Christopher Ambrose Fails at Everything But One Special Talent

Christopher Ambrose likes to claim he is good at many things. In his Connecticut divorce case, he spent substantial time providing evidence of what a “good” father he is. Before the divorce, Ambrose was an absentee father for much of his children’s lives, pursuing a career as a screenwriter in Hollywood and New York City.

At the same time, his ex-wife, Karen Riordan, was the sole caretaker for their children.

In Hollywood, Ambrose spent serious time convincing everyone in the industry that he was a “good” script writer. In reality, he was a plagiarist.

In 2018, Ambrose lost his Hollywood writing career because of allegations of plagiarism.

Good Dad

When he returned to CT after losing his career, Ambrose took on the role of a good dad.

He began by alienating the children, taking all the marital assets, and fighting to deprive the children of their mother, their primary attachment figure.

The children are unhappy, even after three years without their mother, and refer to Ambrose not by the word dad or father but as Creepy Cree or P, which stands for Pinocchio. 

The abuse these children have experienced over the last few years fills pages of Frank Report. In a complaint with the CT State Attorney General, there were scores of audio and videos the children made of their father punishing them or abusing them. You may argue that it is wrong for children to document the abuses of their father, but as they have said on social media and elsewhere, no one believes them because P is such a persuasive liar.

At one point, Ambrose took the doorknobs off the doors of the children so they could not keep him out of their rooms. He did that on Christmas Day. 

A good father and good husband, he is not.

Litigious

Frank Report can only describe Ambrose’s recent activities in Connecticut as highly litigious. Ambrose likes to take people to court. This includes his ex-wife and mother of his children, an old family friend and godmother of one of the children, and this publication, Frank Report.

Ambrose recently went to Connecticut Family Court to get a judge to stop the children’s mother from seeing the children. He argued that she should never see her children because she did not stop Frank Parlato from publishing the truth about his misdeeds. He failed.

For someone so litigious, Ambrose is not a “good” client. Just ask CT Attorney Nancy Aldrich. She filed a lawsuit against Ambrose, her former client, claiming he failed to pay her $65,767 in legal fees. At her $600 per hour billing rate, she claims the former TV writer stole about 100 hours of her time.

Why pay the attorney an unpaid fee after she finishes her work?

Now Christopher Ambrose, blackballed from the Connecticut Bar for non-payment (even sharks don’t eat their own) (and blackballed from Hollywood for plagiarism), is off to tilt at his next windmill. Ambrose tries to convince the world that he is a “good” lawyer.

 

Christopher Ambrose

Ambrose sued Frank Parlato and this publication in Connecticut Superior Court. Parlato removed the case to Federal Court, and two motions are now pending. Ambrose wants the case remanded back to the Connecticut State Court.

Parlato asked US District Court Judge Michael P. Shea to throw the case out based on a multitude of defects. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson. Ambrose represents himself.

For the record, no one ever said Ambrose was a good lawyer. And his work on Ambrose v. Parlato probably proves that no one ever will.

To Ambrose’s credit, he graduated from NYU Law School, a highly reputed school. But it is still being determined if he ever actively practiced law.

He did serve a stint for a not-for-profit that helped homeless Latino boys find shelter, among other duties. 

As a lawyer, Ambrose was previously licensed in New York State. However, the New York Unified Court System website says he was suspended from law practice on November 13, 2006, by the Appellate Division for a Violation of the Judiciary Law.

Not having an active law license did not prevent this father of three children from removing the mother from his children’s lives, keeping all the marital assets, and absconding with their mother’s inheritance in Connecticut Family Court, where money, whether stolen or otherwise, rules the day.

Ambrose’s complaint alleges Parlato’s words not only defamed him, but caused “emotional distress” and a “privacy violation.”

The filed document is a 33-page, sometimes rambling mishmash. It is hard to imagine anyone who could produce such papers was ever admitted to the Bar. Ambrose may have been banking on the same CT State Court actors who did the bidding of his attorney, paid by him with money taken from his wife, coming to his aid.

It is almost as if Ambrose was absent the day they taught the First Amendment at NYU.

He ignores that he is suing a journalist and media outlet for reporting and disseminating the fruits of their newsgathering.

Under the First Amendment’s “press clause,” this is protected activity unless Ambrose can show actual malice. That is, with the knowledge that the reporting was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false.

Investigative journalist Frank Parlato appears on TNT.

In the 33 pages of his meandering complaint, Ambrose baldly states Frank Report’s publication of “at least 48 articles” shows “a sinister or corrupt motive to injure [Ambrose].” His only problem is that he failed to assert any facts to support these allegations, as any good or even not-so-good lawyer would.

Parlato wrote about Ambrose on newsworthy matters. Ambrose is upset that he was the subject of Parlato and Frank Report’s journalistic coverage. Ambrose claims Parlato defamed him, and his words were so defamatory and false that the comments breached Ambrose’s privacy, destroyed his reputation, and caused Ambrose extreme emotional distress.

He even alleged that Parlato’s stories made him suicidal – which he might have thought would win sympathy but should, in reality, cause authorities to investigate his fitness as a parent.

