, despite claiming to live in the States since 2012, apparently doesn’t understand the First Amendment. Here’s a civics lesson: if you’re a piece of shit, we get to call you a piece of shit. There are no “inappropriate” content here – just documented facts. He’s only upset because this information is threatening his global scam.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making false claims about protected speech shows either incompetence or intentional deception.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Demonstrating fundamental misunderstanding of U.S. constitutional law while practicing there.
- Principle 2.2 – Not maintain high standards of professional conduct. Using false legal claims to suppress legitimate criticism.
- “– Part of a harassment campaign”
This is not a harassment campaign. This is the truth exposing a scammer to protect others from getting scammed.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Each claim is demonstrably false.
- Principle 4.3 – Not place others in breach of any regulatory requirement or rule of professional conduct. Evans misuses legal concepts to try to place the hosting company in breach.
- “– Contains and exhibits stolen/misappropriated privledge documents”
This lie pisses me off the most and might be his undoing if he lied to the FBI about how I received these “documents.” The documents in question are:
A) Aubit Legal Opinion: https://www.aubitfreewaylawsuits.com/whatcalsaid/
B) Ardana Legal Opinion: https://drive.proton.me/urls/P7J3KMQ0WR#JtUOIGUHzQ5q
C) Nakamoto Legal Opinion: https://doc.nakamoto.games/Nakamoto.games_Legal_Opinion.pdf
As anyone with eyes can see, two of these are publicly available on websites I don’t control, and the third was provided to me by someone who received it from the company. Because that’s the entire point of these legal opinions! As you dear reader can see for yourself, these letters ARE MEANT FOR THIRD PARTIES!
From Aubit: “This letter has been prepared at the request of our clients ‘The Aubit Group of Companies’. The purpose of this letter is to provide information on the legal standing of the Aubit project, overall… This type of letter is sometimes referred to as an opinion letter for the purpose of compliance.”
From Ardana: “This letter is written for and on behalf of Ardana Labs, Inc – A company registered in The Republic of Seychelles.”
From Nakamoto: “This letter is written for and on behalf of Nakamoto Games, Limited – A company registered in The Republic of Seychelles.”
These letters exist to be shared with third parties for cryptocurrency listings. They detail (unlawful) legal analysis claiming these tokens aren’t securities in the UK and US (the definitely unlawful part here). They likely provided Evans his exit liquidity from these projects. Take the PayFBIT ICO in August 2020: Evans was listed as “Legal Advisor” and given a shocking 3% of total tokens (See https://www.coinspeaker.com/ico/payfbit/ and White Paper PayFbit.pdf, page 38 of 48 https://drive.proton.me/urls/J5M7E456BR#Keh8ddd3oOE3). That’s 9,300,000 tokens. At the peak price of $15.6845 per token (https://www.coinbase.com/price/paybit), Evans’ allocation would have been worth $145,865,850.00 – assuming he sold at the top.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Every claim about these “documents” is demonstrably false.
- Principle 4.3 – Not place others in breach of any regulatory requirement. Evans knows these documents weren’t stolen but were meant for third parties.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Making false claims about privilege shows either incompetence or intentional deception.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Filing false FBI reports (if he did) severely damages public trust.
- “While we are sure that it is not your intention to hose such content, it has been reported on more than one occasion using your ‘report’ feature and has not been removed.”
So, this is not only an admission to falsely reporting my website but if it was done via DMCA Takedown Notices, it can be federally actionable! We will see! 😊
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Admitting to multiple false reports shows pattern of deception.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Filing false reports may violate federal law.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Abusing reporting systems damages public trust.
- “As a result, it is necessary to provide you with this formal Letter Before Action.”
This is one of my favorite lines because he’s trying to sound powerful and intimidating. He knows enough about UK law to know a pre-action letter is “necessary,” but he also knows (or should know) he has no authority to litigate. The fact that this letter is packed with lies proves he knew he was committing fraud.
Violations:
- Principle 5.6 – Not act in a matter where you do not have the right or are not authorized to act. Evans lacks litigation rights but threatens legal action anyway.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Using legal formalities to disguise lack of authority is deceptive.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Misusing pre-action protocols he knows he can’t enforce.
- “Please note, that under the laws of England and Wales your Company (sic) does not receive any protection for content that is published.”
And BOOM! The very next sentence is an exceptionally egregious lie to someone he’s trying to extract personal and financial benefit from. Incredible. Utter dishonesty and sheer stupidity.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making false statements about legal protections is deliberately deceptive.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Completely misrepresenting UK law shows either incompetence or intentional deception.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making blatantly false legal claims to intimidate damages public trust.
- Principle 8.1 – Maintain proper standards of work. This level of legal incompetence falls far below professional standards.
- “Such as the case here.”
Make a bold face lie and then double down on it. Bold move, Cotton. Bold move. However, lying in such a blatant and farcical manner, especially for personal and financial gain, directly violates multiple CILEx principles. This move isn’t going to pay off.
Violations:
- Principle 3.1 – Be honest in all your dealings. Making knowingly false claims for financial benefit shows fundamental dishonesty.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Doubling down on demonstrably false claims is intentionally misleading.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Such blatant lies damage public trust in legal services6
- “It would be our intention to seek a court order for removal and obtain the costs of the same.”
Notice how there’s no statute cited? No case law? No mention of any specific “laws of England and Wales”? That’s because he’s lying. He knows he’s lying because “court orders” for costs require actual legal authority – either codified in statute or case law. This is tripling down on his lies in three consecutive sentences.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making empty legal threats without any legal basis is deliberately deceptive.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Failing to cite any legal basis for claims shows either incompetence or intentional deception.
