Public Exposé

When the Defense Lawyer Becomes the Judge: A Public Response to Curtis Carlson’s Misleading Narrative

08–08–2025

“You Don’t Have to Be Guilty for the System to Try to Destroy You. Ask Elon. Ask Trump. Ask Me.”

Get Benjamin Ballout’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.Subscribe

Curtis Carlson is a well-established securities attorney with a long history of defending major brokerage firms like Prudential Securities, PaineWebber, and Shearson Lehman. But in recent commentary, Mr. Carlson has decided to abandon his legal objectivity and step into the role of judge, jury, and public commentator. His recent article about Dr. Benjamin Ballout — tied to an open SEC case — presents a slanted view, devoid of context, critical rebuttals, or due process. (Source: https://www.carlson-law.net/sec-charges-three-with-penny-stock-fraud-in-florida/)

While Carlson flaunts his credentials, he failed to contact Dr. Benjamin Ballout for a response before issuing sweeping defamatory conclusions. The article offers no balance, omits public record filings, and misleadingly elevates allegations into implied facts. Notably, Carlson’s claims conflict with timelines in the SEC’s own filings. For example, press releases cited by the SEC — and weaponized by Carlson — predate any formal SEC investigation or trading actions in question, demonstrating the misleading nature of his narrative.

Furthermore, Carlson claims Dr. Ballout transferred funds in a pump-and-dump scheme — yet no proof exists, and public financial filings disprove such allegations. These facts are omitted to paint a caricature of guilt without context. This is not law. It is character defamation cloaked in legal jargon.

Dr. Ballout has filed a $50 million federal defamation suit in the Eastern District of Michigan (Case №4:25-cv-12433) against U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and journalist Todd Prince. The lawsuit claims that government-funded actors abused their platform to falsely implicate Dr. Ballout and harm his ongoing business deals and investments in Ukraine, Africa, and the Gulf. (Press Release: https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/520821/former-enerkon-chairman-files-50m-defamation-lawsuit-against-radio-free-europe-and-journalist-todd-prince)

It is widely known that USAGM and its branches (VOA, RFE/RL, etc.) have drawn scrutiny from Congress and the White House for politically charged reporting and misuse of federal funds. (See: https://www.rt.com/news/614266-trump-agency-propaganda-media/ and https://www.npr.org/2025/03/18/nx-s1-5332379/rfe-rl-sues-trump-usagm-kari-lake)

Elon Musk, in his role with the Department of Government Efficiency under the Trump administration, has publicly called for the shutdown of RFE/RL and VOA, calling them “radical left crazy people torching $1B/year of taxpayer money.” Even President Trump issued an executive order demanding the dismantling of biased agencies like USAGM. (White House EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/continuing-the-reduction-of-the-federal-bureaucracy/)

Legal precedent also supports stronger protections against defamatory public speech disguised as expert analysis. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), outlines the actual malice standard. But Carlson, as an attorney — not a journalist — is held to even higher professional conduct under ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), prohibiting “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”

Moreover, Carlson’s article misleadingly omits Dr. Ballout’s legitimate infrastructure and energy ventures in Ukraine, such as major telecommunications and solar-hydrogen projects supported by the Office of the President and Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine. Diplomatic Trade Ltd and Enerkon Solar have documented involvement and international support, including FARA registrations with the DOJ’s National Security Division and contract-based energy land lease agreements in Pennsylvania. Carlson denies these transactions, despite them being part of public records and under legal dispute in civil court — showing an attempt to mislead readers and defame Dr. Ballout’s credibility.
https://medium.com/@benjamin.ballout/title-from-infrastructure-to-infowars-a-ukrainian-case-study-in-reputation-warfare-a7acfc2f2d9c

Carlson is entitled to his opinion — but not to present opinion as legal fact.

Public must ask: Is this legal analysis or a disguised attack piece? When lawyers become echo chambers for federally funded media platforms under investigation themselves, the line between commentary and complicity blurs.

This rebuttal stands not only as a defense — but as a notice: distortion of the truth by legal insiders will not go unanswered.

citations:
— 22 U.S.C. § 6202, § 6204 (USAGM restrictions)
— Exchange Act § 9(a)(4), § 10(b) & Rule 10b-5
— FINRA Rules 2010 & 2020
— NYT v. Sullivan, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal