Have prosecutors investigated Phil Godlewski for fraud or false advertising?
Executive summary
Prosecutors have pursued criminal charges tied to Philip (Phil) Godlewski for an alleged check-fraud scheme documented by the Scranton Times‑Tribune, but there is no sourced evidence in the provided reporting that prosecutors have opened formal investigations or charged him specifically for “false advertising.” The record supplied shows a mix of criminal allegations, civil litigation and widespread online accusations of grifting, yet the leap from public criticism to a prosecutor-led false-advertising probe is not supported by the documents cited here [1] [2] [3].
1. Prosecutors have charged or at least accused Godlewski in a check‑fraud matter
Local reporting documents a concrete criminal allegation: a 2020 Scranton Times‑Tribune article reports that a Duryea man identified as Philip Godlewski faced charges after allegedly paying nearly $22,000 for home‑improvement materials with a check that bounced and then supplying a doctored bank statement in an apparent attempt to cover up the transaction, language that comes from county investigators and court records [1].
2. No sourced evidence here of a prosecutor probe into “false advertising” specifically
Among the provided articles and snippets, none document prosecutors opening a formal investigation into Godlewski for false advertising, nor do they cite indictments, grand‑jury activity, or attorney‑general actions specifically tied to advertising claims; instead the sources either report the 2020 check‑fraud charges [1], media lawsuits and civil disputes [2], or commentary and online campaigns accusing him of grifting [3] [4].
3. Civil litigation and media exposure are prominent but distinct from prosecutor investigations
The portfolio of reporting shows Godlewski engaged in litigation and public controversies — notably a defamation suit that, according to reporting, exposed old court records and produced serious allegations about his past conduct as a coach [2] — and media/activist projects labeling him a “fraud” or running exposés and documentaries [5] [6]. Those are important for public accountability but do not substitute for a criminal prosecutor’s charging decision; the materials provided conflate journalistic and activist findings with legal outcomes, and the only clear criminal matter in these sources relates to check‑fraud allegations [1].
4. Online accusations and advocacy campaigns amplify charges of “fraud” but are not legal proof
Telegram channels, conspiracy sites and opinion pieces repeatedly characterize Godlewski as a grifter or “paytriot,” and some content urges legal or regulatory action [3] [4] [6]. Such materials establish a narrative of alleged deception and public distrust, but they are opinion or activist content rather than primary legal filings; claims that “several independent bodies, including state attorneys general” are investigating him appear in at least one questionable source here but are uncorroborated by court documents or reputable press in the supplied set [7].
5. Bottom line — what can be stated with confidence and what remains unclear
Based on the assembled reporting, it is accurate to say prosecutors have been involved with at least one criminal matter tied to Godlewski — the alleged $22,000 check and related charges reported by the Scranton Times‑Tribune — but there is no documented evidence in these sources that prosecutors have launched a formal investigation or brought charges against him for false advertising specifically; broader allegations of fraud and grifting exist across media and social platforms, yet those do not, in this dataset, prove prosecutorial action on false‑advertising claims [1] [2] [3].