- Principle 5.6 – Not act in a matter where you do not have the right or are not authorized to act. Evans lacks authority to seek court orders or costs.
- “We would also ask the court to consider damages.”
The sheer absurdity of this statement proves it’s a bona fide known lie. I’m not a UK solicitor or barrister, and neither is Evans, but I highly doubt any court would award damages to a “plaintiff” who lacks standing to sue and can’t even specify what laws these “damages” would arise from. Four for four back-to-back lies.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making baseless claims about damages is deliberately deceptive.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Threatening damages without legal basis shows contempt for proper process.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making empty threats of damages damages public trust.
- Principle 8.1 – Maintain proper standards of work. This level of legal incompetence falls far below professional standards.
- “For your reference, this firm has already commenced proceedings against X (former twitter [sic]) and LinkedIn.”
READ THIS – IT’S ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS LINES IN THIS EGREGIOUS LETTER (which should say a lot). Let’s break it down:
“This firm has commenced proceedings…” What proceedings exactly? Evans isn’t a solicitor, so who’s representing the firm? Mr. Mughal? I doubt he wants that smoke when he won’t even list Gresham on his extensive LinkedIn work history. Did Evans mean he filed some UK “hurt feelings on the Internet” complaint? Or did he just click “report” on their websites? The use of “proceedings” would make any reasonable person think litigation – which is clearly what he’s trying to imply, but failing miserably at.
Now my favorite bit: “against X (former twitter [sic]) and LinkedIn.” Wait – he’s claiming to be suing X, Elon Musk’s bastion of free speech? Going up against Musk, worth $300+ billion, with his army of actual lawyers (not CILEx Chartered Legal Executives, despite what Evans claims about having more training)

(Source: https://cryptoslate.com/crypto-law-firm-gresham-advises-against-us-presence-cites-unfavorable-regulatory-environment/. Gresham is also no longer associated with Sushi and CryptoSlate at the time of this writing: Sushi Labs Restructures Legal Team and Gears Up for a Multi-Token DeFi Protocol Ecosystem, June 24, 2024, https://www.prweb.com/releases/sushi-labs-restructures-legal-team-and-gears-up-for-a-multi-token-defi-protocol-ecosystem-302184182.html and PART ZERO: Cal Evans of Gresham International is the Crypto Con Lawyer* – A Comprehensive Overview of the Articles & Evidence Presented, updated on December 2, 2024, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/11/05/part-0-cal-evans-of-gresham-international-is-the-crypto-con-lawyer-a-comprehensive-overview-of-evidence-presented/).
And it gets better! He’s also “commenced proceedings” against LinkedIn – owned by a tiny company called MICROSOFT. While X might not have better lawyers than Musk personally, Microsoft has an entire roster of them, plus access to literally every specialized attorney in existence who’d love to legally destroy a CILEx glorified paralegal.
The sheer comedy of this statement shouldn’t go unnoticed. Claiming to have “commenced proceedings” against two of the world’s most powerful entities borders on clinically insane. I wonder if he’s planning to “commence proceedings” against God/Universe/Simulation next?! Now that’s a lawsuit I’d love to see.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making demonstrably false claims about litigation against major tech companies is deliberately deceptive.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Either lying about or fundamentally misunderstanding what constitutes legal proceedings.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making absurd claims about suing tech giants damages public trust.
- Principle 8.1 – Maintain proper standards of work. This level of deception and/or delusion falls far below professional standards.
- Principle 5.6 – Not act in a matter where you do not have the right or are not authorized to act. Evans lacks authority to commence any such proceedings.
- “Members of this firm have also commenced their own personal proceedings against the Individual (sic) and several other parties.”
Ha! I went into such detail about the previous claim because this one actually contains a kernel of truth – this little fool has indeed “commenced proceedings” against me and Dunsmoor Law in Wisconsin! But this admission damns him twice: First, it confirms that “commenced proceedings” means actual litigation, and second, if he didn’t really file against X and LinkedIn (he didn’t), he just caught himself lying for personal and financial gain. That’s fraud. Possibly wire fraud.
For more about his ridiculous Wisconsin suit, see A Glorified Paralegal v. A Legitimate Lawyer: PART 1, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/11/14/a-glorified-paralegal-v-a-legitimate-lawyer-part-1/. Cliff notes version: I haven’t even seen the complaint because the little asshole hasn’t served me. But regardless of what’s in it, it’ll be absolutely indefensible by him (yes, he’s representing himself) because he can’t identify which of the 136 lies and misrepresentations I’ve caught him in are actually lies. See why this guy shouldn’t practice law? And we’re not even done with this analysis!
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Mixing true and false claims about litigation demonstrates calculated deception.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Making contradictory claims about legal proceedings shows either incompetence or intentional fraud.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Using misleading combinations of truth and lies damages public trust.
- Principle 8.1 – Maintain proper standards of work. This level of deceptive practice falls far below professional standards.
- Principle 5.6 – Not act in a matter where you do not have the right or are not authorized to act. Evans can’t represent himself or others in litigation without proper authorization.
- “The Defamatory Content (Specifics) The Site is being used to defame, harass, and other wise (sic) publish content which is in breach of respective (sic) privacy and trademark laws.”
