LUTHMANN NOTE: Ambrose didn’t lose this case—he detonated it. You don’t get bounced out of federal court because the judge misunderstood you. You get bounced because your own sworn story doesn’t survive contact with your own records. That’s what happened here. Judge Nagala didn’t speculate—she compared what Ambrose said under oath with what he later produced, and the gap swallowed the case whole. For a lawyer, that’s not a bad break. That’s a credibility collapse. He can refile, sure. But every future judge will read this order first. In litigation, trust is currency—and Ambrose just filed bankruptcy on it. This piece is “Breaking — Lee Defeats Ambrose,” first available on TheFamilyCourtCircus.com.
By Richard Luthmann
(NEW HAVEN, CT) – Disgraced Hollywood writer Christopher Ambrose’s federal case against famed psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee is dead. This time, the court killed it because Ambrose’s own financial story collapsed under scrutiny.
In a sharp April 15 ruling, U.S. District Judge Sarala V. Nagala threw out Ambrose’s $5 million lawsuit against Dr. Lee, finding that his sworn claims of poverty were not just flawed—they were false. The judge did not hedge. She did not soften the language. She went straight to the point: “Plaintiff’s subsequent submissions prove this admission and render his allegation of poverty untrue.”
The judge found that Ambrose omitted income and asset information from the sworn financial affidavit that allowed him to sue without paying the filing fee. The court then held that dismissal was mandatory.
The case, Ambrose v. Lee, No. 3:25-cv-00398-SVN, began in March 2025 when Ambrose sued Lee for $5 million in the District of Connecticut. He filed the case pro se and sought to proceed in forma pauperis. Judge Nagala initially granted that request on March 19, 2025. A year later, after Lee challenged the truth of Ambrose’s poverty affidavit, the judge ordered Ambrose to turn over financial records for March 2025, including bank accounts, retirement accounts, investment accounts, business accounts tied to Eyes Above Productions, Inc., and a copy of his lease.
Ambrose tried to contain the damage. He filed an emergency motion for a protective order on April 9, 2026, asking the court to block disclosure of his financial information. Judge Nagala denied it the next day. She wrote that Rule 26(c) did not apply because discovery had not even begun. She also noted that the court had already protected the actual financial records by allowing them to be filed under seal. Ambrose’s deadline to produce the records stayed in place.
Then came the filings that finished him.
Breaking — Lee Defeats Ambrose: The Judge Said the Record Proved It
On April 14, Ambrose filed financial exhibits under seal, along with a supplemental declaration and notice of compliance. One day later, Judge Nagala granted sealing only in part. She kept the account records and lease sealed, but she refused to keep Ambrose’s unsolicited explanatory filings hidden. The judge said those filings were not required by the court, did not reveal significant personal financial information, and only “apparently seek to explain Plaintiff’s prior submissions to the Court.” She also refused to give Ambrose an extra fourteen days to fight over sealing them.
Hours later, the real blow landed. In the dismissal order, Nagala wrote that Ambrose had already admitted omitting assets from his affidavit. She then said his later submissions “prove this admission and render his allegation of poverty untrue.” The judge identified two core problems.
First, Ambrose’s supplemental declaration said he received a residual royalty payment of $169.45 in November 2024. That contradicted his March 17, 2025, IFP application, where he said he had received no income in the prior twelve months from business, self-employment, or any other source. Second, his IFP application stated that he did not own any “stocks, bonds, securities.” In reality, his own filings showed otherwise.
As Judge Nagala wrote, “This statement is contradicted by Plaintiff’s Fidelity IRA portfolio, which reflects substantial stock holdings.”
The court found that Ambrose had failed to disclose income, including a residual royalty payment, and had falsely claimed he owned no securities.
Ambrose tried to explain the discrepancy. He argued that he believed retirement accounts did not count, citing student aid rules. He also claimed he was rushed when he filled out the form. The court rejected both excuses outright.
“The IFP application is not a federal student aid form,” Judge Nagala wrote, cutting through the argument.
She went further. Even if Ambrose had been rushed, it would not have mattered.
“He provides no explanation for why he would have been rushed… and even if he did, it would not excuse an affirmative misrepresentation.”
Then came the line that framed the entire case: Ambrose is not an unsophisticated litigant. He is a trained lawyer. And the court treated him that way.
“Plaintiff is an attorney, and is not entitled to the same solicitude as a regular pro se litigant.”
