LUTHMANN NOTE: They had every chance to answer our reporting, and they chose not to. That tells you everything. When the facts are on your side, you lead with them. When they’re not, you attack the reporter and hope the noise drowns out the truth. Attorney Carl Devine’s filings did exactly that, and now it’s all in the record. The real issue isn’t me—it’s whether courts can punish speech by taking children. That should terrify anyone who believes in the Constitution. Keep asking questions. Keep demanding proof. Because the only thing more dangerous than bad facts is a system that refuses to face them. This piece is “Cash Court Queen Attacks,” first available on TheFamilyCourtCircus.com.
By Rick LaRivière with Richard Luthmann
A Story That Hit Like a Hammer — And Left A Target
(LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY) — The match that lit this fire was not a whisper. It was a full-throated exposé that named names, quoted the court, and asked why a mother lost her children after speaking out.
The reporting from this world-famous outlet laid out a stark narrative: two medically fragile twins, a primary caregiver in Cindy Adams, and a sudden custody reversal that, critics say, had less to do with abuse than with speech.
The language uttered by “Cash Court Queen” and Family Court Judge Tiffany Yahr about “impugning” the dignity of the court and “addressing” speech that disrupts proceedings, then underscored a striking tension. The same court effectively acknowledging Adams was not a bad mother while stripping her custody anyway.
This was not conjecture. Our reporting drew from court-related materials, hearing references, and a timeline that placed the children’s relocation to North Carolina at the center of the controversy. It raised hard questions about continuity of care, about alleged regression after the move, and about whether a largely absent father suddenly became the preferred custodian.
It framed the case as a collision between parental rights and the First Amendment, not a routine “best interests” decision.
Before any of it ran, the reporters did the work. They sent detailed questions to Joshua Bartley Anderson and his attorney, Carl Devine. They asked for clinical evidence supporting claims about Adams’s mental state. They asked how speech-based findings could be squared with Kentucky statutes that demand proof of serious endangerment. They asked about Anderson’s personal history and ability to care for the girls.
They asked for non-confidential medical continuity records to rebut claims of disrupted care. They asked why supervised visitation was ordered absent a finding of harm. Here is what we asked:
From: Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>
Date: On Tuesday, January 27th, 2026 at 9:18 PM
Subject: Journalist Questions re: Adams v. Anderson Custody Ruling (Fayette County, KY)
To: cdevine@familylawkentucky.com <cdevine@familylawkentucky.com>, joshua.anderson@dunhameng.com <joshua.anderson@dunhameng.com>
CC: RALafontaine@protonmail.com <ralafontaine@protonmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>Mr. Anderson and Attorney Devine,
We are journalists reporting on the Fayette County family court case Adams v. Anderson (19-CI-2847) and Judge Tiffany Yahr’s recent custody orders. We are seeking your responses to the following questions for accuracy and fairness.
We are about to go to press and would like to know your positions if you would like them included in our coverage. If you cannot respond prior to press time, we will include any responses received in a follow-up.
Questions for Joshua Bartley Anderson
1. You were largely absent from the children’s day-to-day care for several years. How do you explain that gap, and what changed immediately before you sought sole custody?
2. What specific training do you have to manage your daughters’ complex medical needs, including feeding therapy, cardiac follow-ups, and developmental services?
3. Can you provide documentation showing continuity of care after relocation, including providers, schedules, and missed or rescheduled appointments?
4. How do you respond to allegations that the children exhibited bruising or medical regression after moving to North Carolina?
5. Did you request or support restrictions on Cindy Adams’s speech or online associations? If so, why?
6. What safeguards are in place to ensure the children’s medical decisions are not influenced by litigation strategy?
Questions for Carl D. Devine
7. Your filings characterize Ms. Adams’s online speech as evidence of instability. What clinical evidence supports that conclusion?
8. Judge Yahr cited KRS 403.380 and 403.320. How do you reconcile speech-based findings with the statutory requirement of serious endangerment?