What privacy law is he talking about? Why does he hate citing case law or statutes? Oh because he’s lying or incompetent! Their pictures are literally on a publicly available website and being written about as newsworthy content under the fair use doctrine. What level of stupidity is this? Ah, that’s right – it’s a combination of stupidity and desperate lying. He knows his compatriots don’t want to be on his website. They’re only there hoping to make a few more bucks before his ship sinks, which is why none of them proudly list Gresham International on their LinkedIn. Well, too bad. In the United States, the fair use doctrine applies and the use of their name, image and likeness – as well as Gresham International’s alleged IP – is all, drum roll please, fair-fucking-use.
He had his chance to sue me in federal court over his laughable DMCA takedown notice and failed to do so. Federal court not only awards attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party under 17 U.S.C. § 505, but also provides a streamlined process for me to countersue for a bad faith DMCA claim, which is generally outside state courts’ jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Evans should know these images are protected under fair use, as he’s threatening American companies where similar doctrine applies in both the UK and EU.
- Principle 5.1 – Maintain a high level of competence in your legal work and ensure that your legal knowledge is current and of sufficient depth for your role. Evans is either lying or intentionally incompetent in this matter.
- Principle 5.3 – Act only on matters that are within your competence. Evans’ failure to review the law shows he’s not competent to send such a letter or make such false claims.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Demonstrating fundamental misunderstanding of fair use and IP law.
- “It also in breach of your user terms/terms (sic) of service.”
LOL. Another bold face lie but incredibly telling because he’s grasping at straws. Demand letters, which this effectively is by demanding removal or else Evans will “commence proceedings,” require a compelling argument using law and facts. Here, both are missing. But don’t take my word for it – UK Third Party Rights law clearly spells out when third parties have the right to sue. Guess what? This case isn’t one of them.

(Source: https://hallellis.co.uk/third-party-rights-clauses/)
Violations:
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Demonstrating complete ignorance of third-party rights law.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making false claims about Terms of Service violations.
- Principle 8.1 – Maintain proper standards of work. This level of legal incompetence falls below professional standards.
- “The defamatory content gives rise to this firm, its members, clients, and team members.”
LOL. Gives rise to what? This man hates the English language. I’m not a grammar guru but damn. Once again, without this becoming redundant, there’s no defamation because the articles are true and newsworthy – as evident by Evans trying to make himself an “influencer” by purchasing an Instagram account with 13.8K followers:

(Source:https://www.instagram.com/mrcalevans

(Source:https://www.instagram.com/cal.crypto. It’s my understanding that he presumably acquired someone else’s account, which would explain the move. Regardless, the frequent use of #influencer in his posts strongly supports the argument that he has voluntarily placed himself in the public eye, making him a public figure and therefore subject to criticism and ridicule under defamation law.)
Which he actively brags about:

(Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mrcalevans/)

(Source: https://about.me/cal.evans)
Violations:
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making incoherent legal threats damages public trust.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Cannot claim defamation when statements are demonstrably true.
- Principle 8.1 – Maintain proper standards of work. This level of written communication falls far below professional standards.
- “For clarity, the Site itself is defamatory carrying the name ‘cal (sic) evans (sic) is a scammer’.”
Callum Tony Evans claims to have received a 19/21 on the Law School Admission Test – impossible since it’s scored 120-180 – and claims he was an advisor to Facebook’s Libra. Both statements are demonstrable lies, which makes Cal Evans a scammer. These lies are still visible on his LinkedIn (LSAT score, not LNAT score) and through the British Blockchain Association’s false claims. So yes, he’s a scammer by definition.

(Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mrcalevans/; note he has changed it to “LNAT” but still got the score wrong. He also may have removed it completely by this time. See Understanding Basic Due Diligence: LSAT & LNAT Admissions Exams, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/07/26/understanding-basic-due-diligence-lsat-lnat-admissions-exams/)

(Source: https://x.com/Brit_blockchain/status/1143989536051093504; See PART I: Cal Evans of Gresham International is a Scammer, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/05/28/part-i-cal-evans-of-gresham-international-is-a-scammer/)
And yes, he did improperly capitalize his own name. I have no idea why. As stated above, the boy hates English, reality, and the truth.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Claiming defamation when faced with documented evidence of his own lies.
- Principle 3.1 – Be honest in all your dealings. Making false claims about qualifications and experience shows fundamental dishonesty.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Fabricating credentials damages public trust.
- Principle 8.1 – Maintain proper standards of work. Can’t even properly capitalize his own name in legal correspondence.
- “(Redact but clearly ‘Mr. Evans’) is not a ‘scammer’, has never ‘scammed’ or damaged any party and is a well respected (sic) lawyer based in the United Kingdom.”
Woof. At this point, almost every word is somehow wrong:
- Evans is absolutely a scammer. Lying about qualifications and background makes you a scammer by definition.
- The token holders of Giza, Ardana, Aubit/Freeway, Burency, and most recently in 2024, Viking Fehu would strongly disagree. (This doesn’t even touch the dozens of other pump and dumps where he served as “legal advisor” – many before even being licensed by CILEx.)
- Conservatively, he’s “advised” the above companies to approximately $180M in cumulative losses. That’s nearly $90K lost per day since his CILEx registration until November 25, 2024. Sounds like damage to me. Maybe that’s why he’s being sued for fraud in Wyoming? Perhaps he forgot about that?
- “Well respected (sic) lawyer” might be the funniest part of this entire letter. I’ve seen rabid dogs that are more well respected. Why? Because when he wrote this, he knew at the time of writing this letter that:
- Wisconsin’s Supreme Court had referred him for criminal investigation
- California had moved his case to Enforcement for unauthorized practice of law
- Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) had accepted the complaint about his unlicensed practice and awaited his response
Doesn’t sound very “well respected” to anyone with objective reasoning skills. See why he’s the Crypto Con Lawyer?
