Advocate or Opportunist? IRS Records Show Amato’s Tax-Exempt Org Lost Tax Status After Paying Herself 80% of Donations
By M. Thomas Nast with Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann
A Self-Proclaimed Reformer Muzzles the Press
Francesca Amato-Banfield brands herself as an “award-winning legal advocate” crusading to reform family courts. But now the New York-based activist is making headlines for threatening a journalist with a lawsuit over unflattering coverage.
Amato dispatched a cease-and-desist letter bristling with legal jargon after investigator Michael Volpe dared to fact-check her bold claims. The irony? In a previous email exchange, Amato lobbed personal insults at Volpe – calling him “a little dense” who “probably doesn’t know how to read” – only to pivot and cry “harassment” when he pushed back.
Volpe’s colleague, journalist Richard Luthmann, fired back with a blistering public inquiry.
“Stop the presses,” Luthmann wrote, accusing Amato of trying to muzzle the press with bombastic threats. He demanded she specify what, exactly, Volpe reported that was false – and to provide proof.
So far, Amato has failed to cite a single factual error. Instead, her cease-and-desist broadly accuses Volpe of “defamation per se” and even “tortious interference.”
Luthmann’s response cut straight to the chase: put up or shut up. If Amato can’t identify specific false statements, she’s got no defamation case – and no right to stifle critical journalism.
I’LL SUE YOU: The Phantom “Federal Bill” and Big Promises
Amato’s main contention stems from Volpe scrutinizing her signature initiative: the Family Justice & Accountability Act (FJAA). She touts herself as the “author” of this “historic” federal bill. There’s one hitch – it isn’t actually a bill in Congress at all.
According to Volpe’s reporting, Amato promised her supporters that the law she’s peddling would pass Congress and be enacted, giving desperate parents hope of imminent reform.
In reality, no member of Congress has introduced or sponsored the FJAA. Amato organized a trip to Washington, DC, earlier this month, claiming she’d “formally present” the FJAA to lawmakers. She even booked a congressional hearing room – until it was canceled when Congress wasn’t in session.
Undeterred, Amato moved her event to a private room off Capitol grounds, where she says “multiple Congress members” and over a thousand supporters would hear her out. But a draft proposal with no bill number isn’t law.
Luthmann and Volpe openly questioned Amato’s portrayal of herself as a federal legislator in all but name. Volpe even quipped, “Why did you copyright this bill – are you planning on selling the law?”
Indeed, Amato’s materials bizarrely stamp © 2025 All Rights Reserved on the FJAA text. (Civics 101: you can’t copyright legislation – any bill introduced in Congress is public domain by law.)
Amato doubled down, insisting Volpe was a “schmuck” for not grasping her process. Yet even her own words show uncertainty: “I’m not sure if it’s going to get an HR number or an S number,” she admitted in a message to Volpe.
Tellingly, Amato has restricted access to the FJAA’s full text. A Colorado chapter leader for her cause instructs interested families to “DM Francesca Amato and sign a release form” just to obtain a copy of the bill.
This unusual secrecy – treating a proposed law as proprietary intellectual property – has raised eyebrows. Is the FJAA a good-faith reform effort, or a prop in Amato’s self-promotion playbook?
I’LL SUE YOU: Attacking Critics and Crying Defamation
As scrutiny of her advocacy grew, Amato’s response was not to address concerns but to attack the messenger. In communications with Volpe, she veered into ugly personal territory. She outrageously accused Volpe of abusing a former girlfriend holding a baby – a claim Volpe flatly says is “a tired lie” being used to discredit him.
“You are a liar and a piece of s**t,” Amato wrote to the journalist, adding, “you’ve been lying to people for years.”
The personal claims against Volpe stem from his own family court case. And they are just that – unsupported, unsubstantiated claims by a deeply disturbed ex.
Yet, Amato boasted of “the power that I have” and vowed, “I will sue you… you will go down with it”, after Volpe published an article critical of her campaign. Such vitriolic outbursts stand in jarring contrast to Amato’s image as a professional advocate.
It appears she can dish criticism out – castigating family court judges and officials regularly – but when faced with even mild skepticism about her own actions, she resorts to smears and threats. This isn’t the first time Volpe’s reporting on family court activists has provoked rage, but Amato’s reaction is perhaps the most unhinged he’s seen.
Seasoned observers detect a classic case of “SLAPP” – a strategic lawsuit threat to silence public criticism. In Illinois (Volpe’s home base), defamation law vigorously protects opinion and criticism on public matters. True statements can never be defamatory, and even harsh opinions are protected speech.