9. Why was supervised visitation ordered absent a finding that Ms. Adams harmed her children?
10. Did you seek a gag order or sealing of records? If so, how do you square that with First Amendment protections?
11. How do you address comparisons to the Ryder Belisle case, where a custody flip preceded a child’s death?
12. Do Title IV-E funds or other financial incentives play any role in this case, directly or indirectly?
Joint
13. Are you willing to release non-confidential medical continuity records to rebut claims of disrupted care?
14. Will you consent to independent oversight or a neutral medical review pending further hearings?
If you dispute any factual premise, please specify what you believe is inaccurate and provide supporting documentation.
Thanks,
Rick LaRivière
Independent Journalist
(239) 766-5800
Follow Me On Substack
Those questions were a roadmap to a clean rebuttal. They were also a test.
The response came, but it did not follow the roadmap. It drew a target.
Cash Court Queen Attacks: Punches the Reporter to Miss the Facts
Carl Devine’s answer arrived on January 28, and it did not read like a factual rebuttal. It read like a broadside. His “Notice of Filing” told the court the article was spreading fast, warned there was “no telling” how far it had gone, and then pivoted to the reporter.
Devine urged the judge to focus on Richard Luthmann’s past—his federal conviction, his disbarment, and a string of old headlines—while describing the situation as “very scary,” “concerning,” and “alarming” for the court and the parties.
“I found that both surprising and unsurprising at the same time,” Luthmann said. “Unsurprising because these crooks have no answers for their Designer Child Trafficking. Surprising because I though Carl Devine liked the coverage.”
What the filing did not do is what matters. It did not identify a single statement in the article and demonstrate its falsity with documents or sworn testimony.
It did not attach medical records contradicting the continuity-of-care allegations. It did not reconcile the court’s speech language with Kentucky’s statutory requirements. It did not answer the reporters’ questions.
Devine doubled down with a companion filing that characterized an email from Luthmann as “very serious veiled threat language.” The email itself, attached by Devine, reads like the kind of brash, taunting commentary that has long defined Luthmann’s style. Decide for yourself:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Wednesday, January 28th, 2026 at 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Journalist Questions re: Adams v. Anderson Custody Ruling (Fayette County, KY)
To: Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>
CC: cdevine@familylawkentucky.com <cdevine@familylawkentucky.com>, joshua.anderson@dunhameng.com <joshua.anderson@dunhameng.com>, RALafontaine@protonmail.com <ralafontaine@protonmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, joey@joeycamp2020.com <joey@joeycamp2020.com>, joey@yourdaddyjoey.news <joey@yourdaddyjoey.news>, mvolpe998@gmail.com <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, juliea005@proton.me <juliea005@proton.me>
Great job on the attempted judicial homicide story Rick! It’s everywhere today:
https://www.newsbreak.com/luthmann-news-this-is-for-real–347942861/4465169036545-tiffany-yahr-s-black-robed-betrayal
https://thefamilycourtcircus.com/2026/01/28/tiffany-yahrs-black-robed-betrayal/
Have you heard from scumbag lawyer Carl Devine yet? If he calls you, let him know I’m the Most Dangerous Man in America, and the crooked Mueller-Comey-Wray FBI said I ran the Italian and Chinese mafias from a Staten Island strip mall. Allegedly, I have a body count of NYC Democrat Party officials:
https://nynewspress.com/the-most-dangerous-man/
I must have tried to go medieval on their asses??!!:
https://nypost.com/2015/08/09/city-lawyer-demands-to-settle-civil-case-with-trial-by-combat/
No love lost with the NY Magazine folks either:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-roger-stone-acolyte-who-trolled-staten-island-politics.html
Who knows what Devine is thinking? I don’t think he respects you because you’re Black. You know that, like President Trump, I am the least racist person you will ever meet.
