Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Ashley Madison customers revealed: David Deusner, lawyer with expertise in eDiscovery and forensic intelligence appears at Web site for extramarital affairs


David and Meaghan Deusner, with their children
(From facebook.com)
An attorney who specializes in forensics and e-discovery appears as a paying customer at the Ashley Madison (AM) extramarital-affairs Web sit.

David Deusner (his full name is Philip David Deusner) worked for roughly six years at Birmingham's Bradley Arant law firm, first as director of litigation support and eDiscovery Services and then as senior eDiscovery counsel in the litigation and construction group. He now is managing director of compliance forensics intelligence for Control Risks, working out of Birmingham and Washington, D.C.

The following is from Deusner's bio at Control Risks:

David Deusner Esq. is a principal within Control Risks’ Compliance Forensics and Intelligence practice in the Americas region. David brings his years of experience as a practicing e-discovery attorney to work extensively across multiple engagements to provide high level consulting services to clients on e-discovery issues. David has advised clients and leveraged technologies in the e-discovery space across highly regulated industries and time sensitive regulatory matters. Through his work, he has overseen discovery matters involving data in Taiwan, Russia, Canada, Panama, and China, to name a few. While his practice primarily dealt with e-discovery, David also regularly advised national and multi-national clients on issues related to litigation hold implementation and process, data mapping, email archiving initiatives, and best practices for BYOD and other information governance issues. Prior to his role as senior e-discovery counsel, David was the director of litigation support and e-discovery services at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings.

He is married to Meaghan Collins Deusner, and they have two children. Here is her Facebook page. Public records indicate they live at 3579 Valley Circle, Birmingham, in a home with an appraised value of $239,000.

David Deusner obviously is a bright fellow, earning a bachelor's degree in business administration/music business and artist management at Belmont University in Nashville and a law degree at DePaul University in Chicago.

His story presents deep irony. How could a guy who is smart enough to be an expert in eDiscovery and forensic intelligence be stupid enough to sign up with an obvious con outfit like Ashley Madison? We sought to pose that and other questions, but Duesner has not responded to our queries.


Previously:

Article with links to 1-20 in Ashley Madison series

(21) Craig Oliver, attorney, Springfield, MO (1/24/17)

(22) Craig Lowell, attorney, Wiggins Childs, Birmingham (1/26/17)

(23) Thomas Mancuso, tax attorney, Montgomery, AL (2/16/17)

(24) Nicholas Arciniegas, attorney, Washington, D.C. (2/21/17)

(25) Griffin McGahey, vice president, High Cotton USA, Birmingham (3/16/17)

(26) Matthew Couch, attorney, Cabaniss Johnson, Birmingham (3/23/17)

(27) Dr. Keron Vickers, chiropractor, Birmingham (4/4/17)

(28) D. Paterson Cope, president, wealth management, Birmingham (4/20/17)

(29) Shawn Baker, developer, Blackwater Resources, Birmingham (4/24/17)





24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow, this guy works in sensitive data forensics, on an international level, and he fell for the Ashley Madison con? Think my head is going to explode.

Anonymous said...

Oh . . . My . . . God!

Anonymous said...

Lesson learned from Schnauzer's reporting on Ashley Madison: People who may look smart in their professional lives are not necessarily smart in their personal lives.

Anonymous said...

Control Risks . . . we have a problem.

Anonymous said...

Let me guess . . . This guy is big on the seminar circuit, teaching people how to avoid security breaches in their computer systems.

Anonymous said...

How many Bradley Arant lawyers does it take to fix a flat tire? Eight -- seven to mix drinks and one to call daddy.

ALT Rick Perry said...

Sometimes you gotta say

Ooops!

Anonymous said...

I just pulled this man's data---it's not hard. He has one charge of 68 dollars, which I believe was the base level you had to pay to see any incoming messages or see expanded profiles of other users. ONE.

He is a lawyer in e-discovery. Seems a real journalist would think, "Oh, this guy was likely doing investigation for a client." Or, "maybe he is consulting in a forensics capacity here. I better be damn sure better I run this."

ONE CHARGE. Obviously not a repeat "customer" of Ashley Madison.