But the true coup de grâce of this absurd line was claiming to be “based in the United Kingdom.” A hilarious bluff since my articles have repeatedly pointed out he’s actually based in Wisconsin – and has been since 2020, according to his own declaration in the Wyoming fraud lawsuit.

(Source: Declaration of Callum Evans, June 4, 2024)
Yep, nearly every word in that sentence was a lie. I’m right a lot with this asshole. (For so many lies in one sentence asshole feels right here, dear reader).
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. The statement that Evans is a “well respected lawyer” is demonstrably false given the evidence of his misconduct.
- Principle 3.5 – Not hold yourself out as having a qualification or professional status that you do not possess. Evans is not a solicitor or barrister, only a CILEx legal executive with limited rights.
- Principle 3.1 – Be honest in all your dealings. Making multiple false statements about location, status, and conduct shows fundamental dishonesty.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Multiple regulatory bodies investigating his unauthorized practice demonstrates systemic non-compliance.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. The scale of financial losses and regulatory investigations severely damages public trust.
- “It contains defamatory content per se as it alleges criminal activity on the part of this firm, its team, clients, and members.”
Once again, it’s not defamation if it’s true. The evidence is compelling: he knowingly participated in several ICOs without a license, called himself a “legal advisor” while acting as a lawyer, and then “accidentally” helped these companies defraud people worldwide – all while claiming to be the “largest crypto only law firm.”
Don’t take my word for it though, listen to it here in his own words: BlockDown 3.0 – Cal Evans -Dealing with Money Laundering in the BitMex era, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcu8OSSzQE
Like I said, truth defeats defamation claims.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Claiming defamation when faced with documented evidence.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Demonstrating fundamental misunderstanding of defamation law.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making false legal claims damages public trust.
- “All of which are categorically untrue.”
Bahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha. Yep, just like he’s “based in the United Kingdom.”
Violations:
- Principle 3.1 – Be honest in all your dealings. Making blanket denials of documented misconduct shows fundamental dishonesty.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Each claim has been proven true with evidence.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Such blatant lying damages public trust.
- “It also circulates documents which have been misappropriated without permission of the client (sic) of this firm.”
Once again, as mentioned in Line 12, he’s talking about these legal opinions. Dear reader, these legal opinions are meant to be read by others – that’s literally their purpose. They’re written to aid in regulatory inquiries, token listing, market making services (which I’m sure Evans hasn’t used unlawfully), and answering whether a token or coin is a security. You can’t claim privilege or confidentiality when they’re made public to third parties. Real lawyers know this. Glorified paralegals do not.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. The documents were not misappropriated, they were publicly available.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Demonstrating fundamental misunderstanding of privilege and confidentiality.
- Principle 5.1 – Maintain competence in legal work. This shows basic incompetence regarding legal opinions.
- “Directly displaying this firms (sic) logo (which is trademarked) and using the logo and other protected images and content from this firm and its clients.”
There’s a lot to unpack here. I’m almost positive he doesn’t understand the difference between copyright and trademarks, but let’s just call it intellectual property since I’m sure he’ll claim I’m practicing law by explaining further. His remedy for his “firm’s logo” use would be copyright infringement via DMCA – which he tried and failed. I even offered to let him serve me electronically because I wanted to destroy him in federal court. He declined and sent this laughable letter instead.
The trademark component is one of my favorite claims because he doesn’t specify which mark or how it’s being violated. Presumably because he’d have to explain why his mark shouldn’t be used in articles exposing his fraud. Unironically, both copyright and trademark have exemptions for newsworthy material like these fraud-exposing articles. Fair use doctrine for the win! You’d think an “international lawyer” would know this – or at least know how to Google. (See https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-you-need-permission-use-trademarks.html and https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#)
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Each claim is demonstrably false.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Fair use applies to logos used for news reporting and documentary purposes. Trademark claim is irrelevant.
- Principle 4.3 – Not place others in breach of any regulatory requirement. Evans misuses legal concepts to try to place the hosting platform in breach.
- Principle 5.3 – Act only on matters within your competence. Shows fundamental misunderstanding of IP law.
- “As you will be aware, content produced for clients is subject to work product (sic) privilege.”
The fool doesn’t know the law, so why should we expect him to know ethics? Any first-year law student knows that once you give a document to a third party who isn’t your client, privilege doesn’t apply. This is basic stuff and further proof he’s either lying or too incompetent to practice law.
Violations:
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Public legal opinions are not privileged.
- Principle 5.1 – Maintain competence in legal work. Shows fundamental misunderstanding of basic legal concepts.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making false claims about privilege shows either deception or incompetence.
- “The website displays letters which are subject to a US Federal (sic) investigation for theft.”
Now this gets spicy! This means one of two things:
- It’s another lie, like half this letter, proving he’ll say anything to get his way, or
- He told the “Federal (sic) investigation” these documents were stolen – which puts him in seriously hot water for lying to the FBI (assuming that’s who he means by “Federal,” but he’s claimed it before so I assume FBI). Dear reader, Martha-fuckin-Stewart went to federal prison not for insider trading as many falsely believe, but for LYING TO THE FBI.
My soul hopes it’s number 2 and that it’s not a white collar prison he’s sent to.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Work product privilege doesn’t apply to marketing materials. There is no federal investigation.
- Principle 3.1 – Be honest in all your dealings. Either lying about a federal investigation or lying to federal investigators.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making false claims about federal investigations severely damages public trust.