Rick, I pretty much know your articles (with my most excellent opinions and commentary) will make their way into the court record (score!). I also know I can probably whip up an AI picture of Devine actually winning a judicial election!
But if Devine plays this right, there may be a very immediate vacancy on the Fayette County KY Family Court bench! Drill down on those Title IV-E receipts for the Yahr household. Crazy Queen George III of Kentucky looks dirty. And when they say I’m dirty, well then I would know, wouldn’t I?
But I’ve never been accused of child abuse or judicial homicide. That’s what makes me different.
And let them know I’m on the Commander in Chief’s Media Mount Rushmore.
File Under: They don’t teach this shit in law school.
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
Luthmann boasts about reach, needles Devine, and predicts fallout for the court. It is loud, provocative, and bombastic—classic Luthmann. It is also not a concrete threat.
The gap between tone and substance is the gap Devine’s filing tries to close.
That move is strategic. When a lawyer cannot—or will not—win on the facts, he reframes the fight around the messenger, swaps proof for profile, and asks the court to weigh credibility by biography rather than evidence.
This is the classic ad hominem play, dressed in the language of “concern” and “safety,” and it is now embedded in the family court record for all to see.
Cash Court Queen Attacks: Smear, Deflect, and Keep the Meter Running
Critics of family court say the pattern is familiar. When scrutiny intensifies, the system does not meet it head-on. It redirects it. The focus shifts from the ruling to the reporter, from the children to the chatter, from the facts to the fear. Devine’s filings fit that pattern with precision, expanding the dispute into a character contest while the underlying claims remain largely unaddressed.
There is context that sharpens the optics. Devine is not just any lawyer arguing before this bench. He once held the very Family Court seat now occupied by Tiffany Yahr and then lost it to her in a tight election. Devine now appears before the judge who defeated him, filing papers that not only defend his client but also blunt the public narrative of “sour grapes” around the court.
That dynamic isn’t coincidence. It reads like theater for an audience of one—the bench—where tone can signal allegiance as much as argument. Devine evidently misses his black robes and wants to get back up there.
There is also the economic reality. High-conflict custody litigation is expensive by design, rewarding motion practice, escalation, and prolonged dispute. Devine’s firm advertises comprehensive family-law services in complex custody and relocation fights. A loud sideshow keeps the case hot and the billing steady while the core issues blur.
The journalists called it out directly in a follow-up inquiry, asking why Devine devoted pages to Luthmann’s past instead of a point-by-point rebuttal. They asked whether the goal was to stigmatize the messenger and prejudice the tribunal rather than address the merits.
Devine’s filings, by their own content, give those questions traction.
Cash Court Queen Attacks: When Speech Becomes Danger, the Law Starts Watching
At the center of this storm sits a hard, immovable principle: speech is not abuse, and it is not a safety risk. The First Amendment does not bend to the sensitivities of a courtroom or the discomfort of a judge. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) (holding that debate on public issues must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open”).
This Kentucky court scrapes the constitutional floor. American courts do not sever parental rights absent proof of harm or serious endangerment to a child. That is the standard. Not irritation, embarrassment, or criticism.
Yet our reporting describes a disturbing inversion of that rule, alleging that Cindy Adams’s speech—her posts, her associations, her decision to speak publicly—was recast as instability and danger, then used as the lever for a custody flip and restrictive, supervised contact. If that framing holds, the order is not a child-protection measure. It is viewpoint punishment in a black robe. Cf. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 451–52 (2011) (protecting even offensive speech on matters of public concern).
That is why this case spills far beyond one family. If courts can transmute criticism into “danger,” every parent is on notice. Speak out and risk losing your kids. Associate with watchdog groups and be labeled unstable. Publish public records and be accused of interference.
That is not family law. That is viewpoint discrimination—the government favoring one side of a debate and punishing the other. The Supreme Court has said plainly that such discrimination is “an egregious form of content discrimination.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). The Constitution does not permit the state to penalize speech because it is critical of the state. See Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972).
