Telemarketer Joe Delfgauw throws his current attorney Donna Gibson under the bus
- Peter Schneider
- Sep 17
- 11 min read
Updated: Sep 21
This is part of my long running series on how telemarketing really works.
Recently telemarketing defense attorney Mr. Troutman announced his hourly rate is increasing to $6,000 per hour. At first blush it seems crazy when Jensen Mauseth provided a very competent defense for about 5% of that - $325 an hour.
But Jensen Mauseth's practice isn't bult on defending telemarketers, and perhaps there is a reason why attorneys who regularly practice TCPA defense charge significantly more than competent attorneys in other specialties. Getting thrown under the bus when the case goes against the TCPA defendant might be an occupational hazard justifying $6,000 per hour.
Recently Joe Delfgauw testified against his current defense attorney Donna Gibson:
Q. It's a Bates-stamped document in this case [Not important which one].
A. In this case? Okay. But is it information from the federal case?
Q. Which? Which one are you asking about?
A. This one right here, NB0867. But that answer is from the federal -- anything in the federal case, I just have to disavow. I don't know what the correct wording is.
⋮
Q. Okay. And as -- as of right now, you don't know [asking about an answer in a federal case discovery document NB180 in Dep Tran. Exhibit A p 5]?
A. At this time I don't know because this is something that Donna [Gibson] did. And I don't know, I don't trust her. [She is still his attorney of record in this case]
Q. So when you signed [federal case discovery document NB180 in Dep Tran. Exhibit A p 5], it you don't -- you didn't know?
A. I don't even know if I signed it.
Q. Okay. And if we look at your signatures, would you be able to say yeah, it's my signature?
A. No, because they had a stamped copy for some reason. I didn't even know she [Donna Gibson] had a stamped copy. I think someone gave it to her.
Q. So someone gave her a stamped copy?
A. Could be. It's the only way I can think of of how I see a stamped signature on some of these because I don't have a stamp signature. Why would I have a stamp signature? [Later he testifies about the existence of a stamp signature]
Q. So --
A. That -- on the -- in the court case.
Q. So Ms. Gibson had a stamp with your signature on it?
A. I don't know if she did. All I know is there is a stamp signature out there. I don't know who has it.
Q. So in the federal court case written discovery, you've seen your signature that's a stamp?
A. Have you?
Q. I'm asking you.
A. I don't know if I've seen it as a stamp or not. I'm just saying I don't -- everything under Ms. Gibson is under scrutiny. I'll get to the bottom of it.
⋮
Q. I think it's fair to say that if I show you a document with your signature, will you know if it's your signature?
A. Show me.
Q. Well, if I show you the signature, will you know that you signed it?
A. We'll have to find out.
Q. So you don't know?
A. I don't know. Again, I just repeated that. Everything under Donna [Gibson] is under suspect. Anything in that federal case that Donna handled is under suspect.
Q. So this is Exhibit NB, I believe it's 1107. [Signature B] Is that your signature?
A. I actually don't know. Does it look like a signature or does it look like a stamp to you [Mr. Delfgauw asked this to Ms. Van Dusen]?
A. Do you want to look at it?
Ms. Van Dusen: I'm not here to --
A. Oh, okay.
Ms. Van Dusen: -- testify.
A. I don't know.
Q. So does that look like how you sign your name [Signature B]?
A. Well, a stamp signature is going to be a repeat of my signature, so, yes, a stamp signature is going to look exactly like I signed it.
Q. Okay. So it does look like how you sign your name?
A. It does look like how I would sign my name, yes.
Q. And --
A. You don't know if that's me signing it. [This is where Mr. Delfgauw is going with all of this]
Q. And you have some information that Ms. Gibson had a stamp with your signature on it?
A. I don't. I know that I have some information that I have a stamped signature. I don't know if some of these documents that I've seen signed doesn't look like that if I signed them because I don't remember signing them, and I know that that stamp signature is missing. [It had to exist to be missing] But I don't know if someone sent it to her. I don't know. I don't know if she [Donna Gibson] had it made. I don't know. I don't know anything. But I do know if she's in Washington and I'm in Florida and I didn't have some original documents that were sent to me, how can my original signature show up?