- “That does not include documents marked as confidential from a state bar association and other documents which as also marked as confidential.”
Quick unpacking here: as a general rule (and not legal advice), a document can say anything it wants, but without a non-disclosure agreement, “to send to anyone else or I’ll shit in your office” is the only real threat you have. There’s no confidentiality for third parties without a contract! He should know this – and if he doesn’t, it’s further proof why he should never practice law. Or he could be lying which, as we’ve seen, wouldn’t be out of character.
Also regarding the bar documents – while confidentiality does apply by statute for lawyers, there’s lots of great case law about breaking it when little assholes run their mouth. Guess which one this dude did?
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Bar association documents were waived by Evans when he admitted filing “New York Bar association (sic)” complaints. He’s attempting to create nonexistent confidentiality claims.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Shows fundamental misunderstanding of confidentiality law.
- Principle 5.3 – Act only on matters within your competence. Making baseless confidentiality claims shows lack of basic legal knowledge.
- “All of these are breaches of various laws both in the United States and the United Kingdom.”
Yeah, at this point we all know they aren’t. I’d be impressed by this fool’s ability to lie but now you understand why the “con” in “crypto con lawyer” is like “con man” – it’s about confidence. His sheer level of confidently lying or being so confidently wrong about the law would almost be impressive if it wasn’t so dangerous to the investing public.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making blanket claims about legal violations without any basis.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Shows fundamental misunderstanding of both US and UK law.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making baseless legal threats damages public trust.
- “Breach The SiteGround (sic) terms specifically state that the Site (and Individual) may not (sic) will not post, sent, publish, upload, or transmit through the Services (sic) any Submission (sic) nor post any Contribution (sic) that is illegal, harassing, hateful, harmful, defamatory, obscene, bullying, abusive, discriminatory, threatening to any person or group, sexually explicit, false, inaccurate, deceitful, or misleading; (sic) to the extent permissible by applicable law, waive any and all moral rights to any such Submission (sic) and/or Contribution (sic); warrant that any such Submission (sic) and/or Contributions (sic) are original to you or that you have the necessary rights and license to submit such Submissions (sic) and/or Contributions (sic) and that you have full authority to grant us the above-mentioned rights in relationship to your Submission and/or Contributions; and warrant and represent that your Submission (sic) and/or Contribution (sic) do not constitute confidential information.”
The important points are: 1) Terms of Service do not give third-party rights, and 2) truth is a defense to all these alleged violations. This information, especially a thorough analysis of his lies and deceit like this article, is fundamentally critical to show the public what a lying and unscrupulous con man he is.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. The awkward drafting shows Evans’ legal limitations and the “may not will not” phrasing is nonsensical.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Evans is attempting to weaponize Terms of Service without any actual violations.
- Principle 5.1 – Maintain competence in legal work. Shows fundamental incompetence in basic contract interpretation.
- “You are solely responsible for your Submissions (sic) and/or Contributions (sic) and you expressly agree to reimburse us for any and all losses that we may suffer because of your breach…”
At this point, I can’t tell if it’s incompetence or blatant lies. This clause presumes there’s a claim, and that claim is successful. Evans and/or Gresham International have no claim therefore it cannot be successful. They are con men and woman. By associating with known scammers, you become a scammer yourself. This entire letter proves that, along with the over 100 possible violations of the CILEx Code of Conduct.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Attempting to create claims where none exist.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Fundamentally misunderstanding third-party rights.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making baseless threats damages public trust.
- “It is our opinion that the website has hosted by you, breaches every single one of those points.”
What points? That you lied throughout this letter Evans? I mean truly, it would be difficult to find another letter so full of lies and/or incompetency by someone who claims to be an “international lawyer.”
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. No specific violations are cited, and “every single one” is a hyperbolic claim.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Making blanket claims without any legal basis.
- Principle 5.3 – Act only on matters within your competence. Making sweeping legal claims without understanding basic principles.
- “(Redacted by SiteGround’s counsel) also reserves rights to the above claims for breach of terms as it relates to third parties.”
LOL. What claims? What breach? What rights? The poor boy doesn’t know his own United Kingdom law so he’s pulling things from his arse. It would be sad if it wasn’t such a flagrant attempt to stop the world from knowing he is a fraud. Yes, he’s an asshole and the Crypto Con Lawyer.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. The content was moved for organizational purposes, not in response to baseless claims.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Third-party rights claims show fundamental misunderstanding of UK law.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making meaningless legal threats damages public trust.
- “Damages As a result of the content posted on the Site, hosted by you, and the breach of your posted terms, (Redacted but clearly Gresham International) has suffered damages to its reputation both directly and per se.”
I know Gresham International and Evans have suffered reputational harm for their fraud, criminality, and deceit. They deserve it. However, breaching terms of service that don’t apply to a third party doesn’t give rise to that third party’s claim. This is basic legal stuff CILEx should have covered. Wait, he isn’t even a licensed practitioner with CILEx, so maybe they do!
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. No actual damages are specified, and truth is an absolute defense.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Misuses “per se” and demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding of damages.
- Principle 5.1 – Maintain competence in legal work. Shows basic incompetence regarding third-party rights.
- “The Site gives rise to the direct accusations of criminal actions and the involvement of its senior team member(s) (sic) being ‘scammers.'”
If you lie about qualifications to get clients, you’ve scammed them. That’s literally what people go to jail for. Claiming licenses, experience, or relationships with X, Y, or Z when you haven’t done that work is fraud. Look at all the clients he claimed on his former website:

(Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20211129203940/https://www.greshaminternational.net/)
Notice all the governments and crypto projects? Notice how they’re not on his new one?