When speech becomes the trigger for custody consequences, the system stops protecting children and starts protecting itself—and that is the precise moment constitutional alarms should sound.
History has already written the warning in bold ink. The Civil Rights Act of 1871—the Ku Klux Klan Act—was enacted to stop coordinated abuses of power carried out under color of law, where officials and their allies used legal mechanisms to silence, intimidate, and punish dissent.
Its modern descendants—42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985—exist for the same reason. They target schemes that weaponize official authority to chill speech and retaliate against critics. The Supreme Court has long recognized that misuse of state power to suppress constitutional rights is actionable. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 171–72 (1961).
And where that conduct crosses from civil liability into coordinated agreement, federal criminal law steps in—18 U.S.C. § 241 makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise of constitutional rights, placing organized efforts to silence dissent squarely in the crosshairs of federal prosecution.
No strained analogy is required. We pointed this out to Carl Devine:
From: Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>
Date: On Sunday, April 5th, 2026 at 2:13 AM
Subject: Journalistic Inquiry re: Your Filing Attacking Richard Luthmann Instead of Answering the Reporting
To: cdevine@familylawkentucky.com <cdevine@familylawkentucky.com>
CC: RALafontaine@protonmail.com <ralafontaine@protonmail.com>, RickLaRiviere@proton.me <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, juliea005 <juliea005@proton.me>, Michael Phillips <mikethunderphillips@gmail.com>, amy.d@fraudwarrior.org <amy.d@fraudwarrior.org>, director@fcvfc.org <director@fcvfc.org>, Joey@YourDaddyJoey.news <joey@yourdaddyjoey.news>, Joseph A. Camp <joey@joeycamp2020.com>, support@kybar.org <support@kybar.org>, sroberts@kybar.org <sroberts@kybar.org>, sduncan@kybar.org <sduncan@kybar.org>, ukcle@uky.edu <ukcle@uky.edu>, membership@kybar.org <membership@kybar.org>, kybar@kybar.org <kybar@kybar.org>, tmarksbury@kybar.org <tmarksbury@kybar.org>, sroberts@kybar.org <sroberts@kybar.org>, kellystephens@kycourts.net <kellystephens@kycourts.net>, lcole@kybar.org <lcole@kybar.org>
Attorney Devine,
I am writing on behalf of independent journalists, including Richard Luthmann, concerning your January 27, 2026, and January 28, 2026, Notices of Filing in Adams v. Anderson, Fayette Circuit Court Case No. 19-CI-2847 (attached for your convenience). In those filings, you did not merely contest articles. You handed the court a packet built around Mr. Luthmann’s old criminal case, his disbarment, and rhetoric describing him as “very scary,” “alarming,” and a danger to the court and counsel, while sidestepping the core substance of the reporting itself. The filing reads less like a legal response to published facts and more like a smear brief intended to poison the well against a journalist whose reporting was plainly about a matter of public concern.
That is the issue. The article you attacked was not a private grievance dressed up as news. It concerned a family-court custody ruling, the treatment of a protective mother, the role of speech in the court’s analysis, and broader questions of public accountability. Your filing confirms that point. You told the court the article quoted from a hearing order and referenced your January 22 letter to opposing counsel. In other words, by your own description, the reporting drew from court-related materials and ongoing proceedings of undeniable public interest. Yet instead of engaging the article’s claims on the merits, you foregrounded the reporter’s past and invited the court to treat that past as discrediting present-day journalism. That looks like classic ad hominem lawfare, not a good-faith answer to press scrutiny.
There is another problem. Your filings do not simply say the reporting was wrong. It says Mr. Luthmann’s history is “scary,” that “there is no telling” how many sites may republish the story, and that Ms. Adams “cannot obviously control these people.” That language does not read like disciplined advocacy. It reads like an effort to associate protected journalism with menace, contagion, and disorder. Why did you choose that route? If the reporting was false, why not identify the false statements with precision, provide the corrections, and let the public measure the dispute? Why try to shift the focus from the published facts to the biography of the man who published them?