That distinction mattered. It stripped away any leniency. That is as close as a federal judge gets to calling a litigant a liar in plain English.
Breaking — Lee Defeats Ambrose: No Comment From the Loser
We asked Christopher Ambrose for comment about Judge Nagala’s Order. As of press time, he has not responded. Here is what we asked:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Thursday, April 16th, 2026 at 12:27 AM
Subject: Final Call: Your Case Was Tossed—Judge Says Your Poverty Claim Was “Untrue” – Is Chris Ambrose a LIAR?
To: ca0515@aol.com <ca0515@aol.com>
CC: Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Timothy Thomas <charlotteobservernews1@gmail.com>, Paul Boyne <paboyne@gmail.com>, Tina.Swithin@gmail.com <Tina.Swithin@gmail.com>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, juliea005 <juliea005@proton.me>, Attorney Tricia S. Lindsay <tricialindsaylaw@gmail.com>, manuelgomez802@gmail.com <manuelgomez802@gmail.com>, Bandy Lee <bandyleemd@gmail.com>
Mr. Ambrose,
We’re going to press on Judge Sarala V. Nagala’s April 15 order dismissing your case against Dr. Bandy X. Lee. The headline writes itself: your lawsuit didn’t die on the merits—it died on your paperwork and lies.
The Court didn’t mince words. It found your sworn poverty claim “untrue,” cited omitted income and undisclosed securities, rejected your explanations, and said the law left “no discretion” but to dismiss. In short, you asked for a fee waiver, the record didn’t back up your false claims of poverty, and the case is now closed.
Before we publish, you get one shot to square the circle:
– You told a federal judge you had no securities. Your own filings show stocks. What should readers call that?
– When you checked “no income,” what exactly did you think a royalty payment was—fiction?
– If this was just a mistake, why did every “mistake” cut in the same direction, making you look poorer?
– Did you actually read the form you signed under penalty of perjury?
– The judge said your explanation doesn’t excuse an “affirmative misrepresentation.” What part of that do you disagree with?
– You’re a trained attorney. Are you asking the public to believe you didn’t understand a basic financial disclosure form?
– If the court hadn’t ordered disclosures, would these omissions ever have been corrected?
– Are you prepared for potential disciplinary and/or collateral consequences stemming from this ruling?
– Do you accept responsibility for the inaccuracies, or is this still someone else’s fault?
– Did you expect the court not to check your financial claims?
– The court treated you as an attorney, not a layperson. Do you think that hurt you here?
– If you refile, why should any court trust your disclosures or your truthfulness the second time around?
– You argued you were “rushed.” Rushed into signing a sworn statement—or rushed into getting caught?
You tried to seal the records. The Court only partially agreed—and specifically declined to hide your explanatory filings. If there’s a context that changes the picture, this is your moment to provide it.
Also, you can tell us all about LATINBOYSBLOG.COM:
Now is your chance to correct the record with facts. We’re on deadline. Silence will be taken as no comment.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Tips or Story Ideas:
(239) 631-5957
richard.luthmann@protonmail.com
LINKTREE
Muck Rack Profile
Substack: This is For Real.
Editor-In-Chief: FLGulf.news
Editor-In-Chief: NYNewsPress.com
Editor-In-Chief: TheFamilyCourtCircus.com
Contributor: Frank Report
Contributor: Sun Bay Paper
Follow Me on Facebook X Instagram LinkedIn TRUTH Rumble Newsbreak SPOTIFY YouTube
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
Here is Judge Nagala’s Order in full:
U.S. District Court
District of Connecticut
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 4/15/2026 at 7:27 PM EDT and filed on 4/15/2026
Case Name: Ambrose v. Lee
Case Number: 3:25-cv-00398-SVN
Filer:
Document Number: 55 (No document attached)
Docket Text:
ORDER granting [47] Motion to Dismiss. While Defendant’s initial motion to dismiss was pending, she filed a subsequent motion to dismiss pertaining to allegedly false assertions contained in Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court had granted on March 19, 2025. ECF No. 4. Defendant argues that Plaintiff omitted information about income streams and other assets on his financial affidavit that he submitted with his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) motion, and accordingly the Court should dismiss his complaint with prejudice, refer Plaintiff for criminal investigation, and award Defendant attorney’s fees. ECF No. [47] at 2-6. On March 31, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file by April 14, 2026: (1) copies of his statements covering the month of March 2025, when this action was initiated, for any financial accounts under his custody or control at that time, including personal and business checking and savings accounts, retirement accounts, investment or brokerage accounts, or any other relevant financial accounts (and including accounts held at Bank of America and Fidelity, as well as business accounts related to Eyes Above Productions, Inc.); and (2) a copy of his lease, showing the amount he pays monthly for housing. ECF No. [50] at 36. On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed this information under seal, with the exception of copies of an account statement for Eyes Above Productions, Inc. (as to which he provided only a summary of the account statement, rather than the statement itself). See ECF No. [53]. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions and GRANTS Defendant’s motion in so far as it seeks to dismiss this action. