The Independent recently published an article about the federal lawsuit I filed on behalf of my husband, Thomas Richards, against Robert Kirkman and the entities behind "The Walking Dead" franchise. Richards v. Kirkman, 5:25-cv-00089 – CourtListener.com While the article covers some basic facts, it omits crucial legal context and mischaracterizes both the strength of our case and the professionalism behind it. Even the title of the article is false (“The Walking Dead turned his life upside down when it used his name”). In fact, we were laughing at times when we spoke with the reporter. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/walking-dead-lawsuit-name-kirkman-b2821196.html
What This Case Is Really About
The real story begins with years of frustration over
censorship and Google alerts. My husband has been dealing with systematic
suppression of his religious content across platforms, while simultaneously
receiving frequent Google alert emails about a fictional psychopathic killer
who shares his exact name.
For quite some time, instead of getting alerts about his own
biblical ministry work, Tommy has been bombarded with notifications about this
violent character. It is disturbing and demoralizing. No one would enjoy repeatedly
seeing their name on the internet associated with descriptions of murder,
dismemberment, and depravity rather than informing about their work.
This is what actually sparked the case - not some abstract
legal theory, but the real, ongoing harm my husband experiences which is
compounded by the censorship he experiences across all platform, whereas he
used to be very popular online. (We have described this in other blog posts including
SpirituallySmart.Com's
Blog: You're Not Just a "Conspiracy Theorist" When There's a Real
Conspiracy - By Lisa W Richards & Artificial Intelligence.) As his
attorney and wife, I worked to translate this genuine grievance into something
actionable within our legal system's framework, identifying specific laws and
violations that courts address.
We explained this core motivation to the reporter during our
interview. The case is fundamentally about protecting someone's ability to
minister online without having their identity systematically contaminated by
association with fictional violence. But this human element - the actual reason
we filed suit - was absent from his article.
Instead, the reporter chose to dehumanize my husband by labeling
him a "conspiracy theorist" and inventing terms like "Vatican
truther" - language that appears designed to make readers malign him or
dismiss him rather than recognize him as someone experiencing genuine harm to
his religious ministry. This kind of character assassination serves no
legitimate journalistic purpose. It simply serves to generate clicks (and more
ad revenue) at the expense of human dignity.
How This Case Actually Developed
I told the reporter exactly how this case came about. My husband
showed me the Google Alerts he'd been receiving and asked if we could do
something about this situation. I said basically “let me see" and began
researching what Kirkman had said in various interviews and articles.
What I found was astounding. With each detail I uncovered,
it became exponentially less likely that this was coincidental naming.
During our conversation, the reporter seemed to understand this
progression - how the accumulating evidence transforms what might initially
appear coincidental into something far more deliberate. Yet none of this
investigative process or the significance of Kirkman's naming patterns made it
into his article.
The published article stripped away precisely the context
that makes this case legally compelling. Worse, it contains basic factual
errors and a misleading headline that further distorts public understanding of
our legal arguments.
The Independent benefits when articles generate controversy
and strong reactions. By misrepresenting our case as resting solely on name
commonality - while omitting Kirkman's documented naming patterns that make
coincidence statistically implausible - the article transforms serious legal
arguments into what appears to be frivolous litigation.
This appears to be a deliberate editorial choice to create
clickbait rather than provide balanced reporting. This kind of journalism does
a disservice to legal discourse and public understanding of legitimate civil
rights issues.
The Statistical Foundation The Independent Ignored
The Independent suggests this lawsuit rests on the
coincidence of a common name. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding
of both the legal theory and the statistical evidence.
"Thomas Richards" IS a common name. If our case
were simply claiming "creator used a common name for a villain," it
would indeed be frivolous. But that's precisely why The Independent's omissions
are so problematic - they stripped away the statistical foundation that
transforms what would otherwise be a weak case against the Walking Dead
franchise into compelling evidence of intentional targeting.
The Mathematical Reality of Compounding Probabilities
Here's the framework The Independent completely ignored:
The documented data points:
1.
Kirkman avoids last names generally - Calls
them "never interesting" - "I just think it's funny to not give
characters last names because, I don't know, it's interesting to me... when I'm
at home and I'm writing, I'm like, 'I'm not doing this,' because you gotta come
up with a list of names and then pick one and it's never interesting." https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2313771/why-the-walking-deads-robert-kirkman-never-gave-negan-a-last-name
2.