You also attached materials showing that Mr. Luthmann has acknowledged his past, served his sentence, and been publicly identified by the government and bar authorities years ago. That history is not hidden. It is already in the open. The obvious question is: why did you think it necessary to repackage that record for a family-court judge in response to the current reporting? Was the goal to rebut the article, or to stigmatize the messenger? Was the point to prove falsity, or to tell the court that some people lose their First Amendment credibility forever? Because if it is the latter, that is not just a bad look. It raises serious questions about whether you were using irrelevant character attacks to prejudice a judicial proceeding against a critic rather than confining yourself to facts material to the dispute.
More pointedly, your own filing suggests you were aware the article involved criticism of the court, discussion of public records, and republication through advocacy networks. That is the terrain of protected speech, especially where the subject is government conduct, judicial decision-making, and allegations of public wrongdoing. Yet nowhere in your filing do you seriously grapple with the First Amendment implications of asking a court to view criticism through a lens of fear. Instead, you appear to imply that because Richard Luthmann is Richard Luthmann, his journalism is inherently suspect. That is not an answer. It is a dodge.
Under Kentucky law, your filings expose you to scrutiny under SCR 3.130, particularly Rule 8.4(c)–(d), which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation and any conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. When you shift from addressing the substance of published reporting to attacking a journalist’s past—especially by injecting inflammatory, arguably irrelevant character material into an ongoing proceeding—you risk being seen as attempting to influence or taint the tribunal rather than assist it. Kentucky’s rules also require that you use legal process only for legitimate purposes, not to harass, intimidate, or burden third parties. If your filing is viewed as an effort to sidestep factual rebuttal, chill protected speech, or leverage personal history unrelated to the merits, it places you squarely in the zone of sanctionable conduct for abusing the judicial process and undermining the integrity of the proceeding.
Your conduct, taken together with Judge Yahr’s actions, doesn’t just raise concerns—it squarely echoes the kind of abuse Congress targeted in the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the Ku Klux Klan Act. That statute exists for one reason: to stop state actors and those working in concert with them from using the machinery of government to suppress constitutional rights. When protected speech is twisted into “danger,” when a mother’s First Amendment activity is used as a basis to strip custody without a finding of abuse, and when you respond not by disputing facts but by attempting to discredit and intimidate a journalist through personal attacks in the court record, it begins to look less like advocacy and more like coordinated suppression.
The law is clear—using legal process as a weapon to chill speech, punish dissent, and silence critics is not just unethical, it is actionable. If a court finds that you participated, directly or indirectly, in a scheme to burden or retaliate against protected expression under color of law, you are no longer operating in the realm of aggressive lawyering—you are operating in the territory of civil rights liability that the Ku Klux Klan Act was designed to expose and punish.
So here are the questions we intend to publish unless and until you answer them:
1. What specific factual statement in Richard Luthmann’s January 28 article do you contend was false?
2. Please identify each allegedly false statement verbatim and provide the documentary basis for saying it was false.
3. Why did your Notice of Filing devote so much space to Mr. Luthmann’s old criminal and disciplinary history rather than a point-by-point rebuttal of the article’s factual assertions?
4. Do you deny that your filing was designed to prejudice the court against a journalist by attacking his character instead of his reporting?
5. On what legal basis did you believe Mr. Luthmann’s prior conviction and disbarment were relevant to the truth or falsity of his present reporting on a matter of public concern?
6. Did you intend the phrases “very scary,” “alarming,” and “huge problem” to suggest that lawful journalism and public criticism of the court posed some sort of threat? If so, what evidence supports that suggestion?
7. You told the court there is “no telling” how many sites the article may have reached. Why is republication of reporting, commentary, or advocacy by multiple outlets relevant unless the real complaint is that the story was gaining traction?
