Blog

On Friday, one of my JFC spies informed me there was some feuding happening between JFC Truth Bombs and the JFC IG person. This was welcome news to me, because I follow none of this bullshit on social media (until I decided to follow Truth Bombs, just for a laugh).

The idea of cult v. cult infighting brought to mind a quote I always enjoyed:

If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.
— Sun Tzu

Before people rush to report my implied death threat, here is what I think the quote means (cribbing from Google’s AI summary): “The quote advises that reacting to, or seeking revenge against, an enemy can be counterproductive, whereas patient endurance allows their own actions to destroy them.”

I like that concept – “patient endurance”. I really do try to have both patience and endurance.

But then I mistakenly watched a few minutes of this ultra-moron “Bruce the Moose” doing some insanely long live stream with some guy who claimed to be a lawyer. They were talking about my anti-SLAPP motion, and picking it apart. I guess talking shit beats working for a living.

Personally, I’d rather watch Tom Green hump a dead moose than pointlessly murder millions of brain cells listening to anything Bruce the Human Moose says. After just a few seconds, I could feel the life being sucked out of my brain by his self-righteous, arrogant, mouth-breathing, galactic-level stupidity. Bruce is a perfect example of what Sun Tzu was talking about — just ignore the fools out there; eventually their stupidity will lead to their own self-destruction. Good advice.

But dammit — Bruce’s dishonest bullshit was convincing enough to fool at least some people, like this sad soul who has apparently blocked me on Twitter, even though I don’t use Twitter anymore (which may be about to change):

So, while I have much better things to do on a Sunday, I’m going to take minute to correct the record and defend the Honor of my man-crush, Randazza. I’ll do this by correcting one thing Professor Bullwinkle said (and full disclosure, I obviously didn’t watch the whole video, so MAYBE he corrected himself later, but I highly doubt it).

In the stream Bruce claimed I was somehow “misleading” the court by quoting comment 8 to ER 3.3. This comment is quoted on pages 30-31 of my anti-SLAPP motion.

It’s fairly long, so I’ll just paraphrase — the comment says lawyers CAN submit false evidence to a court, as long as the lawyer does not know the evidence is false. The idea is if a lawyer isn’t sure whether his client is lying or telling the truth, the lawyer doesn’t have to make that hard call. Instead, even if the lawyer believes his client is lying (but isn’t 100% sure), the lawyer CAN let the client testify. The judge or jury gets to decide if they believe the client’s story, and the lawyer can’t be punished either way.

Bruce apparently hates this comment because it’s good for me. Duh. Therefore, Bruce and his unimportant lawyer friend made up a completely bullshit reason why they think this comment doesn’t apply (and thus I am “misleading”) the court by referring to it — comment 8 was added to the rule effective January 2026. Obviously the trial was in June 2024, so that raises a question — if comment 8 did not exist in 2024, can I use it to shield my conduct in the bar case?

Bruce’s lawyer friend (I think his name was Patrick?) offered this ridiculous argument which nearly made Bruce faint with orgasmic delight: in Arizona, rules are NOT “retroactive” unless specifically denoted as such. Thus, per Patrick’s brilliant legal analysis, I can’t use comment 8 as a defense, because it doesn’t say it’s retroactive (bearing in mind Jim Lee’s complaint was filed after January 2026, so we’re clearly going to apply the current rules).

God, these people are so dumb and unworthy of discussion, I can’t believe I even have to explain this….but I will try my best. Here we go…

First, a COMMENT is NOT the fucking rule. The RULE is the RULE. Comments don’t change the rules. Comments don’t add to the rule.

Comments help explain the rules and they can be useful for guidance, but what matters is the TEXT of the actual RULE. And guess what Professor Pat — the RULE in question (ER 3.3) was not changed in any way by comment 8. ER 3.3 has always said what it says, and none of the comments change that fact.

Second, if Patrick actually took the time to investigate this (as I did), rather than just talking out of his asshole, he would have discovered the REASON why comment 8 was added in January 2026 – and guess what — that reason had NOTHING to do with changing the requirements of ER 3.3….at least not really.

It’s also actually EXTREMELY GOOD FOR ME that comment 8 was NOT around in 2024…..wait, what?

Here why Pat — I did your homework for you — this is the actual petition filed with the Arizona Supreme Court requesting the addition of comment 8 to ER 3.3: https://gingraslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Ethical-Rules-3.3_1.16-Rule-Petition_1.pdf

If you think I faked this stuff, go here to pull the original petition, and various comments to it: https://rulesforum.azcourts.gov/Rules-Forum/aft/1715

Since reading comprehension is not a JFC strong suit, I’ll help Bruce/Pat by pointing out a few key things.

First, the author of this petition is Robert M. Brutinel. Who’s he? Oh, he’s just a current Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. That’s helpful because, among other things, the bar judge’s decision in my case isn’t final — I won’t actually keep or lose my license until the Arizona Supreme Court looks at this stuff and decides what to do. One of the people judging me will be none other than Justice Robert M. Brutinel. So yeah, kind of a relevant person to be speaking on these issues.