Q. So --
A. There's big problems there.
Q. Are you speculating that she had a stamp with your signature or do you have some information that she had a stamp with your signature?
A. Same answer. I don't know.
⋮
Q. Well, this is an investigation as to whether we can trust documents.
A. You can't trust those documents. You cannot trust those documents, period, so thank you for actually asking it that way.
Q. Okay. So, again, Exhibit NB1253 would be a document with your signature on it but you have no idea if -- if it has --
A. I have no idea if it was my signature.
Q. And if we go pull up the signature again, you won't know it's actually your signature?
A. I will not.
Q. Okay.
A. Not until the investigation is over.
Q. Okay. So Exhibit 1085, 1086, this is, again, a document with your signature on it. You won't know if you signed it and you won't be able to recognize from this signature [Signature A]?
A. If it's the federal case, again, it's going to be all suspect until we actually figure it out, and we're going to figure it out.
⋮
Q. This is Exhibit 180. I asked to you produce all documents related to Campaign 13690 and I have a document with your signature on it that says, "Campaign Number 13690 is not an opt-in campaign. The opt-in already occurred eight days prior. This number would have been associated with response and follow links bookaxe.live, file-tax.live, and scheduleaxe.live?"
A. Where is this document from?
Q. Again, this is from the federal case and it's got your signature on it [Signature B].
A. I'll have to go with the same answer. I don't know. I don't trust Ms. Gibson's representation.
⋮
Q. You don't know that they did [question about federal court written discovery]?
A. And I actually don't know who actually filled that out [the discovery document]. Again, on the federal -- I'm going to keep repeating this. On the federal one, I don't know who answered that. I don't know who signed for it. I don't know what she actually did.
Q. Okay.
A. But I do know she made lots of mistakes. That might be [mistake number] 38, 39, and 40, for all I know.
Q. We may have gotten lucky on this one to be able to know. So here's the signature on Docket 444.
A. Is that my signature?
Q. Is that your signature?
A. I'm asking you. I can't see. Are you saying it's my signature?
Q. Well, I think you said it was your signature.
A. When? When did I say that?
Q. Well, when you signed it. And then --
A. That does not even remotely look like my freaking signature [on Dkt. 444]. Not even close. Have you seen any of my signatures even looked like that?
Q. Well, so that's why I'm asking you.
A. Donna. I'm asking -- I'm telling you that that does not look like my signature at all [on Dkt. 444].
Q. So do you remember writing -- would you like to look through this declaration [Dkt. 444] and see if you remember writing it? This was submitted to the Court beginning of this year, so, you know, not four years ago.
A. I don't know what you want me to answer.
Q. Well, I would like to you --
A. It looks like something -- it looks like absolutely nothing I have any idea of.
Q. So would you please look through it and see if you've ever seen it before [Dkt. 444]? You should actually -- you can touch the screen to go -- normally you can touch the screen to go up and down. Apparently you can't. Yeah, you can -- you can scroll up and down.
A. On this here, or this?
Q. I think you'll have to use the mouse.
A. Go ahead and go to the top for me.
Q. Okay.
A. Okay. This was done when? This looks like it says 12/10/24 [Mr. Delfgauw saw the noting date on the Dkt. 444 caption]. Okay. I can already tell you that 12/10/24 is the date in question of whether you actually submitted things or Donna did. That's all line 30 and all those. That's why the judge actually called us out to Seattle for a settlement case because of all these documents that were messed up. I'm almost convinced that I have no idea what that is.
Q. Okay.
A. But I will look through it.
Q. So this was dated on July 2nd [transcript error, Dkt. 444 was filed 1/2/2025] of 2025.
A. Why does that say 12/24?
Q. Where does it say 12/24?
A. Right there, the date.
Q. You'll have to... Oh, that was when the motion was noted but this -- this line at the top, where it says Document 444?