8. Do you contend that a journalist who has served his sentence and rebuilt his life forfeits the right to report on courts, lawyers, and judges?
9. Are you aware that re-arguing a reporter’s past to avoid engagement with current facts can itself look like retaliation against the press?
10. Did you consider whether your filing risked crossing from zealous advocacy into conduct intended to embarrass, burden, or intimidate a critic rather than resolve an issue properly before the court?
11. Did you consider your duties under the Rules of Professional Conduct to avoid irrelevant, prejudicial matter and to maintain fairness to third persons and the integrity of the tribunal?
12. Did you review whether invoking a journalist’s disclosed mental-health and disability-related history in a pejorative or tactical way could be construed as exploitative rather than relevant?
13. If your position is that the article was defamatory or materially inaccurate, why have you not issued a clean, public, evidence-backed rebuttal instead of relying on loaded rhetoric in a court filing?
14. Is the real problem here that Richard Luthmann and other independent journalists are drawing attention to facts and themes that you would prefer remain buried under family-court secrecy?
15. What truth, exactly, is so uncomfortable that the response had to be directed at the man instead of the message?
Let me be blunt. Many readers will see your filing and conclude that you did not answer the reporting because you could not. They will conclude that the article struck a nerve, that the scrutiny is unwelcome, and that your answer was to wave a red flag reading “look at who said it” instead of “here is why he is wrong.” That is the oldest trick in the censorship playbook. It is not impressive. It is revealing.
And there is a deeper concern. Lawyers are officers of the court. With that comes a duty to exercise restraint, relevance, and honesty. When an attorney dumps a reporter’s old crimes into a family-court record as a substitute for engaging with current reporting, the public is entitled to ask whether the filing serves a legitimate adjudicative purpose or an improper reputational one. When an attorney characterizes journalism as frightening instead of false, the public is entitled to ask whether the attorney is trying to chill scrutiny. When an attorney appears to lean on a man’s known disabilities, struggles, and past downfall to strip moral force from his current speech, the public is entitled to ask whether that conduct reflects badly on the profession. And when those tactics are deployed to suppress or punish protected speech through the machinery of the court, they begin to resemble the very abuses of power under color of law that the Civil Rights Act of 1871—the Ku Klux Klan Act—was enacted to confront.
If your answer is that none of this was personal, then answer the substance. Point to the falsehoods. Produce the documents. Explain the omissions. Explain the discrepancies. Explain why the reporting is wrong. But if you cannot do that, then the public may reasonably conclude that the real target was not inaccurate journalism. The real target was effective journalism.
We are preparing additional coverage now. Please provide your response by return email. If you dispute any factual premise above, specify exactly what you contend is inaccurate and provide supporting documentation. Your response will be quoted in full or in relevant part.
Thanks,
Rick LaRivière
Independent Journalist
(239) 766-5800
Follow Me On Substack
As of publication, we received no response from Carl Devine. Maybe he’s scurried back to his master to strategize about what to file? The Kentucky Bar was copied as well.
In any event, Devine has been silent in the face of our inquiry, raising serious and dangerous questions about how justice is dispensed in Lexington Family Court.
When a court treats protected speech as a threat, and a lawyer responds to scrutiny with intimidation and character attacks instead of evidence, the conduct begins to echo the very abuses the Ku Klux Klan Act was designed to expose and deter.
Devine’s filings did not cool this controversy. They accelerated it, substituting alarm for analysis and biography for rebuttal. They told the court to scrutinize the reporter rather than the reporting, a tactic does not resolve the underlying claims.
Instead, it sharpens them, because now the public is not just asking what happened to Cindy Adams. It is asking why the response to scrutiny looks like a coordinated effort to shut it down.
And that leaves one brutal, unavoidable question hanging over Lexington: did Cash Court Queen Tiffany Yahr send her attack dog after the press—or did the press simply get too close to the truth?