Second, as he explained in the first paragraph of the petition, the POINT of comment 8 was to “ensure sufficient guidelines exist to help lawyers avoid improper presentation of digitally forged evidence to the court.” So actually, that also seems kind of relevant, right?

But let’s dig deeper and see what Justice Brutinel has to say about this stuff:

OKAY, wait a freaking second — isn’t this EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what Jim Lee has CLAIMED the law says? This is a CURRENT Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court saying, in writing, that the existing ethical rules DO NOT impose the duty to investigate Jim Lee claims I violated (which Bruce swallowed as pure JFC gospel, as brainless sheep often do – looking at you Megan Fox).

But hang on — surely there is SOMETHING helpful in here….what about the next page?

BOOM! OKAY! There it is! So Justice Brutinel felt comment 8 was needed to help lawyers understand that IF they think evidence is FAKE, they CAN still present it to the court, but there’s a catch — they need to conduct a reasonable inquiry before they do. As long as that inquiry doesn’t turn up conclusive proof the evidence is fake, then the lawyer is safe to present it to the judge/jury so they can figure it out.

Well, now, let’s think about this — does this REALLY help Bruce, or Jim Lee for that matter? Again, let’s defer to the wisdom of Jenius Super-Attorney Patrick who wisely reminded us comment 8 did not fucking exist in June 2024. Oh, fuck….so not good for JFC.

All that leaves us with is Justice Brutinel’s comments about the state of the rules pre-comment 8: “the existing Ethical Rules do not require a lawyer to inquire or investigate the authenticity of evidence before presenting the evidence to the tribunal, even if the lawyer reasonably believes the evidence has been materially altered or generated with the intent to deceive.”

If that’s the rule (and this comes straight from a guy current sitting on the Arizona Supreme Court), that kind of is the end of that argument, don’t ya think? I sure do.

And Bruce thinks I’m misleading the court by citing this comment (which, once again, does NOT change any substantive requirements of the rule).

Bruce, you really need to go back to your day job of designing rockets for Space X or building the next generation of ChatGPT or eating paste. We know you’re a genius at other things, but commenting about law is not one of them.

Or just find another dead moose….🫎

P.S. It’s extremely ironic to me that people criticize the length of my pleadings and blog posts, yet somehow it’s cool for Bruce to sit on a nearly THREE HOUR live stream spewing lies and garbage that isn’t even worth what you paid to watch it.

Still, in the spirt of full disclosure, I admit this stuff is SO complicated, even smart people need help understanding it. That’s why the AZ Bar publishes things called “ethics opinions” which represents the bar’s best attempt to explain difficult subjects, like ER 3.3: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/26/AEA%20Committee/Issued%20Opinions/EO-20-0007%20Opinion.pdf?ver=2021-05-19-104606-877

The reason I’m citing this specific ethics opinion is because it has some VERY, VERY, VERY helpful guidance for what a lawyer should (and must) do when faced with a discovery that a client lied to a court. Since that is something Jim Lee has accused me of doing (or not doing correctly), I think this quote from the opinion is worth mentioning:

The Committee stresses, however, that disclosures made pursuant to ER 3.3 should be narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to undo the effect of the tainted evidence. See ER 3.3 cmt. [10] (stating that purpose of reasonable remedial measures is to “undo the effect of the false evidence”).

One HUGE issue Jim Lee cares about (and Moose Boy Bruce) is that before June 10, 2024, Laura said she went to Planned Parenthood in Orange County, and then suddenly at trial, she changed the location to Los Angeles. Jim’s Complaint FALSELY claims I knew the truth about this BEFORE June 10, 2024. I have denied that under oath repeatedly, and Jim has yet to disclose any evidence to support his allegation.

But let’s assume for a minute that Jim was right….at least insofar as he thinks I should have done something to “correct” the testimony about Los Angeles. OKAY, let’s accept Jim’s position and assume he is right….assume that I KNEW Laura never went to PP in Los Angeles (even though that’s 100% not true).

Judge Mata clearly did not believe Laura’s testimony. She ruled against Laura in basically every way she could. She awarded every penny of fees Woodnick requested. No part of the post-trial decision was BAD for Clayton (other than the denial of his request to undo the OOP based on fraud, but that aspect of the ruling had nothing to do with LA vs. OC).

Given that the post-trial ruling was a 100% victory for Clayton, even if I did know the LA testimony was false (which I didn’t), what remedial measure could I have taken to “undo the effect of the false evidence”? Seriously — no really — given that Laura LOST EVERYTHING, what effect was there to undo?

If you think about that for 2 seconds, you will understand why there is NO legal basis for Jim Lee to prevail on that claim, even if he was right about the law (which he isn’t) and even if he was right about the facts (which he’s not).

There Bruce — I’ve now given you a enough content to make another 9 billion hours of video. You’re welcome.