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion in so far as it requests this Court refer Plaintiff for criminal investigation or award Defendant attorney’s fees.28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that in “any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein,” an individual may proceed with the litigation “without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets.” “While the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) appears to only provide for the [IFP] status of prisoner litigators, it is well-established that [Section] 1915(a)(1) affords all natural persons with the opportunity to apply for permission to proceed without prepayment of fees.” Egnatski v. Mortilla, No. 06-CV-1405 (JS/ARL), 2006 WL 8452994, at *2 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2006). “If a district court finds that [an individual’s] ‘allegation of poverty is untrue,’ however, then the court is required… to dismiss the action.” Vann v. Comm’r of N.Y. City Dept. of Corr., 496 F. Appx 113, 114 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A)); see also Thomas v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir.2002) (if “the allegation of poverty was false, the suit had to be dismissed; the judge had no choice”).
Here, Plaintiff initially admitted that he omitted financial assets, including the holdings of qualified retirement accounts, from his in forma pauperis affidavit. ECF No. [48] at 3-4. Plaintiff’s subsequent submissions prove this admission and render his allegation of poverty untrue. First, while Plaintiff has not actually included the March bank statement for his business account for Eyes Above Productions, Inc., Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration states that he received a residual royalty payment of $169.45 in November of 2024. ECF No. 53-7 at 4. This contradicts Plaintiff’s IFP application where he indicated that he received no income in the past 12 months as of the date of the in forma pauperis application (March 17, 2025), in the form of business, profession, or other self-employment, or “[a]ny other sources.” ECF No. [2] at 1. Further, Plaintiff’s IFP application states that he does not “own any stocks, bonds, securities.” Id. at [2]. This statement is contradicted by Plaintiff’s Fidelity IRA portfolio, which reflects substantial stock holdings. ECF No. 53-6. While Plaintiff’s IFP form does state Plaintiff was “invading [his] modest 401k,” ECF No. [2] at 1, he affirmatively misrepresented in his IFP application that he did not own any “stocks, bonds, or securities,” given that his Fidelity account statement demonstrates that did hold such securities in substantial amounts.
Plaintiff’s only explanations for this patently untrue statement regarding his securities holdings are that he believed such assets were unreportable because federal student aid guidelines exclude qualified retirement accounts from reportable assets, and that he was apparently rushed into submitting the form. First, he provides no explanation for why he would have been rushed in submitting the form; and even if he did, it would not excuse an affirmative misrepresentation. And second, the IFP application posed a direct question related to ownership of stocks, bonds, and securities, without reference to exclusion of any such holdings. The IFP application is not a federal student aid form, and Plaintiff had no reasonable basis to believe that his securities holdings were unreportable. In so holding, the Court again notes that Plaintiff is an attorney, and is not entitled to the same solicitude as a regular pro se litigant. See ECF No. [50] at 6-7.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the allegations Plaintiff made about his poverty when he submitted his affidavit are “untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). Thus the Court must dismiss the action. See Vann, 496 F. App’x at 114. Plaintiff attempts to argue that the Second Circuit has only enforced this rule as to “material misrepresentations or concealment of assets,” not technical errors. ECF No. [48] at 6 (citing Shepherd v. Annucci, 921 F.3d 89, 9496 (2d Cir. 2019)). But Shepherd does not discuss section 1915(e)(2)(A) at all, instead focusing on the “three strikes rule” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 921 F.3d 89, 94-96. Further, courts have clearly articulated the “mandatory nature of the requirement of dismissal for false allegations of poverty,” regardless of perceived materiality. Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 328 F. Supp. 2d 463, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). To the extent Plaintiff cites to Manzano v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 1:24-CV-500 (LTS), 2024 WL 455205, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024), for support, the case is inapplicable as there the plaintiff had not fully completed his financial affidavit and, accordingly, the court could not make an assessment as to the veracity of the plaintiff’s financial position. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff argues that he can now pay the filing fee and that revocation of in forma pauperis status is appropriate remedy rather than outright dismissal, the mandatory language of the statute does not afford the Court such discretion. Plaintiff also purports to cite to prior precedent of the undersigned, Furfaro v. Comm’r of Soc. Security, No. 3:24-CV-1080 (MPS) in support of allowing Plaintiff to proceed after having paid the filing fee, rather than dismissing the action. ECF No. [48] at 8. As is clear by the initials in the case caption, this was not a case before the undersigned. In any event, the recommended ruling in that action, which Plaintiff cites to, again dealt with an incomplete IFP application, and evaluated whether the case should be dismissed under section 1915(e)(2)(B) — which pertains to frivolous suits — not section 1915(e)(2)(A), which is the relevant section here.