Ambrose never served Parlato legally with papers. Still, Parlato responded anyway when he found out Ambrose purportedly claimed the Connecticut Superior Court should issue a default judgment against him.

Parlato filed a Notice of Removal to the Federal Court in New Haven, getting the case out of CT state court. Parlato does not live in CT. Parlato asked the US District Court to throw out the case on the absence of “actual malice” and other grounds.

Parlato’s papers said: 

Surprisingly, since Mr. Ambrose is a lawyer, Mr. Ambrose does not recognize several important legal distinctions like statements of fact versus statements of opinion, or statements of fact based upon source materials and/or published court documents. Every statement objectionable to Mr. Ambrose is either a non-actionable opinion or a true statement of fact. Mr. Parlato is not liable for any of the activity alleged by Mr. Ambrose.

Parlato’s words and actions were part of his and Frank Report’s legitimate investigative, newsgathering, reporting, and publishing activity. Parlato’s activities were the creation, utterance, publication, and dissemination of words. In all Ambrose’s 33-page Complaint, Ambrose fails to say how Frank Report’s reporting was done with actual malice.

In the Ambrose matter, Frank Report published stories based on already-public documents, interviews, and statements. Parlato also injected opinion and commentary into his articles. None of these things is an activity Ambrose can go to court and sue over.

Even what Ambrose purports to identify as “actionable” is laughable. He advanced this “laundry list” in his big-on-bluster, short-on-substance Complaint:

1. Parlato maliciously and falsely published that Ambrose is a pedophile who sexually abused his children. (Page 8)
2. Parlato maliciously and falsely published that Ambrose admitted to viewing child pornography and that he is attracted to children. (page 9)
3. Parlato maliciously and falsely published that Ambrose admitted to viewing gay pornography and producing child and gay pornography. (page 11)
4. Parlato maliciously and falsely published that Ambrose stole over $1 million from Riordan and an alleged six-figure inheritance. (page 11)
5. Parlato maliciously and falsely published that Ambrose is a “deadbeat” who did not financially support his wife once he filed for divorce in July 2019. (page 13)
6. Parlato falsely and maliciously published that Ambrose “hates” his children and was an absentee parent who abused his children by, among other things, keeping them “caged,” keeping them medicated, preventing them from communicating with anyone, isolating them from Riordan’s extended family and friends. (page 14)
7. Parlato falsely and maliciously published that Ambrose was awarded custody because he lied in an affidavit and prevented Riordan from seeing the children. (page 18)
8. Parlato falsely and maliciously published that Ambrose always wanted sole custody and all the marital assets for himself. Hence, he lied and colluded with and/or bribed the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem, custody evaluator, and others. (page 19)
9. Parlato falsely and maliciously published that Ambrose illicitly colluded with the GAL, custody evaluator, attorneys, judges, police officers and detectives, DCF investigators, caseworkers, hospital doctors, nurses, and social workers, elected and appointed public
   officials, and others in a vast “RICO” conspiracy to deprive Riordan of custody and her due process rights.
10. Parlato falsely and maliciously published that Ambrose misrepresented his sexuality and was unfaithful during marriage by leading a “double life” that included an illicit “gay lover” and “multiple, multi-year affairs.” (page 24)
11. Parlato maliciously and falsely publishes that Ambrose is psychologically unwell, has a drinking problem and anger issues, and is paranoid and delusional. (page 25)

Ambrose has failed to establish any actual malice in Parlato’s practice of journalism. Moreover, nothing Parlato published was false.

Ambrose admits the Multi-Disciplinary Task Force at Yale New Haven Hospital made a report that made disturbing disclosures of a sexual nature involving allegations of pedophilia against Ambrose.

Ambrose does not deny the report. Yale isn’t being sued. Parlato’s reporting on those issues is based, in part, on the Yale Report.

Ambrose admits there was a custody evaluation. Parlato’s reporting is based on the custody evaluation by the Connecticut Family Court. Ambrose does not deny the report. Neither the Connecticut Family Court nor the Custody Evaluator are being sued. Parlato’s reporting is based, in part, on the Family Court Evaluator’s report.

Ambrose told the Custody Evaluator that “a website [allegedly found on his computer] called Latino Boiz… does not include children.”

If Ambrose never viewed Latino Boiz, how does he know it does not include children?

Considering Ambrose has three adopted Latino children, and considering Yale Hospital reported that the children claimed he molested at least one of the boys, this reporting does not show malice, and might be cause for concern in almost any place outside of CT Family Court.

The reporting was based on documents.

Ambrose admits there was a forensic evaluation of his laptop computers. Ambrose does not deny the findings. Ambrose only denies the expert methodology, which is newsworthy.

Parlato’s reporting is based, in part, on the forensic evaluation.

Ambrose does not deny the actual report. The Forensic Evaluator is not being sued. Parlato’s reporting is based on the Forensic Evaluator’s report.

Ambrose is a party to the lawsuit Ambrose v. Ambrose, FBT-FA-19-6088163-S (Sup. Ct. Conn). Ambrose knows the allegations of both parties. He knows that all the claims reported by Parlato were allegations contained in the filed court documents. Ambrose does not deny it. Parlato’s reporting is based partly on the filed court documents.

