Albert B. Pepper Jr. litigant pro se steps into the Arena with Anthony R. Friedman and Prevails
The Humiliation Must Be Unbearable 🥹 | Anthony R. Friedman | Case # 2611-PN00554 - 11th Judicial District St. Charles, Mo.
By Albert B. Pepper Jr. May 16, 2026
A Decisive Legal Victory in St. Charles County Court
With regard to Anthony R. Friedman, a personal injury attorney d/b/a Friedman Law Firm LLC in St. Charles and St. Louis, Missouri, a critical final judgment has been entered. On April 9, 2026, Friedman filed a petition for an Ex Parte Order of Protection naming Albert B. Pepper Jr. as the Respondent.
The petition filed by attorney Anthony R. Friedman made a multitude of allegations against Albert B. Pepper Jr. that lacked any basis in fact. Friedman cited an immediate fear for the safety of himself and his family.
However, the evidentiary record established that Pepper resides in a supervised residential care facility on a 500-acre cattle ranch in Doe Run, Missouri —approximately 95 miles away from Friedman's location in St. Charles County —and has not been physically present in St. Charles County for approximately 8 years.
A direct survey of the petition reveals that the underlying relief sought by Anthony R. Friedman was a tactical attempt to de-platform Albert B. Pepper Jr.’s consumer advocacy, citizen journalism, and social media content, which features valid criticism of Friedman’s business and legal conduct. The ex parte filing constituted a bad-faith application designed to bypass formal civil litigation channels.
The Outcome of the May 13, 2026 Motion Hearing
On May 13, 2026, both Petitioner Anthony R. Friedman and Respondent Albert B. Pepper Jr. made their appearances in Division 12 of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri. Days prior, Pepper had filed a comprehensive Motion to Dismiss Petition for Order of Protection With Prejudice.
Following a review of the motions and oral testimony from both parties, the trial court—presided over by the Hon. William Byrnes—officially GRANTED Pepper’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Under Missouri legal standards, this permanent dismissal yields major procedural consequences:
The Power of "With Prejudice" (Res Judicata): Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 67.01, a dismissal with prejudice operates as a complete bar to the assertion of the same claim. Anthony R. Friedman is legally prohibited from ever refiling a protection petition based on these same facts or allegations. Because Judge Byrnes dismissed the action without allowing amendments, the case is fully resolved and cannot be revived.
Judicial Validation of Material Omissions: By granting Pepper's motion as written, the court acknowledged the merit of Pepper's arguments regarding Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct 4-3.3(d) , noting that Friedman knowingly omitted material adverse facts—including the 95-mile geographical separation and physical limitations—inducing the court into issuing the initial temporary order.
Impact on Active OCDC Disciplinary Investigation: This dismissal serves as an independent judicial record for the ongoing Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel investigation against Anthony R. Friedman (OCDC File #25-2531-X). The ruling confirms that the allegations lacked the statutory foundation of "immediate and present danger" under RSMo § 455.035 , supporting Pepper's claim of an abuse of process and retaliatory litigation. - This reckless filing by Friedman and the violation of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-3.3(d) will support a second supplemental complaint to the O.C.D.C. file #21-2531-X to be filed by Pepper in the coming days.
Peppers legal theory and strategy which he employed was based upon three pillars:
1) The Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Specifically Rule 4-3.3(d) that mandated that Friedman, as a sworn officer of the court had a duty to inform the issuing court of all material facts at the time of application for the ex parte order of protection so that the court may have all of the information for consideration. Friedman failed in his ethical obligation.
2) The Missouri Statutes: RSMo 455.035, 455.010, 455.045 That govern the application of an Ex Parte Order that requires and immediate and present danger by a preponderance of the evidence standard and exceptions to allegations of "harassment" that provides for First Amendment Protected Speech.
3) The "Clean Hands Maxim" of Jurisprudence: Pepper argued that because Friedman as Petitioner filed a petition in "bad faith" and without a "basis in fact" Friedman was not entitled to injunctive relief.
The court agreed and Dismissed the Petition with Prejudice.
Out-Lawyered in the Courtroom
"Super Lawyer" Anthony R. Friedman—a Washington University graduate boasting multi-million dollar personal injury awards and marketing accolades—was handily out-lawyered by his former client, pro se litigant Albert B. Pepper Jr.
The humiliation must be unbearable for Friedman. This court outcome stands as a permanent, public news artifact proving that his legal acumen in this matter mirrored the delusion of the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Albert B. Pepper Jr., d/b/a Phoenix Rising Productions LLC, will continue to prolifically publish these factual trial records to ensure public accountability and consumer transparency regarding the professional conduct of Missouri attorneys.
Public Court Records & Resource Context
To view the certified trial court motion, evidentiary exhibits, and surrounding case details, visit the public URLs below:
Academia Edu (Master Compilation Full Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice): https://www.academia.edu/167156729/Master_Respondents_Motion_To_Dismiss_Case_2611_PN00554_This_PDF_is_a_Master_Compilation_of_a_Five_Part_Motion_to_Dismiss_with_minor_formatting_variance_between_Master_and_Individual_PDF_documents
Reddit Discussion Archive: https://www.reddit.com/r/StCharlesMO/comments/1te4kqb/i_am_nothing_more_than_a_shepherd_boy_with_a/
Consumer Advocacy Watchdogs: NotTheFriedmanLawFirmSaintCharles.com
A Message to the Saint Louis Bar, et al.:
"The rules of engagement have changed. There is a new form of redress for consumers injured by the professional misconduct of lawyers and law firms.
"If you cannot contend with your adversary in the arena, ambush them barren of sword and shield in the marketplace." — Albert B. Pepper Jr.
Let the legal standing of Anthony R. Friedman (Mo. Bar #65531) and Elizabeth C. McNulty (Mo. Bar #72026) serve as a lasting archetype of what happens when the public trust deposited into an attorney's hands is broken.
Albert B. Pepper Jr. , litigant pro se, consumer advocate, citizen journalist