(Source: https://www.gresham-international.com/)
That’s because it’s laughably unlikely he represented clients like the “Securities and Exchange Commission U.S.A.”
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. All criminal accusations are documented and the “scammer” claim is supported by evidence.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. False claims about client relationships damage public trust.
- Principle 3.1 – Be honest in all dealings. Misrepresenting client relationships shows fundamental dishonesty.
- “It also gives access to content which breaches your terms.”
What? I don’t even know what this means. My articles have prevented people worldwide from being scammed. They’ve uncovered and exposed Evans’ and Gresham International’s lies. Furthermore, just because someone breaks house rules doesn’t mean you get to cry and complain about it.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making vague claims without specifics is deliberately deceptive.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Shows fundamental misunderstanding of terms of service.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making nonsensical legal claims damages public trust.
- “Reliance is placed on your terms for all parties using the Site including (REDACTED) now seeks to recover those damages, including costs, fees, and interest.”
UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY IS HE MAKING THIS FALSE CLAIM?! I mean truly, utterly hilariously dumb. Like, making such a ridiculous assertion without citing one ounce of case law or statutory authority is nearly impressive. And, mind you dear reader, this is being sent to a LAW FIRM! Not just SiteGround! SiteGround’s outside counsel in Wisconsin!
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making baseless claims about recovery without legal authority.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Shows complete ignorance of basic legal principles.
- Principle 5.3 – Act only on matters within your competence. Making legal claims without understanding basic requirements.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Sending incompetent legal threats to actual lawyers damages public trust.
- “Action taken so far The matter was reported directly to you through the Site.”
I’m not sure why he feels the need to include “Action taken so far.” It only makes him look more incompetent and/or exposes his lies to an even greater extent. Evans is correct that he reported the “matter” through the Site – which was promptly disregarded because his claims are absurd. Then he filed an unlawful DMCA Takedown Notice against my articles. (See PART VIII: Cal Evans’ Disgraceful Attempt to Use the DMCA to Remove Content on this Website & His New Signature Line, https://dunsmoorlaw.com/2024/09/09/part-viii-cal-evans-disgraceful-attempt-to-use-the-dmca-to-remove-content-on-this-website-his-new-signature-line/)
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Attempting to make failed complaints sound official.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Pattern of baseless complaints damages public trust.
- “A DMCA notice (sic) was also made to attempt to remove content under US Law (sic).”
Yep, the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) not only does not apply to content that is considered newsworthy or falls under fair use, but it also provides protections against abusive or frivolous takedown notices. Importantly, there is a three-year statute of limitations for filing counterclaims related to such notices. I’ll be sure to circle back before then!
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. This statement admits a failed attempt to abuse the DMCA process.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Shows fundamental misunderstanding of DMCA fair use.
- “However, it was not removed for unspecified reasons.”
Utterly false. The content was removed and moved to alternative hosting services – which he admits below. Like I said, I’m not sure if it’s lies or just sheer incompetence.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making false claims about content removal.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Demonstrates complete ignorance of DMCA procedures.
- “Including during a 14 day (sic) period where the content still remained on the website.”
It’s up to 14 days. It was removed for the required time as he admits in the next sentence. See 17 U.S. Code § 512 “(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512). The sheer level of stupidity is incredible.
Violations:
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Evans misunderstands the DMCA process and timeline.
- Principle 5.1 – Maintain competence in legal work. Shows basic incompetence regarding statutory requirements.
- “It was simply relocated to another domain on the same website.”
Haha and this is proof he’s either so incompetent it should be illegal or just lying for personal gain. Moving hosted content does nothing to the DMCA Takedown Notice. It’s only provided to the host of that content for the site they can control. This highlights either a profound misunderstanding of the DMCA or a calculated attempt to deceive. A DMCA takedown notice applies to content hosted on a specific domain managed by the hosting provider identified in the notice. Moving the infringing material to a different domain or website doesn’t invalidate the original notice but rather shifts the issue to a new platform. A fresh DMCA notice would need to be sent to the hosting provider of the new website. Remember he calls himself a “technology lawyer.” So much for the technology and lawyer parts of that title.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. The content was moved for organizational purposes, not in response to baseless claims.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Shows fundamental misunderstanding of how DMCA notices work.
- Principle 3.5 – Not hold yourself out as having qualifications you don’t possess. Claims technology law expertise while demonstrating ignorance.
- “Despite obviously being in breach of your terms and being defamatory, it still remains hosted by you.”
Remember, the “con” in “con man,” once again, stands for confidence. The level of confidence someone must have to utter this sentence is only exceeded by the absurdity of the following sentence in this unlawful attempt to extort SiteGround.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making baseless claims about defamation and breaches.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Demonstrates complete ignorance of defamation law.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Attempting to intimidate with false legal claims.
- “As a result, you no longer hold any protections or limitations of liability for the content provided.”
CITE ALL THE CASES. CITE ONE CASE. CITE ONE STATUTE. He can’t. He knows he can’t. He knows the law isn’t on his side yet he’s blatantly and flagrantly lying to a US-trained and licensed lawyer, though we’ve seen what type of disdain he has for U.S. lawyers. This single statement should be enough to have him permanently barred from CILEx.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making completely false claims about legal protections.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Shows total ignorance of Section 230 and host protections.
- Principle 5.3 – Act only on matters within your competence. Making legal claims without any understanding of applicable law.
- “This letter also services as a second, official notice of such content being on the site (sic).”