Karen Riordan is not being sued. The Connecticut Superior Court is not being sued.

By bringing the lawsuit, Ambrose, the “good” lawyer, has (wittingly or unwittingly) made his children witnesses in this case. If the children were traumatized before, why would Mr. Ambrose do this again?

None of the factual claims enumerated by Ambrose allege any activity that would put Frank Parlato of the Frank Report on the hook. Nothing Parlato allegedly did was malicious. Truth is a complete defense.

All activities and reporting by Parlato and the Frank Report were textbook examples of newsgathering and reporting, all First Amendment-protected activity. Ambrose’s real gripe is simple: all the reporting was about him and wasn’t endearing. Ambrose says:

101. That Parlato’s published falsehoods have incited people to hate Plaintiff is apparent from the comments of his own readers, who make blistering, libelous statements and threats, all of which Parlato publishes. Not surprisingly, virtually every one of these comments published by Parlato are attributed to “anonymous”.

102.Parlato often publishes confidential material to give his a veneer of credibility and”insider” knowledge to his false assertions, even as he omits material facts and context that create a wholly false light impression of Plaintiff.

Ambrose admits Parlato is a journalist who publishes articles. The crux of Ambrose’s allegations is that Parlato’s reports are unbalanced, unfavorable, and mean. Ambrose ignores the strong protections afforded to the press under the First Amendment. Because of these protections, Ambrose failed to meet the high bar required so the Judge won’t throw the case out:

“A court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the press by requiring the press to present an article or broadcast in what the court believes is a balanced manner. It may only assess liability when the press so oversteps its editorial freedom that it contains falsity and does so with the requisite degree of fault.” Machleder v. Diaz, 801 F.2d 46, 48 (2d Cir. 1986)

Ambrose filed a Motion to Remand the case back to Connecticut State Court. Parlato filed opposition, tearing Ambrose to pieces:

Plaintiff [Ambrose] should not be rewarded for an inartful pleading attempting to disguise a defamation claim as another claim, thus circumventing an assertion of jurisdiction the Connecticut Legislature never intended to allow. Mr. Ambrose is an attorney, he should know better, and his pleadings should be better.

The motion is pending before Robert A. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Connecticut.

This week, Ambrose continued his “legal adventure.” He sent a letter to Parlato demanding he preserves all evidence. Ambrose references the removed Connecticut State Court case. He then proceeds to make demands under “Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” the request used in Federal Court.

Ambrose, the “good” lawyer, doesn’t know where he is. Even a braindead lawyer knows whether he is in State or Federal Court.
Ambrose is apparently “getting loaded for bear.” He announced he would request a mountain of evidence from Parlato if the judge doesn’t throw the case out:

In connection with the case, I will be seeking electronic data and paper files in your custody and control. I consider these to be valuable and irreplaceable sources of discoverable information. Accordingly, I place you, the websites, and any successors and assigns, on notice to preserve any data referencing or pertaining to the case and/or me and/or any of my children. In addition, I place you, the websites, and any successors and assigns, on notice not to allow the deletion or destruction of any electronic or paper communications, including any ESI identified above.

I am confident that you and the websites have already taken steps to preserve this data since, as an experienced litigant, you are aware of the obligation to preserve relevant evidence. Therefore, no procedures should have been implemented to alter active, deleted, or fragmented data. Moreover, no electronic data should have been disposed of or destroyed. I further trust that you will preserve such electronic data and paper files throughout this litigation.

One has to question whether Ambrose, the “good” lawyer, has thought his strategy through. He is looking for a practically limitless trove of materials to be reviewed by his legal team of one.

Christopher Ambrose is not managing this case as a good lawyer or even a sane one.

Ambrose has not been good. As a husband, as apparent from the facts in his divorce proceeding, he was absentee while pursuing his writing career. Hollywood ran away from Ambrose because of his plagiarism. His former lawyers are chasing him for unpaid fees. So what exactly is Christopher Ambrose “good” at?

In my opinion, Christopher Ambrose is an expert at one thing: deception. He deceived Karen Riordan into thinking he was a nice enough guy to marry and start a family with. He then deceived her into practically sole child care while he was out in Hollywood trying to “make it big.”

While in Tinsel Town, he deceived his way through writing gigs until the truth was uncovered: as a writer, he was talentless and had to plagiarize and steal others’ ideas to survive.

Once back in Connecticut, Ambrose saw the opportunity to bilk his wife out of her assets, inheritance, and children by deceiving the Connecticut Family Court. He advanced, among other things, his children’s less than enthusiastic attitude about being with him was “parental alienation” caused by his wife.

He deceived Nancy Aldrich into believing he would pay her bills.
Now, he’s trying to deceive a Federal Court judge that Frank Parlato is anything other than a reporter, a media man and that he, Ambrose, is not responsible for all the bad things anyone has ever said about him.

The problem with relying upon deception is that you can begin to deceive yourself. Christopher Ambrose is well past that phase. His words and actions lead to the inescapable conclusion that the man is highly delusional. But you’ll never hear him say it.

No one is good at everything, except if your name is Christopher Ambrose.