A. Yeah, but it was prepared 12/10.
Q. Well, I didn't prepare it.
A. Well, I just -- I didn't either.
Q. Okay. So you've never seen this document before?
A. I'm going to read it again just to kind of go through it.
Q. Yep, yep. Of course. I mean, I think that if you've never seen this document before, we need to bring this to Judge Estudillo's attention and see what's going to happen here.
MS. VAN DUSEN: For the record, can you put the date it was filed?
Q. Yeah, it was -- it was filed on January 2nd of 2025, and it's Docket 444, the federal case.
Q. Are you saying that you didn't say this?
A. I'm saying I don't -- I don't remember seeing that document, and you have to -- you have to go line by line to ask me questions about what I saw.
Q. So you couldn't say that you didn't write this?
A. I never wrote anything.
Q. Oh, you didn't write any of it?
A. I don't write.
Q. Who would have written this?
A. The attorney.
Q. Oh, so when would you have seen this?
A. I should have seen it before she filed it.
Q. Well, no. I mean, is that normally what she does is she writes them for you and then you just sign your name to them?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. And do you read them before you sign your name to them?
A. On the ones that I actually sign, yes.
Q. Okay. And if you sign your name to it, does that mean that everything in it actually is true?
A. If I actually sign my name to it, it should be true, yes.
Q. So we -- we found out on the transcripts of the recordings that sometimes people just tell you that it's true and then you sign your name to it?
A. Yeah.
Q. So could this -- could this contain things where Ms. Gibson told you that's true and you didn't know that you signed your name to it?
A. I rely on counsel to be truthful and Ms. Gibson made mistakes. Whether they were malicious or on accident, I don't know, but there are several mistakes we've already caught.
⋮
Q. Okay. Well, let's go back to the signature. Can you attest that you definitely did not sign this document [Dkt 444]?
A. I don't think I've ever signed anything like that in my life.
Q. Okay. And even if you didn't sign it, you actually don't know if you have even seen this document before?
A. I don't know.
⋮
Q. Just to close off the signature issue, this is back on [federal case] Docket 444. So, again, you're attesting that that's not your signature?
A. I'm attesting that I have never signed anything like that in my life.
Q. Okay. Another docket -- a document that got your signature is Docket 404, filed on September 26th of 2024. Is that your signature?
A. Federal case?
Q. Yes.
A. Could be. That looks more like it, that's for sure.
Q. So it is, isn't, or don't know?
A. Don't know.
Q. Okay. And then Docket 431 has a signature that's supposedly yours?
A. That looks closer to mine too. That looks like the stamp, just so you know. What date was that?
Q. It was filed on November 22nd of 2024.
A. Okay. I don't know because I don't know who had the stamp signature at that time. It looks like my stamp signature. Do you have other -- and I'm going to ask this: Are there other signatures in there that look just like that one? Because all these -- all three of those were different. Hopefully you can agree to that.
Q. Well, I'm sure that one of us will pull up every signature in the case on one page, but while we were here, I wanted to look at it. Now, you mentioned stamp signature again. Are you guessing that that was a stamp signature or you know --
A. I'm guessing.
Q. Okay.
A. I'm guessing. I'm speculating.
Q. Okay. When you sign documents, do you normally use a regular pen like in Docket 404 [Signature H] or do you sometimes use this wider pen?
A. I don't use a wider pen.
Q. You never use a wider pen like in Docket 431 [Signature A]?
A. Not to my knowledge. [Signature A and Signature B – commonly used on discovery documents in this case – are a wide ink pen]
An attorney better get paid $6,000 an hour to work with people who might later claim their attorney fabricated their signature on documents to save their own skins. Ms. Gibson must be absolutely climbing up the wall hearing Joe Delfgauw's allegations against her.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana?
I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments