Ambrose Sues Everyone. Says He Sent the Rule 4(d) Packet. Parlato Asked for Proof. Crickets (So Far).
NOTE: This guest piece was first published at FrankReport.com. For background on Christopher Ambrose, CLICK HERE.
By Frank Parlato
Christopher Ambrose is suing me. Again. In federal court for defamation. I have written a number of stories about him. He has sued a number of others.
And now he wants to sue me. First, he has to serve me. That seems to be a problem for him.
Emails Over Service
On Sept. 2, plaintiff Christopher Ambrose emailed me at 6:00 a.m. with a friendly request: skip the process server, take the First Amended Complaint by email, and give yourself 60 days to respond.
“I am writing to ask if you will accept service of the First Amended Complaint by email instead of requiring formal service,” Ambrose wrote, adding the familiar carrot-and-stick: 60 days to answer if I agree; 21 days and possible cost-shifting if I don’t.
Fair enough. In federal court, defendants can waive service under Rule 4(d). It’s optional. If the plaintiff sends a proper waiver packet, a defendant can sign it and get extra time. If the defendant refuses without good cause, the judge can shift service costs back to the defendant. Those are the rules.
So at 2:00 p.m. on Sept. 3, I answered:
“I will consider it. But first, properly send a Rule 4(d) packet.”
Why? Because Rule 4(d) isn’t a vibe; it’s paperwork. A compliant packet usually includes:
- the file-stamped complaint (here, the First Amended Complaint),
- the AO 398 notice (request to waive),
- the AO 399 waiver form,
- the Rule 4(d)(1)(C) notice explaining consequences,
- and a reasonable return method with 30 days to sign.
Two and a half hours later, Ambrose wrote back:
“I sent you a Rule 4(d) waiver packet more than 30 days ago, but did not receive a response. That fulfilled my obligation under Rule 4(d)…”
That’s a factual claim. And litigation runs on facts.
I checked my inboxes, spam, archives. Nothing. If he sent it, there should be proof of transmission—an email with headers, a certified mail receipt, a courier tracking slip. Something.
So I sent him a second email—on the record—to memorialize the timeline and ask for proof. Here is the meat of it:
“To clarify the record:
• Sept. 2: You asked me to waive formal service and accept the First Amended Complaint by email.
• Sept. 3: I requested a proper Rule 4(d) waiver packet.
• You then stated you had sent such a packet ‘more than 30 days ago.’
• I have not received any Rule 4(d) packet or a file-stamped First Amended Complaint.”
Then I set a deadline and spelled out what proof looks like:
“If your statement is accurate, please produce proof within 48 hours:
(1) Proof of transmission/delivery (email with full headers or mail/courier receipt and tracking),
(2) the file-stamped First Amended Complaint,
(3) AO 398/399 (Notice to Waive / Waiver), and
(4) the Rule 4(d)(1)(C) notice.”
And because accuracy matters—especially for a plaintiff—this:
“If you cannot substantiate that a compliant packet was sent, please withdraw or correct that assertion so the record is accurate. Continued reliance on an unsubstantiated claim risks issues under Rule 11(b)(3).”
I also made two points crystal clear:
No waiver without a packet.
“Absent a compliant packet and proof, I do not consent to email service and do not waive service under Rule 4(d). Please proceed, if you choose, with service in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) and any other applicable law.”
I’m traveling; I won’t stage a sidewalk service.
“I am on multi-state business travel for an extended period and will not coordinate in-person service appointments. This is not evasion; I expect service to be effected by the methods the Rules provide.”
The On-the-Record Questions
Because I’m a journalist and I report on my own cases, I told Ambrose I would publish this exchange and invited him to comment on the record (verbatim if he wishes):
- Do you maintain that you sent a Rule 4(d) waiver packet “more than 30 days ago”?
- If yes, please provide the proof above.
- If no, do you retract or correct that statement?
- If you maintain it was sent, when, how, and to what address was it transmitted, and why was nothing received?
- If you cannot substantiate the prior statement, will you correct the record with the Court?