Amato has labeled Volpe’s commentary “defamation per se,” but legal experts note that vague insults or unflattering opinions don’t qualify as defamation. Illinois courts have explicitly held that calling someone “incompetent” or a “liar” is usually non-actionable opinion – precisely because such terms are too general to be proven true or false.
In short, Amato’s cease-and-desist appears legally flimsy. Rather than engaging with the facts, she’s threatening to sue as an intimidation tactic. That approach has drawn scorn from First Amendment advocates.
“Public figures pushing federal laws are fair game for journalists – that’s how democracy works,” Luthmann wrote in his inquiry, pointedly reminding Amato that stepping into the spotlight means facing tough questions, not just applause.
I’LL SUE YOU: Luthmann’s Inquiry and IRS Questions
Richard Luthmann asked Francesca Amato point-blank about her threatening communication with Michael Volpe. Here is what he asked:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Sunday, October 19th, 2025 at 3:46 PM
Subject: “Federal Bill Author” Threatens Journalist – Press Inquiry for Clarification
To: nationalcoalitionfc.cpsreform@yahoo.com <nationalcoalitionfc.cpsreform@yahoo.com>
CC: Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, juliea005 <juliea005@proton.me>, Michael Phillips <mikethunderphillips@gmail.com>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>Ms. Amato,
Stop the presses: A self-proclaimed author of a federal bill is accusing a journalist of defamation for fact-checking her – and yes, I mean you.
After receiving your cease-and-desist letter full of legal threats, I (Richard Luthmann, journalist and co-host of The Unknown Podcast with Michael Volpe) am giving you this one chance to clarify your claims on the record before we run our story.
Frankly, your attempt to muzzle the press with bombastic accusations has all the makings of a tabloid headline – and we’re keen to get your side (if any) of the facts.
Considering you just emailed Mr. Volpe, calling him “a little dense” and suggesting he “probably don’t know how to read”, it’s rather rich that you’re now crying harassment and defamation.
But let’s get down to business. Here are our questions, and we demand immediate answers:
What exactly are the false statements? In your letter, you allege Mr. Volpe “falsely and maliciously claimed” several things about you. Specifically, list each and every statement by Volpe that you contend is defamatory. For each, provide the exact words he said or wrote, the date and medium (podcast episode, article, social media post, etc.), and context. Vague references to “harassment” won’t cut it – we need the precise factual statements you believe are false. You say Volpe “publicly mocked, discredited, and misled the public” about your Family Justice & Accountability Act and the movement behind it. Okay – what, when, and where did he ever state a false fact about your bill or your followers? Criticism and commentary on a public legislative initiative (even if unflattering) is usually opinion or fair comment, not defamation. So, put up or shut up: cite the actual false factual assertions you think he made.
Why do you believe it’s defamation? Be specific: why do you think these statements by Mr. Volpe meet the legal definition of defamation? Your letter throws around “defamation per se” and even “tortious interference” in grandiose fashion. But simply feeling discredited or “mocked” doesn’t equal defamation. What evidence do you have that Volpe’s statements are not only false, but made with actual malice (since you’ve thrust yourself into a public legislative debate)? If you claim he lied about you, provide proof of the truth on your side. If you can’t substantiate that his statements are provably false, then you don’t have a defamation leg to stand on, and you ought to know it. Remember: under Illinois law (Mr. Volpe’s home state), truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and even harsh opinions or commentary on matters of public concern are protected speech. In fact, Illinois courts have made clear that “the vaguer and more generalized the opinion, the more likely the opinion is non-actionable as a matter of law” (see Hopewell v. Vitullo, an Illinois case where calling someone “incompetent” was deemed too vague to be defamatory). So, do you contend that Mr. Volpe stated any concrete false facts about you? If not, why are you brandishing legal terms instead of addressing his critiques on the merits?
“Making money” vs. “financial sacrifice”: prove it. One of your chief complaints is that Mr. Volpe allegedly said you are “making money” from your federal bill campaign, while you insist it’s “in fact a financial sacrifice” for you. You emphasize all your “extensive travel costs (fuel, tolls, accommodations, etc.) and unpaid labor”, portraying yourself as a selfless advocate. Fine. Put your money where your mouth is (pun intended). Will you provide evidence of these expenses and losses? We’re requesting copies of receipts, travel logs, and any other documentation to substantiate your claim that you’ve incurred net costs championing this bill. Moreover, will you sign a sworn statement affirming that you have not received a single dime in income, fees, donations, or other remuneration related to your “federal bill presentation”? If you truly aren’t “making money” from this, you should have no issue providing proof. On the flip side, if it turns out you have solicited donations or enjoyed perks from your advocacy, that would directly undermine your defamation accusation, wouldn’t it? We’ll eagerly await your documentation.