Certainly not enough to plaster his wife and kids on the internet and tie his name to your feckless blog via a google search.

you sir, should be ashamed of yourself.

p.s. Before you respond, "we tried to contact him----the onus is on you, sir. It is not on him to check his spam folder or some other means of communication to reach out to the same feckless individual who posts genitalia pictures on his website. No one would take you seriously, which is why no one is going to respond to your "inquiries."

p.p.s. I am going to add you to our Wednesday night prayer list. You need Jesus in your life.

legalschnauzer said...

@4:24 --

A response or two:

(1) You are admitting the article is true, so I'm not sure why you seem to have a problem. He is a paying customer at AM.

(2) Why don't you send me the data you pulled. If it's easy to find, I assume it's easy to send via email at rshler3156@gmail.com.

(3) You also are welcome to contact me at (205) 381-5673, and I would be glad to discuss your findings.

(4) You are correct that the onus is on me, and that's why I contacted him multiple times. He never responded, so the onus no longer is on me to think of every conceivable reason he might have been on Ashley Madison. The article doesn't say why he was on AM, it just says that he was, and he paid. Even you admit that's true.

(5) Plenty of people have responded to my inquiries, and when they have a legit explanation, I don't report on their case. As I've stated here multiple times, I've passed on writing about at least a half dozen situations because of this. In fact, the number probably is closer to a dozen.

(6) Mr. Deusner still is welcome to contact me if he cares to.

(7) If I were trying to clarify published information, I would give my real name and contact information and engage the reporter in a professional manner. That you did neither of those things makes me wonder what, if anything, you actually have found. Still, I'd be happy to talk with you, and you have my contact info.

legalschnauzer said...

Sorry, I put the wrong email in the reply above. Left out the "u" in my name.

It is: rshuler3156@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Just a thought or two….Common sense beats book sense any day. This dude probably has a decent IQ. Dude, if you are going to run some strange, get out of town, go to a bar, meet a chick, consummate the deal, go home to Mama. DONT LEAVE TRACKS ! Plenty of horny women out there that will satisfy your desires.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous

Mr. Schuler, given all of the damaging information and details that you are revealing about all of these people ( e.g. Ashely Madison leaks); how is it that you can afford all of the lawsuits, presumably,that have been filed against you?

Anonymous said...

Roger, get a life!

legalschnauzer said...

@6:19 --

Your presumption is off target. No lawsuits have been filed against me re: Ashley Madison coverage.

Anonymous said...

What is the benefit of posting this information about private individuals? AFAIK, neither Deusner nor any others you've listed make / effect public policy. How is posting 2 year old news about private citizens in the public interest?

Assuming he was working on behalf of a client, he's an attorney and could not explain his actions to protect his client. Especially to you or anyone else.

What if Deusner used AM to commit adultery? How is that your business, or that of anyone outside his marriage or family?

Posting only the facts without context and some leading narrative isn't journalism. It's tawdry, seedy gossip-mongering that senselessly damages the reputations of all involved.

What would your reaction be if someone posted a picture of you in a parked car at Rushton Park in Birmingham? And along with the picture some facts about Rushton Park are included...for example, Rushton Park is a well known meeting place for gay men "cruising" for homosexual sex. Birmingham Police reports indicate many arrests for offenses of a lewd or sexual manner have occurred in the area where Roger Shuler was photographed sitting in his parked car. What was Roger Shuler doing at this gay meeting place? Was Shuler cruising for homosexual intercourse? It's unknown at this point whether Shuler is an admitted homosexual. He has not responded to inquiries."

While everything in that example about the Park is correct (idk if you're gay, ans frankly I don't really care), those facts aren't necessarily relevant to explain your presence at the park. You may have been on your way to/from the church across the street from the park. Who knows? The damage will have been done at that point and that bell can't be unrung. Much like what you're doing here.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:48 --

I've explained multiple times the reasons these stories matter, and I'm not going to repeat that here. You are welcome to do a search on the blog and read for yourself.

Two questions for you: What is inaccurate in my post? Has the Ashley Madison hack and its aftermath -- plus various angles to the story -- been reported on a national and international level?

The answers are "nothing" and "yes, without question." You claim to know more about journalism than me, not to mention the dozens (maybe hundreds) of other reporters who have written on the AM subject? Aren't you a little full of yourself.