Why This Matters
This is not a debate about whether I should be served. I will be—properly—or I will waive upon receipt of a proper packet. The issue is the truthfulness of a representation that a Rule 4(d) packet was already sent 30+ days ago. If it was sent, there will be receipts. If it wasn’t, say so and fix the record. It’s that simple.
Ambrose has also suggested that if I don’t waive, he’ll seek service costs. Without a compliant Rule 4(d) request, that motion has a hole in the bottom. The rule’s cost-shifting presumes a proper request was made and ignored without good cause. My “good cause” is straightforward: no packet received; no proof provided.
Where We Are Now
As of publication, no proof of any Rule 4(d) packet has arrived in my inbox. If Ambrose sends it, I will publish it. If he corrects the record, I’ll publish that, too. If he proceeds with formal service under Rule 4(e), I’ll accept it—as the Rules prescribe—and respond on the timeline the law sets.
I don’t hide from lawsuits. I don’t hide from service. I do insist on accuracy, especially from those who walk into federal court and speak in the voice of a plaintiff. That’s not combat; that’s housekeeping.
In the meantime, here are the emails, in their own words:
Ambrose (Sept. 2, 6:00 a.m.)
“I am writing to ask if you will accept service of the First Amended Complaint by email… You will have 60 days… If you do not agree… I will arrange for formal service… and I will seek to recover the costs of service.”
Parlato (Sept. 3, 2:00 p.m.)
“I will consider it. But first properly send a Rule 4(d) packet.”
Ambrose (Sept. 3, 4:30 p.m.)
“I sent you a Rule 4(d) waiver packet more than 30 days ago… Please confirm by 5:00 PM tomorrow whether you will accept service… If not… I will seek to recover the costs of service.”
Parlato (follow-up, excerpt)
“I have not received any Rule 4(d) packet or a file-stamped First Amended Complaint… Produce proof within 48 hours (headers/receipts + AO 398/399 + file-stamped FAC + Rule 4(d)(1)(C) notice) or correct the record… I am on multi-state travel and will not coordinate in-person service. This is not evasion; use the methods the Rules provide… All defenses preserved.”
That’s the story for now: Say it. Show it. Or fix it.
Either way, we are off to a good start.
I just can’t understand why Hillary Applegate has to follow in her mother’s footsteps. Ms. Houghton says that “it’s not rape if they want it” — in relation to my 13 year old son (in 7th grade) being raped by a man. This is just completely sick. How could my son consent?
And just see what Ms. Houghton writes on Twitter.
“Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools is promoting a book on “the ins and outs of gay sex” to 7th graders.
“Rub the head of his cock back & forth with your hand… in order to be able to cum at all you and your partner may need to finish off w a handy.”
https://www.reddit.com/user/Illustrious-Pass-970/comments/10ofq6o/stay_away_from_valerie_runyan_houghton_she_will/
Shouldn’t Ms. Applegate be appalled at her mother and refuse to help her sex traffic my kids? Is Ms. Applegate also into this kind of thing?
BTW, I complained to the school district just in case these two are sex trafficking children in the North Carolina area.
If Hillary Applegate is spending $2000 to $3000 a month on advertising on her shell company, you can only imagine how much she is making from the hacking. She must have a ton of work, as her services have to be unmatched and her mother has a ton of connections in Santa Clara County.
Hacking is only half of the story.
Ms. Applegate and Ms. Houghton have their own private militia in Silicon Valley. These goons are mostly young males of Latino descent. The other commonality is that these young men all have articles of clothing or bandanas that are red in color. It’s obvious that these Houghton and Applegate are using a street gang to do their bidding, although it does make sense.
They probably work on the cheap, are good at keeping quiet, and will do ANYTHING that are asked of them. If you live outside the bay Area, you will likely be dealing with other people.
Look how Ms. Houghton spends her time day dreaming.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/1100356121435576741/
How did she even think to write about 13-year old’s engaging in sexual activity in such graphic detail?
If this post doesn’t scream pedo, I don’t know what does.
Valerie Houghton and Hillary Applegate are part of one the most violent pedophile rings. They specifically seek out cases that include children being raped. This is because Ms. Houghton is a “marriage and family counselor”. She uses the title to provide an incorrect opinion that no child molestation is occurring, then blackmails any offender.