Accordingly, the only remaining questions are whether it would be appropriate for the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s action with prejudice and whether an award of attorneys’ fees is warranted here. Absent limitations in section 1915 about the method of dismissal, the decision to dismiss with or without prejudice is within the district court’s discretion. See Vann, 496 F. App’x 113 at 116. The Court finds dismissal with prejudice is inappropriate given Plaintiff has not demonstrated particular familiarity with the in forma pauperis process and because the Court has ruled that most of Plaintiff’s claims survive dismissal. See ECF No. [50]. Thus, the Court exercises its discretion not to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Plaintiff may refile his complaint.
The Court also declines to make any criminal referral at this time. Defendant has not cited any legal authority for her request, though she is free to make her own referral if she so chooses. Finally, it goes without saying, that “[p]ro se litigants are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees.” Moreno-Cuevas v. Huntington Learning Cntr., No. 3:09-CV-1237 (JCH), 2009 WL 4049180, at *1 (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2009); see also Crooker v. U.S. Dep’t. of Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir.1980) (“we do not believe that Congress intended to permit an award of attorney’s fees to pro se litigants… who have made no showing that prosecuting their lawsuits caused them to divert any of their time from income-producing activity”). Defendant is proceeding pro se and has made no such showing. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.
In sum, the Court grants Defendant’s supplemental motion to dismiss at ECF No. [47] in so far as it seeks dismissal of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) and dismisses the action without prejudice. The Court denies Defendant’s supplemental motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks this Court to refer Plaintiff for criminal investigation and requests attorney’s fees in connection with the litigation of this action. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 4/15/2026. (Valle, G)
Breaking — Lee Defeats Ambrose: Christopher Walks Away Bloodied
Dr. Bandy Lee did not get everything she asked for, as Judge Nagala refused to dismiss the case with prejudice, saying Ambrose could refile. She also refused to make a criminal referral and denied attorney’s fees because Dr. Lee is pro se and pro se litigants generally cannot recover attorney’s fees.
But on the main event, Dr. Lee won outright. The case is dismissed without prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close it.
The background makes the collapse more dramatic. In earlier filings, the court had denied Ambrose’s attempt to seal his original poverty application, stressing the strong public presumption of access to IFP affidavits because courts rely on them when deciding whether to waive filing fees. Judge Nagala wrote then that embarrassment was not enough to overcome that presumption.
Frank Parlato previously reported that Ambrose’s April 2026 filings revealed asset liquidation efforts and exposed contradictions between his sworn poverty papers and his later explanations. Parlato also reported that Mia Ambrose submitted a declaration stating her father’s assets exceeded $1 million and challenged his claims about rent and household finances.
This ruling doesn’t just end Ambrose’s lawsuit—it opens the door to serious collateral consequences. A federal judge has now found his sworn financial statements to be “untrue,” which raises potential exposure for perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621) and false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) if prosecutors determine the misrepresentations were knowing and material. Even though Judge Nagala declined to make a criminal referral, that does not prevent federal authorities from acting independently.
On the professional side, the finding is equally dangerous. Even though Ambrose is currently suspended, New York disciplinary authorities treat dishonesty to a tribunal as one of the most serious ethical violations. A judicial determination that an attorney made false sworn statements can trigger disciplinary proceedings and, in extreme cases, disbarment for conduct involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation before a court.
Now the federal court has issued its own verdict on the core issue. Dr. Bandy X. Lee beat Christopher Ambrose in federal court because the judge found his poverty story false. He may refile. But this round is over. Lee won. Ambrose lost. And Judge Nagala’s order will follow him long after this docket goes dark.