Anonymous said...

I didn't claim to know more about journalism than you, and you very well know it. Perhaps it is you who is full of yourself? You presume to sit in judgment of others as though you have a moral high ground.

What was inaccurate in my post about your homosexuality? The answer is "nothing." However, that doesn't mean posting it would be considered responsible OR journalism.

But then again, what do I know? After getting nailed for defamation to the tune of $3.5 million, I'm sure you are more responsible in your "reporting," except that you're a blogger. Oh yeah, and nothing is ever your fault, it us always the corruption, malfeasance, or incompetence of others that is responsible for your problems.

"If you meet a jerk in the morning, he's a jerk. If you meet jerks all day long, you're the jerk." Have you noticed Missouri has worked out for you as well as Shelby county did?

What is the word for a megalomaniac with no power?
Blogger

legalschnauzer said...

@12:03 --

Let's interject a few facts here:

(1) Read your own words in graph No. 4. You say something I wrote isn't journalism, that you know better than me what journalism entails.

(2) I'm reporting facts about customers who paid to be on AM. You've not cited anything in this post, or others, that is inaccurate. That's not standing in judgment of anyone, it's journalism -- and an ace like yourself should know that.

(3) You didn't write a post, and I'm not homosexual. You wrote a bizarre hypothetical that was so stupid I saw no reason to respond to it. If you knew anything about communications law -- and I do -- you wouldn't have to ask me what would happen after a hypothetical like the one you described.

(4) I didn't get nailed for a $3.5m default judgment. It is void, as a matter of law, and will be attacked as such when I get the first opportunity. In fact, that case found, as a matter of law, that my reporting was NOT false and NOT defamatory. Again, I've explained all of that in multiple posts, and you are welcome to do a search. You might learn something, if that's possible.

(5) Point out something that has been reported on this blog that is my fault, not the result of corruption, malfeasance, etc. In other words, show me something I've written about as corruption that isn't corruption. Do some homework.

(6) As I've written here multiple times, evidence suggests Missouri is just as corrupt as Alabama, maybe worse. Can you point to a single ruling or action we've encountered here that is lawful. Give it a try, oh ace reporter.

(7) If I have no power, why are you writing your BS comments here? I've powerful enough to grab your attention, and I don't even want it.

Anonymous said...

It's actually the opposite of journalism. You post innuendo and make disparaging comments like "how could he be so stupid" that infers wrong-doing.

This gentleman had one charge (ONE) of 68 dollars. He is a lawyer in digital forensics. It screams legit.

If you want to just post facts, then just post the name of the individual without the fluff.

Oh, but that wouldn't drive traffic, would it?

These are hit pieces on people to whom you have feelings of jealously because of their perceived success in life while you sir, are such a failure that even your own family have abandoned you.

As Trump would say: #Sad

legalschnauzer said...

(1) You know less about the meaning of "innuendo" than you do about journalism. Innuendo is a hint or suggestion of something. I don't hint about anything in my AM reporting. I say this person is a paying customer of AM, and you admit you can't show that isn't true.

(2) I notice you haven't sent your "data" to me via email as I requested. Why not?

(3) There you go again, to borrow a phrase from Reagan, telling me how to do journalism. Why don't you start your own blog? Probably too much effort for you, plus you don't have the vocabulary for it.

(4) Are you going to be like Lucy and charge me 5 cents for your psychological meanderings.

What a putz.

Anonymous said...

Here is a question: What does his wife have to do with this? Did she have an account too? And what did the children do? Why is it important to post pictures of them with their address?

legalschnauzer said...

@3:06 --

I've answered those questions dozens of times on this blog. I would suggest you do a search and check out my replies. Short answer: If someone is a customer on a Web site that promotes extramarital affairs, whether the customer is married and has a family is relevant. I think that's pretty easy to figure out.

Meanwhile, I have a question for you: Is the information about the wife and children accurate?

Anonymous said...

I have no idea. Shouldn't you know the answer to that? You are a journalist right? Did you not check your sources?

legalschnauzer said...

@6:04 --

Oh, I know the information is accurate, but I ask the question because I'm trying to figure out what your complaint is about.