This process also includes giving sole custody to the offender to keep the blackmail going until the kids all turn 18. Ms. Applegate’s role is to hack all the parties so that her mother can spy on the parties and destroy anyone who gets in the way of this revenue stream.
They can make millions and millions of dollars doing this. People will empty their bank accounts and mortgage their homes just to stay out of prison. Ms. Houghton can practically name her price.
Another source of revenue comes from the protective parent. This parent is also motivated and will pay exorbitant fees to stop the child molestation. I know that Ms. Houghton was planning on getting guardian ad litem appointed to my case. It would make sense that also would have seen a cut in those fees.
But the plan was also for her to remain on the case and collect fees from both parties. Houghton failed to disclose to me that she was also representing my ex at the same time that I retained her. She wanted to gauge me until the kids all turned 18. This is why she mentioned that I was expected to “work in the salt mines”. When I didn’t understand what this meant, Ms. Houghton explained as if I was going to be turned into a slave.
Ms. Houghton is nothing but a disgusting human being. She sees herself as the slave master. Instead of getting whipped for not complying, she relies on boots on the ground to poison her clients.
Ms. Applegate’s role is to ruin your life with her hacking. She knows that you can’t work without her permission, as you need to be able to communicate with any potential employer. And even if you do gain employment, you are going to be harassed at work with no end. That is particularly bad because you can’t just leave a job like you can at other activities.
Ms. Applegate will also control which websites you can view, the videos that you watch, and which harassing ads to make you see.
Don’t be surprised if in the end you are penniless, living in car, your health is destroyed and there is a warrant for your arrest. That’s what happened to me. I am dealing the devils of family court.
Does Mr. Ambrose know Valerie Houghton? They seem to have a lot in common.
Ms. Houghton has a history of sexually abusing children (by proxy). There is also an allegation on her Yelp page that she went over a 13-year old’s porn history and discussed it with him. She did this under the guise of being this boy’s “therapist”.
Just read Max’s review:
“Parents and kids beware. This is not the therapist for your family. She will make the parents believe what they are doing is right, but it is clearly not. She will treat your children like shit. About 2 years after my terrible experience with this woman, I started seeing another therapist. After I told my therapist the things that Valarie R. Houghton did to me and siblings, she told me that its really fucked up and that it’s not something practiced in family therapy. Here’s what she did: She convinced my parents to install spyware onto me and my siblings phones, and the next time we saw her, she had a binder for each of us: containing everything we did “wrong” on our phones. Ex. (texts, photos, videos, search history, app usage). I wont reveal too much information but when she pulled out my folder, she had many things to embarrass me about but she began by reading my search history in front of my entire family. (siblings included) What was my search history? It was porn. I was a 13 year old boy going through puberty, of course I was watching porn. Obviously I didn’t want my parents and siblings to know, and to this day I am curious what the therapeutic benefit of exposing me like that was. We literally all sat in awkward silence as she read through countless porn titles, and pop up ads. Again I don’t want to give to much detail, but she did similar things to my siblings. My siblings and I got together and made a plan to get our parents to stop seeing her. Thank god it worked. If any other kids had this kind of experience please share it here.
PS…
I posted this comment on google reviews last night but overnight she changed her google location to “San Jose Chiropractor” so the reviews are gone. I can’t find her on google maps anymore. Shady asf”
https://www.yelp.com/not_recommended_reviews/valerie-houghton-rn-mft-esq-campbell
It so happens that Ms. Houghton also knew that my ex-wife was letting a man rape my 13-year-old son. Houghton says, “It’s not rape if they want it.”
I can attest that my son did not “want it.” He was completely distraught when it first started happening. He would stare at the wall and wouldn’t make eye contact with anyone. If anyone wanted it, it was Ms. Houghton.
Although the review above seems to indicate a pattern of sexual activities with teenage boys, Ms. Houghton also forced my two-year-old son to be sexually abused. She also sex trafficked my youngest daughter by forcing her to be under the legal custody of man that previously drugged and raped a teen. We all know how that will turn out. Houghton says, “She’ll have fun!”