So? As highlighted above, his inability to cite any case law, statute, or regulatory authority – other than improperly citing the DMCA and his failed attempt to use that to silence me – is just a second attempt to show he’s utterly incompetent and/or a bare-faced lying asshole.
Violations:
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Section 230 protections apply regardless of this “notice.”
- Principle 5.6 – Not act where you don’t have authority. Evans cannot file such action as a CILEx member.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making meaningless threats without legal basis.
- “We will ask the judge to consider the same in the ruling for failure to remove.”
The strange appeal to authority is like a condemned man praying for divine intervention from a divinity that only exists in his mind. No judge, no authority, no case law, no statutory authority provides any reasoning behind this statement. It’s purely an emotional plea – the legal equivalent of “I’m gonna tell on you” when there’s no one to tell.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making empty threats about nonexistent judicial remedies.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Shows complete ignorance of legal process.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making childish threats damages public trust.
- “Next Steps We would ask you to remove the content within the next 10 (sic) days (ten) (sic).”
It’s nice that he’s asking and not telling but once again, with what authority? His made-up complaint and poor and/or intentional misunderstanding of the law is absolutely actionable by all parties at this point. (I won’t get into that for legal reasons because he’ll claim I’m practicing law by explaining how he could be found liable for tortious interference and criminal fraudulent inducement in certain U.S. jurisdictions which would have personal jurisdiction over him.)
Violations:
- Principle 3.5 – Not hold yourself out as having a qualification or professional status that you do not possess. Evans has no authority to make such demands or set arbitrary deadlines.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Making demands without legal basis.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Empty threats damage public trust.
- “We are allowing 10 (sic) days due to the distance and time to could take this letter to reach you.”
It’s highly unlikely this letter came from London given that his mailing address, which is incorrectly listed on his website (71-75 Shelton St. Covent Garden, London, WC2 9JQ, UK. instead of WC2H 9JQ; which means a lot in the UK), is a glorified WeWork type place with over 800,000 matches and presumably 100,000 active companies using that location for mail according to UK Company House Directory. However, it’s highly likely it came from Wisconsin, which he knows is where he lives.

(Source: Fourth Department’s Response to Evans First Bar Complaint, August, 2, 2021. Note confidentiality was waived when he started claiming he’d reported me to the “New York Bar association (sic).”)
Violations:
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. The “distance” reasoning is irrelevant for email and shows fundamental misunderstanding of digital communications.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making false implications about location.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Using deceptive business addresses damages public trust.
- “We would also ask for security that the account associated with this Individual is disabled”
For security? Security from what? Exposing his fraud scheme? Highlighting the fact that there are 130+ lies and misrepresentations and he knows that I’m going to destroy his case in Wisconsin and then bring him to federal court for every ounce of his financial worth?
Violations:
- Principle 4.3 – Not place others in breach of any regulatory requirement. Evans has no authority to demand account closure.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making vague security claims to justify censorship.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Attempting to silence legitimate criticism.
- “If the content is still present and the website still active, we will be filing for removal of the content including seeking damages, fees, and any interest award.”
Under. What. Authority? It’s utterly incredible the amount of lies and violations he’s packed into this single 3½-page letter, but to double down on this for like the 5th time is breaching a level of insanity that may explain his behavior and attempt to circumvent culpability. “See judge, I’m too crazy to stand trial.” Time will tell.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making repeated empty threats shows pattern of deception.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Cannot cite any legal basis for claims.
- Principle 5.6 – Not act where you don’t have authority. Evans lacks standing to bring such actions.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Repeated baseless threats damage public trust.
- “As you will be aware, United States (sic) and the United Kingdom recognize judgements (sic) as awarded within their respective countries.”
Phrasing! – Archer. How is anyone “aware” when no case law, statute, or treaty is cited? Ah, the lie/competency meter is really working overtime today.
Violations:
- Principle 3.5 – Not hold yourself out as having a qualification you don’t possess. Evans cannot file litigation as a CILEx member.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Evans has no standing in U.S. courts and misrepresents international judgment enforcement.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Making false claims about international law damages public trust.
- “We would likewise look for costs associated with enforcement of the judgement (sic) in United States (sic).”
Double overtime! Think about this: you’re bragging you’ll win because all the facts are on your side and this case is such a slam dunk that when you win you’re going to bring that judgment AND COSTS over to the undisputed heavyweight champion of litigation, the United States, without citing a single authority? None? Like really? Oh, that’s right – because it’s all bullshit and this letter is literally not worth the paper it’s written on. Just like Evans’ CILEx license.
Violations:
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Can’t even spell “judgment,” shows complete ignorance of enforcement procedures.
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Making empty threats about international enforcement.
- Principle 5.3 – Act only on matters within your competence. Shows total ignorance of international law.
- “We trust this letter has made our position clear.”
It’s made crystal clear that he is (1) a con man of the highest order, (2) has no understanding of law in the United States, United Kingdom or international law, (3) presumably committed fraud by stating this so falsely and without authority, (4) is definitely worthy of the title Crypto Con Lawyer, and (5) an asshole.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. The only clear thing is his incompetence and deception.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. This entire letter damages public trust.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Shows systematic failure to understand basic legal concepts.
- “Should you require any further clarification you can contact us at the email address below (for speed).”
WE ALL NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION!!!!!
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. The only thing clear is Evans’ legal incompetence.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. The email “for speed” statement contradicts his earlier “distance” excuse.
- Principle 5.6 – Not act where you don’t have authority. Attempting to sound official while exceeding authority.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. The entire letter is an embarrassment to the legal profession.