Are you an elected official or a lobbyist (or just playing one on TV)? You took offense to the notion that someone (Mr. Volpe, presumably) said it’s “not legal” or “not allowed” for private citizens to present a bill to Congress, calling that statement a “blatant falsehood.” Just to clarify: nobody needs a law degree to know any citizen can propose legislation – but only members of Congress can formally introduce a bill on the floor. So we have to ask: in what capacity do you claim to be “presenting” your bill? Are you suggesting you did something more than petition lawmakers, such as formally presenting it in Congress? If so, when exactly did you appear on the floor of the U.S. House or Senate to present the Family Justice & Accountability Act? What state or district’s voters elected you to do so? (A little reminder: they didn’t, because you’re not a Congresswoman.) If you’ve been working with actual legislators behind the scenes, that’s advocacy – not official bill presentation. So why mischaracterize Mr. Volpe’s commentary as if he doesn’t know private citizens can propose ideas? It looks to me like he was questioning your authority or implying you exaggerated your role – which is fair comment. Also, have you registered as a lobbyist given your admitted extensive contacts with “multiple Congress members” about this bill? If you are privately meeting lawmakers or their staff to push the bill, federal law may require you to register and disclose** which politicians you’ve lobbied**. Please detail any steps you’ve taken to comply with lobbying laws, or explain why you think you’re exempt. In short: what official standing do you have in this legislative process, and on what grounds do you claim Mr. Volpe defamed you by pointing out you’re a private citizen (which you are)?
“Authored” a federal bill – and claiming copyright on it?! Your email signature and materials boast that you “Authored [the] Family Justice and Accountability Act – © 2025 All Rights Reserved – Protected Intellectual Property.” Pardon us while we chuckle: are you under the impression that you own the text of a draft law and can slap a copyright on it? Legislating isn’t writing the Great American Novel. Any bill submitted to Congress, once introduced, becomes public domain – you can’t copyright a piece of legislation to prevent others from “stealing” it. Even a civic neophyte knows that we want lawmakers and citizens to share and copy good ideas for laws. Mr. Volpe himself queried why you’re treating a proposed law like your personal property (“Are you planning on selling this law?” he quipped). Your response, however, was to double down and insult his intelligence. So here’s your chance to clarify: Do you actually believe your draft bill text is protected intellectual property? On what legal basis? And if you don’t believe that, why include that laughable copyright claim in your materials? Frankly, this raises the question of whether you understand the very process you’re involved in. We’d like an explanation for this, because it speaks to your credibility.
Who’s misleading whom? Your letter accuses Mr. Volpe of having “misled the public” about your advocacy. Yet you style yourself as an “award winning legal advocate” and even an “investigative reporter”. Isn’t it true that an investigative reporter should welcome scrutiny and questions? You have a national advocacy campaign and court media attention, but the moment coverage isn’t 100% favorable, you scream defamation. Can you see how that looks to the public? What’s more, you’ve made some grandiose claims about the bill (calling it a “historic grassroots advocacy movement” with “hundreds of thousands” of families supporting it). Might it be that what you call “misleading the public” is simply Mr. Volpe providing critical analysis or unflattering facts that you’d rather not address? If we’re wrong, please enlighten us: what exactly has he said that tricks the public or is knowingly false about your bill or its supporters? We’ll happily investigate any factual inaccuracies – but we need you to specify them. Simply put, do you have evidence that Mr. Volpe reported anything false, or do you just not like his tone and conclusions?
Do you understand defamation law at all? We ask this bluntly because your letter reads like it was copy-pasted from a legal self-help website, and it’s chock-full of bluster but light on substance. You threaten lawsuits, injunctions, even “appropriate legal authorities” as if you’re trying to scare us off. So let’s get real: Michael Volpe resides in Illinois, whose defamation laws (not to mention the First Amendment) strongly protect journalists and commentators, especially on matters of public concern. True statements cannot be defamatory – ever. Statements of pure opinion (e.g. commentary or criticism that doesn’t include provably false facts) are not actionable either. For a public figure or limited-purpose public figure (which you effectively are, as someone leading a federal legislative effort), you’d also have to prove actual malice – that Mr. Volpe knew what he said was false or seriously doubted it. Good luck with that. Perhaps your advisors failed to mention: in Illinois, courts routinely dismiss defamation suits that attempt to penalize opinion or fair commentary. (For example, in Seitz-Partridge v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago, 2013 IL App (1st) 113409, ¶ 21, the court flatly noted that truth is an absolute defense and true statements “cannot support a claim of defamation.” And in Hopewell v. Vitullo, 299 Ill. App. 3d 513 (1998), the court held that calling someone “incompetent” was too “vague and general” to be actionables.) So, Ms. Amato, why do you believe your cease-and-desist claims have any legal merit given these well-established principles? Do you have any actual legal or factual basis to assert that Mr. Volpe’s reporting wasn’t good-faith, protected speech? Or is this cease-and-desist stunt just an attempt to bully a reporter into silence?