Prisoners in Walking Dead have no last
names - Thomas Richards is the only exception (This is similar to in real
prisons, where prisoners are not generally called by a first and last name)
3.
When Kirkman uses full names, he targets
specific real people - Earl Sutton named after "a close friend of mine
whose father is a blacksmith," https://screenrant.com/walking-dead-real-person-earl-sutton-factoid/
4.
On using real people as inspiration: When
asked if another villain was based on a real person, Kirkman coyly responded:
"Was Gregory based on someone real? The world will never know."
Entertainment journalists have written articles titled "Is This Walking
Dead Villain Meant to Insult a Real-Life Jerk?" acknowledging this
pattern: https://screenrant.com/walking-dead-gregory-villain-real-person-factoid/
5.
Kirkman cares deeply about names - Named
his own son "Peter Parker Kirkman" https://walkingdead.fandom.com/wiki/Robert_Kirkman
(referenced in Comics Journal #289)
6.
Tax fraud connection - Matches Tommy’s
documented Tony Alamo association https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/tony-alamo-4224/
7.
Kirkman admits targeting real people for
villains - "I'll go through people I remember" and specifically about
Phillip: "The school bully of Breckenridge Elementary...was a boy named
Phillip. So that's usually my shorthand for sh*tty characters. I will never
name a good character Phillip. They will always be a villain to some
degree." https://comicbook.com/the-walking-dead/news/the-walking-dead-the-governor-name-robert-kirkman-bully/
The pattern is unmistakable: when Kirkman uses full names,
he's always referencing a specific individual. "Thomas Richards"
clearly follows this same deliberate pattern.
Using conservative estimates where each factor reduces
coincidence probability by 90%:
- One
factor: 10% chance of coincidence
- Two
factors: 1% chance of coincidence
- Three
factors: 0.1% chance of coincidence
- Six
factors: 0.000001% chance of coincidence
Take these six data points together and the conclusion
becomes obvious - this was not coincidental naming.
The Legal Standards The Independent Missed
This case operates under established Virginia defamation law
and Va. Code § 8.01-40. The "of and concerning" test doesn't require
the plaintiff's name to be unusual - it requires identifying characteristics
that connect the fictional character to the real person.
As cited in paragraph 65 of our complaint, Virginia courts
apply the standard from Rush v. Worrell Enterprises: "the test is
not whom the story intends to name, but who a part of the audience may
reasonably think is named—not who is meant but who is hit." I did tell the
reporter this information. He simply chose not to include it.
On using real people as inspiration: We’ve given you
Kirkman’s own words here in this post. Readers can examine the evidence and look
at the links and decide for themselves whether this represents a pattern of
deliberate naming that makes the "Thomas Richards" choice
statistically implausible to be coincidental.
Professional Standards and Legal Merit
The Independent's characterization of this case as the work
of a "conspiracy theorist" and his lawyer wife misses the substantial
legal research and precedent behind our claims. This lawsuit raises legitimate
questions about:
- Identity
rights in the digital age
- The
limits of creative expression when creators admit to targeting real people
- Statutory
protections under Virginia law
- The
intersection of First Amendment protections and defamation law
The Remedies We're Seeking
Contrary to any implication that we're seeking to censor
creative expression, our complaint offers reasonable remedies. We provide
defendants two options:
- Character
Redemption: Transform the character into a heroic figure, undoing
negative associations
- Character
Renaming: Change the character's name and issue a public clarification
Both options include technical measures to address search
engine contamination - a legitimate concern in the digital age where search
algorithms can amplify harm to real individuals.
Setting the Record Straight
This case presents serious legal questions that deserve
serious analysis, not sensationalized coverage that omits crucial evidence.
My husband and I deserve to have those claims evaluated
based on complete information rather than coverage designed to generate clicks
at the expense of accuracy.
As an attorney with 15 years of experience, I stand behind
both the legal research and the strategic approach reflected in this complaint.
The case raises important questions about accountability in entertainment media
and protection of individual rights in the digital age - questions that deserve
thoughtful consideration, not tabloid treatment.
Lisa Weingarten Richards practices law in Virginia and New York. Richards v. Kirkman et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00089, Richards
v. Kirkman, 5:25-cv-00089 – CourtListener.com