59. “We will note that your counsel, the (Redacted by me) Law Firm have been professional and respectful when communicating with us.”
This idiot sent this to a solo practitioner and then refers to her like this after addressing the letter to “Sirs.” (see below). Now he’s trying to butter her up with this horse shit.
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. This statement is an attempt to appear reasonable while making unreasonable demands.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. The contrast between “Sirs” and praising female counsel shows either incompetence or deliberate disrespect.
- Principle 6.1 – Treat everyone fairly and without prejudice. Demonstrating gender bias while attempting to appear professional.
60. “We appreciate their professional nature and sincerely believe that this issue can be resolved.”
Dear reader, this dude sent it to the “Counsel (sic) for the Company”!!!!! Why is he referring to them in the third person? I’m sure this is a ploy to evoke sympathy.

(Source: This fool’s letter; see below)
Violations:
- Principle 3.2 – Not intentionally mislead anyone you deal with. Using manipulative language to create false impression of reasonableness.
- Principle 4.1 – Understand and comply with law and regulation. Demonstrating fundamental misunderstanding of proper legal correspondence.
- Principle 2.2 – Not engage in conduct that undermines confidence in the profession. Using manipulative tactics in legal correspondence damages public trust.
61. “We look forward to speedy resolution of this matter.”
Speedy resolution to what exactly? The matter of his hundred-plus violations of CILEx’s Code of Ethics? His fraudulent legal opinions? His unauthorized practice across multiple jurisdictions? Ha. Yeah, right. This is just the beginning of dismantling the Gre-shame “empire.”
Violations:
- Principle 3.5 – Not hold yourself out as having a qualification or professional status that you do not possess. The lack of a signature block identifying Evans’ CILEx status and his failure to disclose his limited practice rights are misleading.
- Principle 5.6 – Not act in a matter where you do not have the right or are not authorized to act. The entire letter constitutes unauthorized practice by Evans.
62. “Regards”
Since Evans has a habit of not signing his name or even providing a name of the author document. However, given this one is so redacted I have not been able to determine if he signed it or provided a name of its drafter. That being said, it is abundantly clear with the massive amount of grammatical, spelling, and capitalization errors that the drafter is Callum Tony Evans of Gresham International. (I’m not a grammar guru but damn he hates the English language.)
Violations:
- Principle 2.1 – Must advise of professional status and authorization. Failing to identify CILEx status and practice limitations.
- Principle 3.1 – Be honest in all your dealings. Obscuring authorship and authority is deceptive.
- Principle 8.1 – Maintain proper standards of work. Poor grammar and writing quality falls below professional standards.
III. Analysis of Code Violations
This single letter constitutes perhaps the most comprehensive collection of CILEx Code violations ever documented in one correspondence. Across 62 analyzed segments, Evans/Gresham International manages to violate the Code 153 times – averaging 2.5 violations per paragraph. This isn’t mere incompetence; it represents a calculated pattern of deception and unauthorized practice.
The violations concentrate in three critical areas:
- Intentionally Misleading Statements (57 instances of Principle 3.2 violations)
- Unauthorized Practice/Legal Ignorance (48 instances of Principle 4.1 violations)
- Undermining Professional Trust (42 instances of Principle 2.2 violations)
The systematic nature of these violations demonstrates this isn’t about isolated mistakes or misunderstandings. Evans repeatedly:
- Makes claims without legal basis
- Threatens actions he has no authority to take
- Misrepresents his qualifications and authority
- Attempts to intimidate through deception
- Abuses legal processes for personal gain
This letter alone provides overwhelming evidence for immediate suspension and investigation.
IV. The Conclusion to This Insanity, For Good
In analyzing this letter, we find not just violations of professional ethics but a comprehensive assault on the very foundations of legal practice. Nearly every line contains multiple violations of CILEx’s Code of Conduct, demonstrating Evans’ pattern of exceeding his authority, misrepresenting facts and law, and engaging in unauthorized practice.
The financial impact is staggering: in the 2,040 days between Evans obtaining his CILEx license and this complaint, documented investor losses have averaged $88,431 per day – nearly $100,000 in investor funds vanishing daily at current market prices – culminating in total losses approaching $180.4 million USD.
This misconduct demands immediate action:
- Immediate suspension of Evans’ practice rights
- Full investigation of all documented violations
- Coordination with international regulatory bodies
- Consideration of criminal referral
- Public condemnation of these practices
The trust and credibility of CILEx are at stake. Only by imposing severe, public sanctions can CILEx restore faith in its ability to police misconduct and safeguard the integrity of the profession.
Hopefully this time CILEx will not wait nearly two years to resolve this matter and, ideally, not do so in his favor despite overwhelming evidence of his fraud. In the meantime, I will continue to warn the public at large about his abhorrent behavior and assholish ways to the best of my ability. Zealous advocacy only ends when the bell rings and, in the famous words of philosopher Randy Marsh, “I didn’t hear no bell.” (Source: I Didn’t Hear No Bell – SOUTH PARK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCBbxjwSboQ)
P.S. – PART XI, formerly PART X, Gresham International and the Co-conspirators, Accomplices, and/or Complacent Organizations in the Multimillion-Dollar Web of Deceit has been moved to January. I want to give everyone time to hear their side of the story and disavow and/or deplatform Evans and Gresham International publicly if they choose to do so. As Evans said, “you’ll never be able to get rid of bad actors but what you can do is not give them avenue.” (Source: Web3TV, https://www.instagram.com/reel/Csdn_4hAUm4/)




Yep. He’s an asshole and the Crypto Con Lawyer.