We require your response immediately. This is not a drill: we are on deadline, and our piece will be published shortly. If you do not provide a prompt and substantive reply addressing the questions above before press time, we will incorporate any statements in a follow-up.
Given the serious (and, frankly, dubious) nature of your claims, your silence or evasion will speak volumes. We’re copying Michael Volpe and other relevant parties on this email to ensure a transparent record.
One more thing – and forgive the candor – but as someone who touts herself as a national advocate and even a media figure, you ought to know that stepping into the public arena invites scrutiny. You don’t get to wrap yourself in lofty titles and push federal legislation, then whine that the press is examining your actions. Public figures advocating for federal laws are fair game for journalists – that’s how democracy works. If you find the heat of public scrutiny uncomfortable, maybe you should reconsider voluntarily thrusting yourself into the spotlight.
We intend to hold you accountable for your statements and actions, just as you claim to hold others accountable. Welcome to the First Amendment, Ms. Amato – we look forward to your prompt response.
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
Francesca Amato responded almost immediately. She said, “lol haha is this backwards today or Comedy Central? Thanks for the laugh.”
Luthmann responded in his no nonsense style.
“Nonprofit misrepresentation and threatened lawsuits are no laughing matter,” Luthmann said. “I’m sorry to have to pull back the curtain on Francesca, but she can’t laugh this one off. If the public is going to trust her to push family court reform in the chambers of power, she has to answer some serious questions.”
Luthmann laid out the case against Francesca Amato like a zealous prosecutor.
The Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. website bears the words: “PUNISHED 4 PROTECTING INC is a charitable organization 501 (c)4.” Visitors and would-be donors can easily believe that the organization is a tax-exempt entity, recognized by the IRS as such.
However, Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. has its tax exempt status revoked on May 15, 2024, for failure to file IRS Form 990s.
The last IRS Form 990 Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. filed was in 2020. There have been no legally significant public filings thereafter.
In 2019, Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. Form 990 disclosed $25,311.00 in contributions, gifts, grants and similar amounts received.
In that same year and on the same return, Francesca Amato disclosed that she was paid $20,000.00 in “Professional Fees.”
At the same time, Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. reported a Net Operating Loss.
In 2020, Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. didn’t disclose receiving any contributions, gifts, grants and similar amounts. So Francesca Amato didn’t pay herself.
Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. filed no further Form 990s in subsequent years.
The available data shows that Francesca Amato previously paid herself roughly eighty (80%) percent of the donations from Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. when it had cash on hand. The substantial payment caused the tax exempt entity to take a Net Operating Loss.
What evidence do we have to show that this practice is not continuing? We have asked Francesca Amato to supply us with the data. She thinks its a joke.
I’LL SUE YOU: Advocate or Opportunist?
Francesca Amato rose to prominence through her “Punished 4 Protecting” platform, presenting herself as a voice for parents wronged by the family court system. She even penned a book in 2018 detailing her own custody battles. Her followers see her as a fearless fighter willing to take on a “broken system.”
Yet the latest saga has some of those same allies quietly questioning her motives. Amato claims her federal bill crusade is a “financial sacrifice,” not a moneymaking venture – citing travel costs and unpaid labor.
Luthmann’s rebuttal: prove it. He challenged Amato to open her books and swear she hasn’t solicited a single donation related to the FJAA since she lost her tax-exempt status.
Thus far, she hasn’t offered evidence, and the IRS records don’t help her case.
Meanwhile, by clinging to her narrative and excoriating anyone who doubts it, Amato may be misleading the very public she purports to serve. She has painted the FJAA as a revolutionary grassroots bill with “hundreds of thousands” of families supporting it.
But if it never even reaches the House floor, those families’ hopes could be dashed. Rather than address such concerns, Amato seems intent on shooting the messenger. The spectacle of an “investigative reporter” (as she calls herself) threatening another reporter with legal action is rich with irony.
It also risks undermining her credibility: genuine reformers typically welcome transparency and debate, not try to quash it. In the court of public opinion, Amato’s recent conduct might speak louder than her advocacy. Is she a passionate crusader under siege, or simply unable to handle criticism and prone to vindictive antics?
After all the name-calling, legal bluster, and unanswered questions, the jury is out. Francesca Amato may continue to champion her Family Justice & Accountability Act – but whether she’s a serious advocate for change or just another back-biter capitalizing on controversy is something readers will have to decide for themselves.
You decide.
